Hall of Fame

[Bob78164]

Junior and Piazza are elected. I have hope that Raines will make it in next year, in his 10th and final year of eligibility. --Bob

[littlebeast13]

There are three people somewhere in the world who don't believe Griffey is a Hall of Fame player. I'll bet they would be fun to add to our political threads....

lb13

[Bob78164]

There are three people somewhere in the world who don't believe Griffey is a Hall of Fame player. I'll bet they would be fun to add to our political threads....

lb13

In this case I consider the vote forgivable. They might have omitted Griffey for strategic reasons, needing the vote for someone else who wasn't a shoo-in.

But hell, there were a handful of voters who didn't vote for Tom Seaver. Or Willie Mays. Or Hank Aaron. I find those omissions at least as hard to understand. --Bob

[littlebeast13]

There are three people somewhere in the world who don't believe Griffey is a Hall of Fame player. I'll bet they would be fun to add to our political threads....

lb13

In this case I consider the vote forgivable. They might have omitted Griffey for strategic reasons, needing the vote for someone else who wasn't a shoo-in.

But hell, there were a handful of voters who didn't vote for Tom Seaver. Or Willie Mays. Or Hank Aaron. I find those omissions at least as hard to understand. --Bob

Seaver lost three potential votes to writers who turned in blank ballots to protest Pete Rose's banishment... and he only came 5 away from perfection.

I would be willing to bet all three ballots that omitted Griffey had less than 10 checkmarks on them.... doubling down to wager that each had a number closer to zero on them...

lb13

[jarnon]

Mike was born in Norristown, Pa. His family's car business is well known in this area. Family friend Tommy Lasorda, also a Norristown native, mentored him from a young age.

I hope another local favorite, Curt Schilling, has better luck next year.

[CarShark]

Seaver lost three potential votes to writers who turned in blank ballots to protest Pete Rose's banishment... and he only came 5 away from perfection.

I would be willing to bet all three ballots that omitted Griffey had less than 10 checkmarks on them.... doubling down to wager that each had a number closer to zero on them...

lb13

I didn't think about that. Commissioner Silver did recently reaffirm his banishment from Major League Baseball, and therefore his ineligibility to be elected into the Hall of Fame. This could be something similar.

[Vandal]

SI called it in 1994:

[littlebeast13]

SI called it in 1994:

So no SI jinx for the players... but they did curse the season.

lb13

[littlebeast13]

I guess there's no chance of Griffey being inducted as a White Sox or Piazza with a Marlins cap on his plaque...

lb13

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Seaver lost three potential votes to writers who turned in blank ballots to protest Pete Rose's banishment... and he only came 5 away from perfection.

I would be willing to bet all three ballots that omitted Griffey had less than 10 checkmarks on them.... doubling down to wager that each had a number closer to zero on them...

lb13

I didn't think about that. Commissioner Silver did recently reaffirm his banishment from Major League Baseball, and therefore his ineligibility to be elected into the Hall of Fame. This could be something similar.

Too lazy to go and look it up now, but I thought Manfred said something a little more nuanced, that he's banned from MLB but that the HoF has its own rules and they're free to make him eligible or not...

[CarShark]

Too lazy to go and look it up now, but I thought Manfred said something a little more nuanced, that he's banned from MLB but that the HoF has its own rules and they're free to make him eligible or not...

Yeah, but they aren't going to change their rules just for him, and the rule is that you're banned from baseball, you're banned from the Hall. It's a distinction without a difference. My personal theory: They're going to wait until he dies. That way, they can reinstate him posthumously and he can go in after a couple of years of 'serious thought' on the part of the baseball writers. That way, they can say that Rose never got a chance to enjoy his plaque. "That's punishment enough." Either that, or once an admitted PED user gets in, they won't be able to handle the comparison of one "great sin" getting rewarded, while another one doesn't.

And it is Manfred, so thanks for that. Adam Silver is with the NBA.

[Bob78164]

Too lazy to go and look it up now, but I thought Manfred said something a little more nuanced, that he's banned from MLB but that the HoF has its own rules and they're free to make him eligible or not...

Yeah, but they aren't going to change their rules just for him . . . .

They did. The rule was put in place just in time to prevent Rose from being considered by the writers. That's why a few writers turned in blank ballots to protest Rose's omission from the ballot. --Bob

[littlebeast13]

Too lazy to go and look it up now, but I thought Manfred said something a little more nuanced, that he's banned from MLB but that the HoF has its own rules and they're free to make him eligible or not...

