Hm. Yes. It’s okay to be a drug addict in the MLB kids!! Just don’t you dare EVER place a bet on it!! Oh, the lives you’ll ruin!!
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. He canned Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver, even though they quite obviously had zero participation in the 1919 fix. Why not Cobb and Speaker?
If all he needed was evidence of impropriety, he had that in spades. Bill James discusses this in the Historical Baseball Abstract circa 1987, long before Pete Rose ever even came up on the radar, so it’s not like his judgment was clouded about this affair.
Look here.
The interesting thing about that deal was that for all intents and purposes, Landis didn’t pursue it any further, even though there was considerable public opinion that they were guilty. Johnson thought they were, since he made them retire. It almost seems to me that they got off on a technicality, like a failure of the cop to show at a speeding ticket hearing.
Landis was arbitrary in who he nailed. He got a guy named Benny Kauff for a stolen car, but didn’t tag Cobb or Speaker after they were accused of the one thing in baseball that is completely unacceptable. That seems really odd to me.
Since it can’t be proven, I’ll leave it for people to make up their own minds. You already have, Neurotik. 
And Neurotik: If a policeman beats the shit out of someone in uniform, he disgraces not just himself, but the uniform. By assaulting that man in uniform, Ty Cobb damaged the image of baseball.
Oh, and that quote wasn’t from Bill James. Sorry I made it look that way.
Since 1921, the one crystal clear rule in baseball has been “Thou Shalt Not Gamble On Baseball.” Rose violated that rule and the evidence against him is at least as strong as that against a certain Mr. Joe Jackson who is still serving his lifetime ban almost a half century after his death.
If Commissioner Assmaster… ahem… I mean Selig… decides to lift Rose’s ban, he damn well better lift the Jackson ban as well. Jackson is so much more deserving of a HoFer nod than Rose is, both for his play on the field and his exemplary behaviour off the field.
A point people don’t seem to have considered:
This issue is about much more than the Hall of Fame. I happen to think that Pete Rose was both a turd AND a great ballplayer. What can I say? A man can belong in both the Pro Football Hall of Fame AND in the gas chamber (Hello, O.J.). And a man can deserve both permanent banishment from baseball AND a plaque on the wall in Cooperstown.
If this were JUST about the Hall of Fame, I’d say fine, go ahead and stick a Pete Rose plaque on the wall. Let it say: “Peter Rose: Baseball’s all-time leader in hits. Led the Cincinnati Reds to two World Titles. Was banned from baseball for gambling.”
But under NO circumstances should he EVER be allowed to hold a job in baseball again.
Problem is, if Bud Selig publicly made that offer (“Okay Pete, we’ll put you in the Hall of Fame, but you remain banned from baseball, because we can never trust you to be a coach or manager again”), Pete would turn that offer down cold. See, Pete DOESN’T just want his lousy plaque. He wants to be a manager again. And he’s sure that if he just keeps working the media, eventually he’ll get what he wants. (Pete Rose kissed sportswriters’ backsides for decades, and the sportswriters are DYING to return the favor.)
The PROPER response from the Commissioner should be, “Pete, you were a great player. You EARNED that slot in Cooperstown. You were also a scumbag and a cheater. You EARNED that lifetime suspension. Deal with that.”
Maureen, rather than (or at the same time as, if that works better) fixating yourself on the possibility that Neurotik is biased against Rose, answer this question yourself:
If there is a rule stating that anyone found guilty of betting on baseball while a member of a baseball team is banned for life from the game, and a member of a baseball team is caught betting on baseball, does it matter whether he had one hit or fifteen thousand five hundred and sixty?
Regarding the integrity of the game, sure it’s harmed by strikes (depending on who the more guilty party is in the strike). But people (working class especially) pay money to see men play a game. These men, these baseball players, get PAID to hit a fucking ball with a fucking stick. They also get paid to throw the ball, catch it, etc. It’s not like they’re performing calculations on three-dimensional topography here. So when someone violates the integrity of the game by gambling (as opposed to some sort of marital infidelity), it hurts BAD. It hurt baseball bad enough in 1919 that, even though a court of law acquitted the Chicago White Sox members accused of throwing the series, Commissioner Landis banned them all from the game for life.
