Pete Rose

[TruffleShuffle]

What did Pete Rose do that Juan Pierre hasn't done other than play for a really, really, really long time?

 

Do you mean besides the much higher ops in a much tougher hitters era? Besides all the top 10 MVP finishes and all-star games?

The MVP finishes don't really tell me a whole lot other than the fact that the media absolutely loved the guy for his "hustleness". He did hit for a little more power than Pierre, but also didn't have any speed. And it's not like he was a huge powerhouse, either. He was an average defender at multiple positions, but didn't play any of the real skill positions notably well.

 

Basically, he's famous for getting a lot of singles per year (like Pierre), being durable (like Pierre) and for playing a really, really, really long time. Oh yeah, and hustling and playing the game "right". Other than gambling on it, of course. And putting himself into a lineup at the detriment to the team just so he could break a record. But yeah, he did things the "right" way.

 

That's true, he did only have a top 10 OBP 11 times in his career, and only ranked in the top 10 of runs created 13 times. That makes him pretty similar to Juan Pierre - well, except that Juan Pierre has never been in the top 10 of his league in OBP or RC.

[ConstableRabbit]

You can't ban a player for being accused of doing something. Palmeiro would be one thing because he tested positive. But the three you mentioned are fine especially Sosa. I don't like it, but they are because they haven't been caught (re: tested positive).

 

Actually, you can.

 

There are 2 character clauses in fact that can preclude baseball players from going into the Hall of Fame.

 

McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds should be nullified just on the basis of their Congressional testimonials alone. And Bonds shouldnt even be allowed on the ballot until the Balco mess is cleaned up totally. At the progression through the court system and with the witnesses being uncooperative, it may take another 20 years at this pace.

 

Shockingly, there is a whole world outside the U.S. where you have to prove your innocence. Even in this country, provisions under the Patriot Act now require you to do the same thing.

 

I just think the players should step up and stop hiding. Thats why i hate them and Rose. Admit what you did in the first place, take responsibility for your actions, and take your punishment like a man. Maybe you find redemption and maybe you dont. But its better in the long run for everyone if you make your own peace.

 

I don't understand why. Proving one's innocence may be the thing to do in other countries, but here in America, (where we live and where the Hall of Fame is), the court systems work on a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. If they were so guilty, they'd be caught and tried. I don't think there's any debating the system -- it's a very important part of modern democracy as well as human rights.

 

Pete Rose 100% bet on baseball, which is why he is banned. McGwire, Sammy, and Bonds may appear guilty (I'd say McGwire and Bonds more than Sosa) but nothing's proven. Put them on the ballot.

 

If something comes out where it's proven that they cheated, make a rule where you can kick them out if that's what you want, but make sure that you kick out Gaylord Perry as well.

[TruffleShuffle]

Not that I don't believe you, because I don't know that much about the HOF, but can you either quote the clauses or post a link where I can read them? It would be greatly appreciated.

 

Not a problem... http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm

 

Specifically look at section 5 on voting.

 

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played

 

If this is the case, shouldn't we throw a-holes and flagrant racists like Tie Cobb and Cap Anson out of the Hall?

[Garwilly]

Not that I don't believe you, because I don't know that much about the HOF, but can you either quote the clauses or post a link where I can read them? It would be greatly appreciated.

 

Not a problem... http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm

 

Specifically look at section 5 on voting.

 

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played

 

If this is the case, shouldn't we throw a-holes and flagrant racists like Tie Cobb and Cap Anson out of the Hall?

 

Also note that clip says "the player's record", If we are to look at that clip by the letter of the law, as you clearly wish, Pete the Player, is in.

[Guest]

Okay, I'll be fair about this and I'll stop getting the Rose devotees righteously angry...

 

The players I see as most similar to Pete are Paul Molitor and Robin Yount -- both in the HOF. Molitor's numbers, in particular, are very similar to Pete's (although Molitor's rate stats are a bit better, as evidenced by his 122 to 118 edge in OPS+ [using ops+ to adjust for era]). Molitor was also a similar defender to Pete. Paul was okay at a lot of positions but not really a master of any.