Yeah, but they aren't going to change their rules just for him, and the rule is that you're banned from baseball, you're banned from the Hall. It's a distinction without a difference. My personal theory: They're going to wait until he dies. That way, they can reinstate him posthumously and he can go in after a couple of years of 'serious thought' on the part of the baseball writers. That way, they can say that Rose never got a chance to enjoy his plaque. "That's punishment enough." Either that, or once an admitted PED user gets in, they won't be able to handle the comparison of one "great sin" getting rewarded, while another one doesn't.

PED use has only been a "great sin" in Major League Baseball since 2005, and then only after a player gets caught thrice. Gambling on the game has been a "great sin" since at least 1920.

Pete Rose remains the only person to have been permanently banned from the game in the past nine decades. Not Bonds, not Clemens, no anyone else but Pete Rose. His situation is unique... and a very unsympathetic one at that...

lb13

[silverscreenselect]

PED use has only been a "great sin" in Major League Baseball since 2005, and then only after a player gets caught thrice. Gambling on the game has been a "great sin" since at least 1920.

Pete Rose remains the only person to have been permanently banned from the game in the past nine decades. Not Bonds, not Clemens, no anyone else but Pete Rose. His situation is unique... and a very unsympathetic one at that...

lb13

In my mind, there is a fundamental difference between using PED's and betting on baseball. PED's are a method of cheating to give one player or team a competitive advantage. That's as old as the game itself. There's no difference between that and using corked bats or spitballs. The game itself consists of two teams doing their best to win. Now, if someone feels that Bonds or Clemens should not be in the Hall of Fame some day, so be it. The fact is that they were doing their best to help their teams.

What Rose did affected the integrity of the game itself, raising the possibility that players or teams were not using their best efforts in particular games. We forget but the Black Sox scandal did almost destroy the game of baseball. Baseball caught a lucky break then that Babe Ruth was coming into his heyday, because his enormous popularity kept interest going.

In my view, Pete Rose's bat belongs in Cooperstown, just as Don Larsen's glove does. But neither of those players do, for different reasons.

[BackInTex]

PED use has only been a "great sin" in Major League Baseball since 2005, and then only after a player gets caught thrice. Gambling on the game has been a "great sin" since at least 1920.

Pete Rose remains the only person to have been permanently banned from the game in the past nine decades. Not Bonds, not Clemens, no anyone else but Pete Rose. His situation is unique... and a very unsympathetic one at that...

lb13

In my mind, there is a fundamental difference between using PED's and betting on baseball. PED's are a method of cheating to give one player or team a competitive advantage. That's as old as the game itself. There's no difference between that and using corked bats or spitballs. The game itself consists of two teams doing their best to win. Now, if someone feels that Bonds or Clemens should not be in the Hall of Fame some day, so be it. The fact is that they were doing their best to help their teams.

What Rose did affected the integrity of the game itself, raising the possibility that players or teams were not using their best efforts in particular games. We forget but the Black Sox scandal did almost destroy the game of baseball. Baseball caught a lucky break then that Babe Ruth was coming into his heyday, because his enormous popularity kept interest going.

In my view, Pete Rose's bat belongs in Cooperstown, just as Don Larsen's glove does. But neither of those players do, for different reasons.

So you're O.K. with folks who cheated, improved their stats and accomplishments for which aside from cheating to attain them, is the sole reason for them getting into the HOF but not for someone who "may" have intentionally lowered his accomplishments that even at that lowered level exceeds those accomplishments of those who cheated to attain theirs?

Makes sense.

[silverscreenselect]

So you're O.K. with folks who cheated, improved their stats and accomplishments for which aside from cheating to attain them, is the sole reason for them getting into the HOF but not for someone who "may" have intentionally lowered his accomplishments that even at that lowered level exceeds those accomplishments of those who cheated to attain theirs?

Makes sense.

Pete Rose's gambling allegations stem from the time he spent managing the Reds, not based on what he did or did not do as a player. Gaylord Perry cheated, and he's in Cooperstown. It's up to the HOF voters to determine whether the PED players would have made it in based on their accomplishments without the drugs. I didn't say they should be in the Hall of Fame, just that they should be eligible. A couple of the banned Chicago Black Sox might well have made the Hall of Fame based on their records, and their accomplishments prior to the 1919 World Series were as legitimate as Rose's.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

PED use has only been a "great sin" in Major League Baseball since 2005, and then only after a player gets caught thrice. Gambling on the game has been a "great sin" since at least 1920.

