I totally agree that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. And Mark McGwire was one of my favorite players, and since he & Bonds were never proven to be using substances that were banned during their active career, I feel both should be voted into H.O.F. also (with no asterisks).
I never did understand why so many lost respect for McGwire just because he wisely followed the advice of his atty. and claimed his right not to confirm or deny topics that might one day have been used against him. It's not like any of those players were given complete immunity from any future prosecution, so who could blame McGwire for making guarded comments.
2007-05-01 17:20:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I do not know how the Hall of Fame election was held years ago. All I know is recently players after their career concludes is selected by the Baseball Writers of America. They usually cast a vote for players that were normally friendly with the media (an example is Bruce Sutter, who I feel does not even below in that sacred place). Once a person exceeds a certain number of years on the ballet, the player has an opportunity to be voted by his peers--the Veterans Committee (players, coaches or managers that are in the Hall). That is why you see some of the people in the Hall, saying they will never elect Pete Rose, not because he was a bad player, but rather the negative portrayal of the game he did with his suspected gambling. Had Rose came clean the first time around in 1989-90, I am sure the BBWA or the Veterans Committee, may have been forgiving and elected him in. Overall, baseball like other sports does not like controversy surrounding it. That probably explains why McGwire got such a low voter percentage. Yet again, one could say McGwire was a one-dimensional player. Gwynn was a good fielder before injuries got to him--won a few gold gloves--and was an good speedster in the first half of his career. He was also a modern day Ted Williams. The same goes for Ripken, he set the bar--along side Ozzie Smith, of how shortstop is played today. Also, Ripken is one of only two players to accumalate all 3000 hits and 400 homeruns in the AL. The other is Carl Yazremstrski.
2007-05-01 18:14:02
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Pete Rose should not be in the Hall of Fame. Why? Because his lifetime ban is not simply a punishment handed down to him by baseball, it is a punishment he signed off on. He agreed to it. He thought it was fair when it happened. If he's not man enough to stand by his own agreement, too bad.
BTW, the actions of the other Hall of Famers (Drinking, wife beating, racism), while despicable, were not violations of baseball policy which could have affected the game itself. Well, actually, Cobb did contribute to keeping the game segregated. Kick him out.
As to Bonds, he would have been a Hall of Famer without juicing himself up. So I'd actually vote for him, but if I could, I'd add an asterisk to note that its for his pre-steroids stats. McGwire? Well, if all he used was andro, maybe. But that's a big if. You say even with the juice, they still hit the ball? True, but its the steroids that enable the doubles/fly ball out to become home runs. That's why they don't get the votes.
2007-05-02 04:34:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a matter of baseball law. If a guy is using steroids now and is caught, he is out. Before 3 years ago, no. Since about 1920, gambling on baseball has been illegal inside the sport. Everyone knows it. On the door of EVERY professional baseball lockerroom (majors and minors) there are 2 rules that must be followed and 2 alone: No gambling on baseball and you cannot assault an umpire. Pete knew this and went on ahead anyway. He could have lived in a sports book in Vegas and bet on everything from Cricket to Turtle races. Just not baseball. He cannot claim ignorance and his lack of admission for so many years is further proof he couldn't care less. His hit record is in Cooperstown. He deserves that. To admit him in without an asterisk would be akin to saying the rules apply to everyone except those who break records.
He was also the first MLB player I remember as a kid, to get caught with drugs. They found a big jar of "greenies" (speed) in his locker. It was swept under the rug then because he was Pete Rose.
2007-05-02 02:43:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dann H 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Absolutely NOT on Rose. He broke a cardinal rule of baseball, lied about it, now wants to try to come clean when it looks like he'll never get in. What part of "permanent" does he not understand? Plus, he has no remorse for what he did. And another thing, If you're innocent you don't just accept a permanent ban. He's a disgrace and should just fade away. Purge his records as well.
As for McGwire and Bonds: Probably YES. It hasn't been proven that they've done anything. Just because McGwire refused to answer questions that Congress had no right hauling him in and asking proves nothing. Conseco's book and its accusations sound like sensationalism to sell copies. Besides, the only thing McGwire ever admitted to doing was androstendione, which is a dietary supplement and was legal in MLB at the time.
2007-05-02 01:22:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by bubbabear 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Arg. Stop, please. "This is your brain; this is your brain on Rose fandom."
The controversy surrounding Rose, his gambling including on games in which he was involved, broke a long-standing and very important rule of Major League Baseball. He assented to his sanction (permanent ineligibility; don't play the "lifetime" canard; while I'm sure Rose prefers drawing breath to not, his non-flat EEG makes no difference to his status) and continues to serve it. As is proper.
What he did, what type of person he was and is, does not compare to what other great players did and were.
Cobb was a misanthrope (didn't like anyone), Mantle a drunk, Ruth a philanderer (womanizer). These are not particularly proud things, but not outlawed by MLB because they present no direct effect on the game. Baseball feels no need to outlaw misanthropism or alcohol or enthusiastic socializing because those do not threaten to undermine the game or hurt the revenue streams. There's no present threat to baseball; with internal gambling, there is. Gambling is not outlawed by MLB because of any moral stance; it has potential, ENORMOUS potential, to cut right to the economic heart of the game (in the business sense) and the public's perception of the integrity of games on the fields of play. It can be massively corrosive, and thus is a genie best left corked inside its bottle.
I don't know Rose but he doesn't appear to be all that admirable a character. Helluva ballplayer, sure, but that doesn't exonerate him for breaking a rule. He knew better and made a bad, bad decision anyway, and he kept on making it for years.
Cobb, Mantle, Ruth didn't commit their actions, did not commit offense, AGAINST BASEBALL. Rose did. Important distinction.
2007-05-01 18:44:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think all three deserve to be in the hall of fame.
pete rose arguably the best hitter ever.
mark mcgwire steroids or not could hit the hell out of a basball.
and bonds well all the steroids in the world arent going to make hitting a 90 mph fastball any easier.
they say the average batter only see's one hittable pitch per at bat.
bonds is lucky to see one per game. and when he does it usually goes a long way.
2007-05-01 23:12:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO on Rose, NO on McGwire, and NO on Bonds. These guys are a cancer on baseball. Mantle, Ruth and Cobb at least came by their abilities honestly, and none of them gambled on the game. All three are dead now, so try proving anything, dorko.
Since when is food a drug? Food can affect how we feel and even act, but it's necessary to eat to stay alive, unlike using andro and "cream and clear" or HGH. l'm glad as hell you're not a doctor.
2007-05-01 17:33:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
ABSOLUTELY NOT!! He bet on baseball games when he was an active player/manager, lied about it, and now spends his days trying to convince people he belongs in the Hall of Fame. Baseball is not two faced. He is!!
Chow!!
2007-05-01 23:50:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by No one 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes rose should be in the hall of fame. He has the numbers period. I live in st. louis and do not think mcgwire belongs in the hall he hasnt got the avg. rbi or runs scored the only category he has hall of fame numbers in is homeruns. He should go down as one of the all time greatest homerun hitters, but not a hall of famer. Bonds is in. Roids or no roids he is in first ballot GUARANTEED!!!!!
2007-05-01 17:43:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by DANNY A 4
·
1⤊
1⤋