 

Pete gets an edge over Molitor for his durability and longevity, but Molitor wasn't really an inner-circle kind of candidate, anyway. With all the questions about Pete and whether we know for sure if he gambled as a player, I'd leave him out of the hall. His credentials do not impress me enough to put him in given his baggage.

 

-- edited for the numbers --

 

        BA   OBP   SLG   SB   CS  OPS+
Pete    .303  .375  .409  198 149  118
Paul    .306  .369  .448  504 131  122

 

Stats courtesy of b-r.com

[TruffleShuffle]

Okay, Pierre was overstating my case.

 

Would you put Olerud into the hall of fame if he had the durability and longevity of Pete? Olerud was a better hitter when on the field and played a fantastic first base.

 

I don't remember him being called one of the greats, though...

 

Well, it's not Olerud's fault that he was underrated his entire career - people looked too much at HRs and RBI and not enough at OBP. But regardless of this - yes, Olerud might have had a chance if he'd played as long.

 

What he has working against him, however, is that even though he got on base a lot and had a good OPS+, his proficiency at the plate never really translated into huge offensive production. Only once was he in the top 10 in his league in runs, and he never placed in the top 10 in RBI. He only ranked in the top 10 of his league twice in runs created. According to Bill James' book, his win shares per 162 games was 22.92 in 1999. Out of his next six years, only two were above his career average (in terms of OPS+), and his last three were sharply below his career average, so one can guess that his WS/162 over his career is probably closer to 21.

 

Rose's WS/162 is 24.80, meaning he was a more productive player over the course of his career than Olerud was, and while longevity shouldn't count for everything, it should count, and clearly Rose has a big advantage there. He also played 628 games at 2B and 634 games at 3B, which are positions from which less offense is expected than a first baseman. Rose ranked first or second in times on base 14 times during his major league career.

 

I mean, Rickey Henderson's OPS+ was worse than Olerud; it was 9 points higher than Rose's, and he played a superior offensive position for much of his career. Plus, he was a lousy fielder. Should we also debate whether he belongs in the Hall?

 

Rose's career WS/162 ranks right there with guys like Yastrzemski, Stargell, Billy Williams, Gwynn, Clemente, Reggie Jackson and Kaline. A lot of people may not like him for who he is, and that's fine, but to debate whether his playing career is Hall-worthy is borderline ridiculous.

[goonys evil twin]

A lot of people may not like him for who he is, and that's fine, but to debate whether his playing career is Hall-worthy is borderline ridiculous.

 

To care enough about Pete Rose to fret over his hall status is borderline ridiculous.

[TruffleShuffle]

A lot of people may not like him for who he is, and that's fine, but to debate whether his playing career is Hall-worthy is borderline ridiculous.

 

To care enough about Pete Rose to fret over his hall status is borderline ridiculous.

 

I don't really care. But I like debating HOF-worthiness. Pete Rose is not somebody worth debating in that respect, unless you want to debate whether his gambling should keep him out.

 

But of course, it's just a game where people hit a round thing with a stick, so why do any of us care. I guess it's silly that people debate whether signing Soriano and Schmidt is a good idea, because we don't know either of those two guys, and what does it matter if the team we like is as good as any other team at throwing, hitting and catching a little white ball?

[OleMissCub]

A lot of people may not like him for who he is, and that's fine, but to debate whether his playing career is Hall-worthy is borderline ridiculous.

 

To care enough about Pete Rose to fret over his hall status is borderline ridiculous.

 

I don't really care. But I like debating HOF-worthiness. Pete Rose is not somebody worth debating in that respect, unless you want to debate whether his gambling should keep him out.

 

Seconded. Rose not only was a good hitter but also won several gold gloves, as well an an MVP award. I agree, to debate his Hall-worthiness is quite foolish.

[goonys evil twin]

A lot of people may not like him for who he is, and that's fine, but to debate whether his playing career is Hall-worthy is borderline ridiculous.

 

To care enough about Pete Rose to fret over his hall status is borderline ridiculous.

 

I don't really care. But I like debating HOF-worthiness. Pete Rose is not somebody worth debating in that respect, unless you want to debate whether his gambling should keep him out.