Pete Rose remains the only person to have been permanently banned from the game in the past nine decades. Not Bonds, not Clemens, no anyone else but Pete Rose. His situation is unique... and a very unsympathetic one at that...

lb13

In my mind, there is a fundamental difference between using PED's and betting on baseball. PED's are a method of cheating to give one player or team a competitive advantage. That's as old as the game itself. There's no difference between that and using corked bats or spitballs. The game itself consists of two teams doing their best to win. Now, if someone feels that Bonds or Clemens should not be in the Hall of Fame some day, so be it. The fact is that they were doing their best to help their teams.

What Rose did affected the integrity of the game itself, raising the possibility that players or teams were not using their best efforts in particular games. We forget but the Black Sox scandal did almost destroy the game of baseball. Baseball caught a lucky break then that Babe Ruth was coming into his heyday, because his enormous popularity kept interest going.

In my view, Pete Rose's bat belongs in Cooperstown, just as Don Larsen's glove does. But neither of those players do, for different reasons.

So you're O.K. with folks who cheated, improved their stats and accomplishments for which aside from cheating to attain them, is the sole reason for them getting into the HOF but not for someone who "may" have intentionally lowered his accomplishments that even at that lowered level exceeds those accomplishments of those who cheated to attain theirs?

Makes sense.

Wow. Maybe I'm missing something. Because it sounds to me like you're saying Gaylord Perry, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and a host of others aren't Hall of Famers. I have to say I disagree.

[Ritterskoop]

Rose only ever bet on his own team to win.

I would see a problem if he ever bet on his own team to lose, and could have affected that outcome by tinkering with the lineup or using a less-than-ideal pinch-hitter. It's why we hate it when players agree to play poorly to allow their team to lose or to win by fewer points than the spread.

But Rose always bet on his own team to win.

I agree he should have said he bet and should have said it was wrong. The lying and unwillingness to admit it was wrong are troubling.

But it matters a great deal to me that he only ever bet on his own team to win.

[silverscreenselect]

Wow. Maybe I'm missing something. Because it sounds to me like you're saying Gaylord Perry, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and a host of others aren't Hall of Famers. I have to say I disagree.

No, what I'm saying is that it's up to the Hall of Fame voters to determine whether Gaylord Perry or Roger Clemens would have qualified for the Hall of Fame without cheating. How much their accomplishments were due to cheating is a matter of judgment, just like it's up to them to judge whether any player's accomplishments warrant being in the Hall of Fame.

[silverscreenselect]

Rose only ever bet on his own team to win.

I would see a problem if he ever bet on his own team to lose, and could have affected that outcome by tinkering with the lineup or using a less-than-ideal pinch-hitter. It's why we hate it when players agree to play poorly to allow their team to lose or to win by fewer points than the spread.

But Rose always bet on his own team to win.

There are two problems with that argument, both based on the fact that Rose only bet on some games. The first is that Rose undoubtedly had inside information and wouldn't bet if he felt the team had less of a chance to win, if he thought they were too tired for a particular game or if a player had a nagging injury that hadn't caused him to miss any games. And that information was available to sports gamblers, not the general public.

The second is that managers manage teams for the long term... the best results for the entire season, not a particular game. That means deciding when to rest starters. It means deciding whether to pitch a closer a third day in a row. It means deciding when to pull players in somewhat one-sided games. What if Rose had a choice between pitching his star pitcher on normal rest against the last place Montreal Expos or giving the pitcher an extra day of rest for the series opener against the first place Los Angeles Dodgers? If Rose is making decisions to maximize his chance of winning his bet, he might make a different decision than if he were managing to have the best season for the Reds.

[littlebeast13]

In my mind, there is a fundamental difference between using PED's and betting on baseball. PED's are a method of cheating to give one player or team a competitive advantage. That's as old as the game itself. There's no difference between that and using corked bats or spitballs. The game itself consists of two teams doing their best to win. Now, if someone feels that Bonds or Clemens should not be in the Hall of Fame some day, so be it. The fact is that they were doing their best to help their teams.

What Rose did affected the integrity of the game itself, raising the possibility that players or teams were not using their best efforts in particular games. We forget but the Black Sox scandal did almost destroy the game of baseball. Baseball caught a lucky break then that Babe Ruth was coming into his heyday, because his enormous popularity kept interest going.

In my view, Pete Rose's bat belongs in Cooperstown, just as Don Larsen's glove does. But neither of those players do, for different reasons.

So you're O.K. with folks who cheated, improved their stats and accomplishments for which aside from cheating to attain them, is the sole reason for them getting into the HOF but not for someone who "may" have intentionally lowered his accomplishments that even at that lowered level exceeds those accomplishments of those who cheated to attain theirs?