Sammy Sosa used a corked bat a month or two ago. He admitted having used it (though most fans still probably don’t believe it was a BP bat), admitted that he’d broken the rules however unintentionally, and accepted the appealed punishment handed down. He hurt the integrity of the game with what he did, and he accepted his punishment instead of going on about how he was totally innocent (though it is slightly more obvious that he committed a baseball sin in the fact that the bat broke, showing the cork inside) and never did anything wrong. He has been one of the fan favorites for many years and understood the possible backlash that could result if this weren’t handled properly.
Randall Simon recently hit a fake sausage (fans competing in a sausage race in Milwaukee) on the top of its uniform (didn’t technically hit the woman inside it, but did knock her down). That got air time on more than a few news stations. Why? Because someone who gets paid to play a fucking game decided that getting paid to be a kid wasn’t enough. No, he had to go and fuck with a sausage race. Did that hurt the integrity of the game? Probably a little, yeah.
The penalty for gambling on baseball is set out very clearly in baseball dugouts. Rose knew about the penalty and still did it. I have not one whit of sympathy for him except in that he doesn’t have the cojones to come clean about it.
I love baseball with a passion. Love it more than just about anything else in the world. Pete Rose is absolutely disgusting to me, because he wasn’t satisfied with being in baseball, which he loved, for more than 20 years and being the all-time hit king. He had to go and throw it all away by gambling. He marred the integrity of the sport. He knew what he was doing, he knew it was against the rules, he knew he would be banned if he were caught and he still did it. He gets no sympathy from me for making his bed and, when forced to lie in it, making a fuss that would overshadow John McEnroe’s worst days (which IMO helps his cause not one iota).
Fine. I don’t disagree his being banned for life from ever having anything to do with the sport again. But not kept out of the Hall of Fame. He’s earned his place there.
And you answered my question quite well. “I love baseball with a passion…Pete Rose is disgusting to me…” He didn’t destroy your belief in the integrity of the game, he destroyed your belief in HIS integrity. FWIW, I happen to think he was a complete dink. And I was considerable older than 9, so my opinion was formed solely by me.
This question should be based on facts. Not emotions. He has earned a place in the Hall of Fame. He has earned the lifetime ban. The assholes who offered him the chance to come back in two years after it was imposed just to get him out deserve to be bitch slapped. By large guys who ride harleys.
Dead Pirate Jimbo: RIGHT THE F*** ON!!! I’ll take your pic next to his if you’ll take mine.
Astorian; much as I think you are right, I wish you weren’t. I’d like to see Pete just take his damn plaque and go home. Baseball could use a shot in the arm, and I think if they (Petie & Bud) could see themselves to agree to it, it would help the game out tremendously.
With reguards to the HOF:
I don’t care if Rose bet on baseball while a manager.
I’ll say it again: I don’t care. Not one jot or one tittle. Not one teensy, tiny little itty bitty bit.
The HOF is for performance on the field. Rose deserves to be in there for that.
A lifetime ban from working in baseball is apropriate punishment for betting on the game while a manager. Rose should never hold another position with any baseball team, ever.
He should still be enshrined in Cooperstown for his performance on the field.
One final thing. The current crop of boobs, thieves, incompetents and idiots who run baseball have done far more to hurt “The integrity of the game” than a dozen Pete Roses could do in a million years. Hearing them yammer about “integrity” is like hearing Hitler complain about the death penalty ( had he been caught in '45 instead of killing himself )
I know I’m being childish, and that the sausage bash should stop being funny at some point, but it just hasn’t yet.
“someone who gets paid to play a fucking game decided that getting paid to be a kid wasn’t enough. No, he had to go and fuck with a sausage race.”