 

Seconded. Rose not only was a good hitter but also won several gold gloves, as well an an MVP award. I agree, to debate his Hall-worthiness is quite foolish.

 

to include things like gold gloves and MVP awards into the debate is foolish.

[sunnydoo]

If this is the case, shouldn't we throw a-holes and flagrant racists like Tie Cobb and Cap Anson out of the Hall?

 

I disagree for 3 reasons.

 

#1- The character clause was originally put in to keep Jackson out of the HoF and to handle situations regarding gambling.

 

#2- Cobb and Anson were both put in well past their own playing days, so character was not so much an issue for either of them.

 

#3- While Cobb was a racist, he never broke the law in regards to this fact. Laws may have changed and he no longer would be welcome in today's society, but for his time, sadly, he represented a significant portion of society. You cant go after someone when standards have obviously changed.

 

Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire did break the law, and made a traveshamockery of the Congressional Hearings. (eg Sammy suddenly forgetting he can in fact speak English). None of them deserve the opportunity to represent the game or to be placed in the pantheon of excellence. because they are all cheating bums.

[goonys evil twin]

Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire did break the law,

 

Did I miss the trial?

[sunnydoo]

I don't understand why. Proving one's innocence may be the thing to do in other countries, but here in America, (where we live and where the Hall of Fame is), the court systems work on a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. If they were so guilty, they'd be caught and tried. I don't think there's any debating the system -- it's a very important part of modern democracy as well as human rights.

 

Pete Rose 100% bet on baseball, which is why he is banned. McGwire, Sammy, and Bonds may appear guilty (I'd say McGwire and Bonds more than Sosa) but nothing's proven. Put them on the ballot.

 

#1- The police are trying to do just this right now, except Barry and his boys are not cooperating with authorities.

 

#2- You are confusing the justice system (legal) with ethical behavior. You can be legal, but not ethical- which is why i pointed out the ethics clause in the portion of the balloting. The 3 mentioned do not meet the criteria established for ethical behavior among professionals.

 

#3- Read the Patriot Act. You might be surprised even for America what you have to prove these days. Hopefully you arent on the no fly list either. Good luck with that if you are.

[OleMissCub]

 

to include things like gold gloves and MVP awards into the debate is foolish.

 

It most certainly is not.

[goonys evil twin]

 

to include things like gold gloves and MVP awards into the debate is foolish.

 

It most certainly is not.

 

It most certainly is.

 

They are randomly voted upon by unreliable writers, the same guys who arbitrarily decide what stats are worthy for determining who should make it.

[OleMissCub]

 

to include things like gold gloves and MVP awards into the debate is foolish.

 

It most certainly is not.

 

It most certainly is.

 

They are randomly voted upon by unreliable writers, the same guys who arbitrarily decide what stats are worthy for determining who should make it.

 

Good point I guess. The same unreliable writers who arbitarily decide to keep people like Andre Dawson out of the hall of fame, yet put Kirby Puckett in.

[ConstableRabbit]

I don't understand why. Proving one's innocence may be the thing to do in other countries, but here in America, (where we live and where the Hall of Fame is), the court systems work on a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. If they were so guilty, they'd be caught and tried. I don't think there's any debating the system -- it's a very important part of modern democracy as well as human rights.

 

Pete Rose 100% bet on baseball, which is why he is banned. McGwire, Sammy, and Bonds may appear guilty (I'd say McGwire and Bonds more than Sosa) but nothing's proven. Put them on the ballot.

 

#1- The police are trying to do just this right now, except Barry and his boys are not cooperating with authorities.

 

#2- You are confusing the justice system (legal) with ethical behavior. You can be legal, but not ethical- which is why i pointed out the ethics clause in the portion of the balloting. The 3 mentioned do not meet the criteria established for ethical behavior among professionals.

 

#3- Read the Patriot Act. You might be surprised even for America what you have to prove these days. Hopefully you arent on the no fly list either. Good luck with that if you are.

 

I'm not going to debate the Patriot Act with you when we're talking about baseball. The act involves a small percentage of those in this country, many or most of whom are not US citizens. By and large, we are an innocence-first country and always will be. I don't think that's debatable.