Makes sense.

I'll bet there wasn't a truly "honest" person that ever stepped on the playing field. Maybe we should just close down the Hall of Fame and say nobody deserves to be there because the game is limited to human beings...

But again, none of this has anything to do with Rose... not just from a moralistic standpoint, but from a baseball regulations standpoint. Not having even the slightest bit of connection to any form of gambling on the game is MLB Commandment Numero Uno, clearly posted in every clubhouse since the days of Commissioner Landis. Pete Rose saw himself above that primary rule, and he is paying the ultimate price for that. And his complete lack of sincere remorse doesn't even qualify him for a hardship parole.

PED abuse does not equal gambling as far as a player's standing not because that's the way some people choose to see it, but because that's what baseball has dictated now for nine decades! What fans choose to think about that is a moot point that's nothing more than a spirited argument...

lb13

[BackInTex]

I'll bet there wasn't a truly "honest" person that ever stepped on the playing field. Maybe we should just close down the Hall of Fame and say nobody deserves to be there because the game is limited to human beings...

But again, none of this has anything to do with Rose... not just from a moralistic standpoint, but from a baseball regulations standpoint. Not having even the slightest bit of connection to any form of gambling on the game is MLB Commandment Numero Uno, clearly posted in every clubhouse since the days of Commissioner Landis. Pete Rose saw himself above that primary rule, and he is paying the ultimate price for that. And his complete lack of sincere remorse doesn't even qualify him for a hardship parole.

PED abuse does not equal gambling as far as a player's standing not because that's the way some people choose to see it, but because that's what baseball has dictated now for nine decades! What fans choose to think about that is a moot point that's nothing more than a spirited argument...

lb13

Cheating = O.K.

Insider trading = Not O.K.

HOF is a joke anyway. Either someone deserves to be in on the basis of their contribution to baseball or exceptional play, or coaching compared to all others, or they don't. Having to "wait their turn" is stupid. A person's past actions are history. They don't need to ferment or ripen to improve. If not all deserving players are in, for whatever reason (voters' personal power play, etc.) its like the winners' podium at an Ice Skating competition.

[Bob78164]

HOF is a joke anyway. Either someone deserves to be in on the basis of their contribution to baseball or exceptional play, or coaching compared to all others, or they don't. Having to "wait their turn" is stupid. A person's past actions are history. They don't need to ferment or ripen to improve. If not all deserving players are in, for whatever reason (voters' personal power play, etc.) its like the winners' podium at an Ice Skating competition.

I think that's a little too simplistic. Sometimes perspective really does help. I'm thinking of Bert Blyleven, who wouldn't have gotten into the Hall based on traditional stats, but eventually made it because enough voters (with the help of the sabremetric community) learned the relative importance of statistics a pitcher can control (such as strikeouts) and those that depend on his teammates' run support and bullpen support (wins). I'm thinking of Rock Raines, who will probably get in next year in his 10th (and now final) year of eligibility. Voters have a much greater appreciation now for the value of walks than they did even 10 years ago. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Sometimes perspective really does help.

Also, writers are only allowed to vote for 10 players, regardless of how many they might actually deem worthy of being enshrined. A player who ranks 11th or 12th this year could well rank 10th next year.

In addition, the closer a player gets to the 10-year cutoff, the more closely a writer might look at his selections and move someone up because it's his last chance to get in.

[TheCalvinator24]

Rose only ever bet on his own team to win.

I would see a problem if he ever bet on his own team to lose, and could have affected that outcome by tinkering with the lineup or using a less-than-ideal pinch-hitter. It's why we hate it when players agree to play poorly to allow their team to lose or to win by fewer points than the spread.

But Rose always bet on his own team to win.

There are two problems with that argument, both based on the fact that Rose only bet on some games. The first is that Rose undoubtedly had inside information and wouldn't bet if he felt the team had less of a chance to win, if he thought they were too tired for a particular game or if a player had a nagging injury that hadn't caused him to miss any games. And that information was available to sports gamblers, not the general public.

The second is that managers manage teams for the long term... the best results for the entire season, not a particular game. That means deciding when to rest starters. It means deciding whether to pitch a closer a third day in a row. It means deciding when to pull players in somewhat one-sided games. What if Rose had a choice between pitching his star pitcher on normal rest against the last place Montreal Expos or giving the pitcher an extra day of rest for the series opener against the first place Los Angeles Dodgers? If Rose is making decisions to maximize his chance of winning his bet, he might make a different decision than if he were managing to have the best season for the Reds.

Make sure you're sitting down.

I agree with sss.