Great sig material.
Exactly. Glad you finally understand the concept.
Wrong. Jackson most certainly fixed that series, and don’t let Costner tell you different. He signed a confession and testified that he did. To steal from Rob Neyer:
I do agree with you about Weaver, though. But he knew about it and didn’t tell anyone. It’s a questionable call, and I could go either way on it. I think baseball is better being safe than being sorry and making sure it provides every incentive for players to not gamble, and to come forward if they know of gambling.
Cobb may have gotten off on a technicality, but that’s a technicality that hasn’t existed with the Black Sox or with Rose, AFAIK. They either confessed themselves, or had their accusers participate in the investigation.
He signed a confession that he couldn’t read.
In any court in this country that would have been thrown out just as soon as it came to the judge’s attention.
Also, I like how the person compiling the statistics in your above quote takes it foe granted that Jackson could hit the shit out of any pitcher any time he wanted to. Following a four-hit game with an 0-fer is not uncommon.
In all, the evidence against him is as weak as his defense. Therefore, I think he should get the benefit of the doubt on this one, since proving it either way is kinda dicey.
Ironically enough, Dickie Kerr, the two-game winner in the 1919 Series, was later suspended for a period for jumping his contract. Even the clean Sox were black somehow, eh?
Oh, my!! Three triples to left field? Well. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. This proves it. I mean. The ball NEVER GOES THERE!!
Oh, and, um…I think last year’s World Series champs may disagree about how “meaningless” runs are when you’re down by quite a bit. In any inning. A man is responsible for only his own actions. Not others’.
And while we’re at it: I think it’s about time the entire, stupid senseless, sad tragedy that was the 1919 Black Sox scandal is allowed to relax. Fer Chrissakes, players in every flippin sport on the damn planet fuck up. Baseball players are not saints. They are humans. To idolize them as something greater is not just stupid, it’s dangerous. One of them will always end up crashing somebody’s dreams. You are enforcing a code of ethics we don’t even expect from our politicians. Which is another kettle of fish entirely.
Neurotik, your attempts at snippy superiority are pretty good, but next time actually address the RELEVANT points. Then it might even be insulting.
Sure, but then he repeated in oral testimony that he took the money and that he helped fix the game. That part the judge wouldn’t throw out.
Maybe so. But doing that well in the games they decided to win and doing that poorly in games they decided to lose, analyzing them after the party has admitted to fixing the game certainly does help to bolster the case.
**
What’s weak? He confessed in writing, he confessed again at his trial. Not very weak to me.
When your feeble intellect has presented a relevant point then maybe I’ll address it.
So far, I’ve addressed the Joe Jackson didn’t fix the series argument with a cite. You may not find it convincing, but it’s more of a cite than you’ve presented.
I presented a cite about the whole Pete Rose controversy. You have yet to present one.
What points, pray tell, have I failed to address? Just because you have so far been unable to make any argument short of screeching about how it’s not so bad (which I’ve also addressed) you have made no relevent point in this thread.
Well, yes, I happen to agree with that.
Maureen, your position’s wholly irrational. The FACT is that gambling on baseball is the one and only thing for which a lifetime banishment has always been applied. It’s not just Pete Rose, it’s two dozen other people, too. And there is a very good reason why. And Rose bet on baseball.
This rule applies in EVERY business, by the way. A fiscal conflict of interest in any real job results in immediate, no-questions-asked dismissal. I know people in my company who put themselves into conflicts of interest. They were fired without warning or delay and will never be rehired. That is as it should be. Why baseball should be any different I do not understand. Perhaps you could explain.
Airman Doors, as to your silly claim Jackson had nothing to do with the 1919 fix, here’s some more facts:
- Joe Jackson himself said he agreed to throw the 1919 World Series.
- Joe Jackson himself said he accepted $5,000 as part of the fix.