 

What was unethical about what they did? What would have been ethical? What are the ethical standards of the MLB, which has allowed racists and other cheaters (inc Perry who wrote a book bragging about it) into its Hall of Fame? Its arbitrary.

 

And if Barry and his boys aren't cooperating, then they can and will get tagged with obstruction of justice, and that will be enough.

 

Your "evidence" just isn't enough to make a strong case. It's speculative and very circumstantial.

 

I'd like to catch cheaters as much as the next guy, but we can't just go around deciding who is ethical and who isnt with arbitrary rules. Rose himself agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball. End of story.

[TruffleShuffle]

While Cobb was a racist, he never broke the law in regards to this fact. Laws may have changed and he no longer would be welcome in today's society, but for his time, sadly, he represented a significant portion of society. You cant go after someone when standards have obviously changed.

 

Well, players have been prosecuted for on the field offenses, and Cobb (btw, I just noticed that I spelled his name "Tie") was known to have spiked players. But that's ticky-tack. Then again, nobody has proven that the guys you want out of the Hall have used steroids, and it wasn't illegal to use them in MLB at the time.

[Derwood]

 

to include things like gold gloves and MVP awards into the debate is foolish.

 

It most certainly is not.

 

It most certainly is.

 

They are randomly voted upon by unreliable writers, the same guys who arbitrarily decide what stats are worthy for determining who should make it.

 

Good point I guess. The same unreliable writers who arbitarily decide to keep people like Andre Dawson out of the hall of fame, yet put Kirby Puckett in.

 

Exactly. How can you expect that the voters are going to ignore the useless awards that they themselves voted on in the first place?

[sunnydoo]

Then again, nobody has proven that the guys you want out of the Hall have used steroids, and it wasn't illegal to use them in MLB at the time.

 

If they used steroids improperly, it would have been illegal within their jurisdiction (legal) and unethical in MLB (ethical).

 

I still dont understand why it has to be proven that they did it. It is a select club. If you dont meet the standards of the club, and by that i mean the perception as well as the record, why do you automatically get inclusion into the club? The burden of proof should be on them to prove they are worthy.

 

These guys are supposed to represent the best of the best. I dont see why Sammy, Barry, or Mark would be anything to emulate. McGwire has admitted he was unethical with the andio, which was legal at the time, but very unethical. Sammy and Barry will be held to that standard. It may or may not have been legal but is very unethical, and therefore, they should be excluded from the club, even if it is never legally proven.

Edited November 28, 2006 by sunnydoo

[OleMissCub]

 

Well, players have been prosecuted for on the field offenses, and Cobb (btw, I just noticed that I spelled his name "Tie") was known to have spiked players. But that's ticky-tack. Then again, nobody has proven that the guys you want out of the Hall have used steroids, and it wasn't illegal to use them in MLB at the time.

 

"When I played the game, baseball was about as gentlemanly as a swift kick in the crotch" - Tyrus Raymond Cobb

[TruffleShuffle]

Then again, nobody has proven that the guys you want out of the Hall have used steroids, and it wasn't illegal to use them in MLB at the time.

 

If they used steroids improperly, it would have been illegal within their jurisdiction (legal) and unethical in MLB (ethical).

 

I still dont understand why it has to be proven that they did it. It is a select club. If you dont meet the standards of the club, and by that i mean the perception as well as the record, why do you automatically get inclusion into the club? The burden of proof should be on them to prove they are worthy.

 

These guys are supposed to represent the best of the best. I dont see why Sammy, Barry, or Mark would be anything to emulate. McGwire has admitted he was unethical with the andio, which was legal at the time, but very unethical. Sammy and Barry will be held to that standard. It may or may not have been legal but is very unethical, and therefore, they should be excluded from the club, even if it is never legally proven.

 

 

During Cobb's career he was involved in numerous fights, both on and off the field, and several profanity-laced shouting matches. For example, Cobb and umpire Billy Evans arranged to settle their in-game differences with a fistfight, to be conducted under the grandstand after the game. Members of both teams served as the spectators, and broke up the scuffle after Cobb had knocked Evans down, pinned him, and began choking him. Cobb once slapped a black elevator operator for being "uppity." When a black night watchman intervened, Cobb pulled out a knife and stabbed him. (The matter was later settled out of court.)

 

 

The last time I checked, assault and battery were crimes. Stabbing, choking, spiking and slapping people could probably be considered unethical. It's funny how you just shrug this off as "the way things were back then."

[OleMissCub]

 

The last time I checked, assault and battery were crimes. Stabbing, choking, spiking and slapping people could probably be considered unethical. It's funny how you just shrug this off as "the way things were back then."

 

As you might recall from our previous discussions, one of my thesis' in college concerned Ty Cobb. He was arrested numerous times for his altercations. In one example he beat up a black elevator man who "gave him lip" and was subsequently arrested and had to pay the man off. He was also arrested for knocking a black construction worker into the concrete he was working in because he looked at Cobb funny. He was never convicted of anything however, due to his payoffs.

 

He also gambled a good bit, mainly on himself. He'd make bets with bookies that he was going to "hit 2 doubles, steal third and steal home both times". Stuff like that.

 

He also murdered a guy, though it was in true self-defense. He and his wife were carjacked by three thugs on their way to the ballpark when Ty was in his early 20's. Ty got out and started to fight all 3 of them at the same time, beating them, until they ran off after having stabbed him several times in the back. As they ran off, he went back to his car, grabbed his pistol and chased one of them down. The pistol didn't fire so he pistol whipped the guy's face off, killing him. I've seen on microfilm the Detroit papers from the next day talking about how Cobb played with the back of his uniform soaked in what looked like blood. He had a single and a triple in that game if i recall from the boxscore.

 

He was a real douche. So, if he's in, then Rose should be.

[goonys evil twin]

He also murdered a guy, though it was in true self-defense. He and his wife were carjacked by three thugs on their way to the ballpark when Ty was in his early 20's. Ty got out and started to fight all 3 of them at the same time, beating them, until they ran off after having stabbed him several times in the back. As they ran off, he went back to his car, grabbed his pistol and chased one of them down. The pistol didn't fire so he pistol whipped the guy's face off, killing him. I've seen on microfilm the Detroit papers from the next day talking about how Cobb played with the back of his uniform soaked in what looked like blood. He had a single and a triple in that game if i recall from the boxscore.

 

They had carjackings back then?

 

I can't imagine that holding up as "true self-defense" with any reasonable jury. Doesn't going back to your car to grab a gun and chasing after the guys negate any thought of self defense?

[OleMissCub]

He also murdered a guy, though it was in true self-defense. He and his wife were carjacked by three thugs on their way to the ballpark when Ty was in his early 20's. Ty got out and started to fight all 3 of them at the same time, beating them, until they ran off after having stabbed him several times in the back. As they ran off, he went back to his car, grabbed his pistol and chased one of them down. The pistol didn't fire so he pistol whipped the guy's face off, killing him. I've seen on microfilm the Detroit papers from the next day talking about how Cobb played with the back of his uniform soaked in what looked like blood. He had a single and a triple in that game if i recall from the boxscore.

 

They had carjackings back then?

 

I can't imagine that holding up as "true self-defense" with any reasonable jury. Doesn't going back to your car to grab a gun and chasing after the guys negate any thought of self defense?

 

He was driving to the game and he pulled over because he saw a few guys on the side of the road waving for help. But ya, a 1913 carjacking would be interesting to see.

 

As far as his self-defense claim goes, you are justified in meeting force with similar force. If someone uses deadly force on you, then you can use it on them. They knifed him, so he beat one of them to death. That's fair.

 

In most states now you have a duty to retreat, except in your home. Meaning that if you fend off your attacker and can get away successfully, then you have a duty to do so. Some states have a duty to retreat even in your home, and some states have NO duty to retreat, no matter where you are attacked. It is more than likely that almost a hundred years ago, most states were still working under the common law, which has no duty to retreat. So Ty would have been acting appropriately within his self-defense claim by chasing one of them down. Furthermore, even if there was a duty to retreat, it's unlikely that he would have been convicted back then. The thugs apparently first went after Ty's wife, which is what really set him off. Given the tendency toward vigilantism being "ok" back then, especially as it pertains to the protection of one's wife and children, i can't imagine a jury convicting him.