Those are indisputable facts. He said it, and witnesses corroborated it. That’s enough for me. It doesn’t matter if he hit .800 in the Series and hit nine home runs and leapt 50 feet into the air to simultaneously catch 5 home run balls; those acts alone deserve immediate, permanent banishment. He conspired tp throw the World Series, consciously, willingly, and brazenly enough to say under oath that he did it. The conspiracy alone is deserving of lifetime suspension. He even bitched after the fact that he didn’t get all his money. Landis was absolutely right to throw him out.
I simply do not understand why people insist on this idiotic fantasy that Jackson was innocent. JOE JACKSON said he wasn’t. He started coming up with varying stories many years later, but at the time he said he was part of the conspiracy and he said he took a pile of money as part of the conspiracy. He claimed he didn’t shank anything on the field and maybe that’s true, but guess what? It doesn’t matter; he planned to do it. He broke The Rule, and so he got exactly what he deserved.
Comparing Joe Jackson to Ty Cobb is ridiculous to the point of self-parody. Joe Jackson said, UNDER OATH, in a frickin’ courtroom, with scores of people watching, that he was part of a conspiracy to throw the Series, and he said, under oath, in a courtroom, that he took $5000 to do it. Joe Jackson really did those things. He said so, and witnesses said so. It’s accepted fact. When did Ty Cobb admit such a thing under oath? Or Tris Speaker? Where is the evidence they did?
Weirddave:
The hell it is. Why is Casey Stengel in the Hall, then? Vin Scully? Alexander Cartwright?
The Hall of Fame is a self-defining institution; it exists to honor people who have made great contributions to North American baseball in accordance with its OWN standards - not yours, not the Commissioner’s, not mine. The Hall of Fame is a private institution, not part of MLB. The Hall of Fame’s OWN STANDARDS say “A player on the permanent ineligibilty list cannot be allowed into the Hall of Fame.” Bud Selig did not make this rule, nor did Fay Vincent. It’s a reasonable standard, I think. So where’s the problem?
Neurotik;
Nono, dear one. Let’s try again. We’ll go slowly. The point that someone in uniform is not acting as an individual. A citizen. He is acting as an embassador for what he does, the organization to which he belongs. When Ty Cobb assaulted that fan, he was acting as a representative of Major League Baseball. You’ve squirmed away from addressing this twice. Now. Don’t you really think you’re up past your bed time?
Oh, and RickJay; Nice try. That coke head who was too damn high to even recognize that the innings were changing? He was banned. And reinstated.
OK, now I’m thoroughly confused.
How could he have been acquitted in that selfsame court if they had a confession, a legitimate confession, on record?
Maureen, gambling is different from other transgressions because gambling, and only gambling, can call into question the legitimacy of the contest on the field. If gambling gets out of hand, people will begin to suspect that the game is fixed, and if that ever happens it could be the end of MLB. That’s what almost happened in 1919 and that’s why MLB quite rightly comes down extra hard on gambling. And Pete Rose knew all that, so he should quit his damn whining. He has done dick-all since his banning to deserve reinstatement. He has expressed no contrition whatsoever.
Which points right back to my point that holding baseball players to standards which we are unable to meet ourselves, much less the people we put in office, is stupid and dangerous. People fuck up. And as long as it’s verboten, it will be done. Because that’s human nature.
I did not ONCE say that what he did was right. It wasn’t, if he really did it. I said he had, based on his performance, earned a place at Cooperstown. He has. He should be there. Whether I agree with what he did is another story entirely. One is based on merit. The other, on opinion.
As long as people continue to make this decision based on emotion and opinion instead of the man’s record and what he contributed to the game, then this argument will continue. But not for me. I am going to bed, I think.
How would corking a bat, a minor rule violation, come close to betting or effect the integrity of the game?
Corking a bat doesn’t really do anything. It certainly doesn’t help a slugger hit homers, despite what they may think.
Would steroids and corked bats (assuming they worked) negatively impact the amount of competitiveness on the field? Doesn’t it say that they are tryiing everything they can to win?