Pete Rose in the HOF? Yes or no?

Junkie, the only difference is a better-informed and more discerning audience. That's a good thing because that shows there's great interest in the product. Fans see more and have better information through TV packages, Internet, Sabermetrics, and fantasy. There is more emphasis on power because teams going back to Earl Weaver's Orioles understood it was a good way to win. Other organizations like Atlanta of the past couple decades have emphasized pitching. The Twins, of course, with an unsurpassed minor league development staff have emphasized the fundamental baseball you say has disappeared. Watch baseball and you will see players making the plays you mention every night of the week. Stand behind a batting cage and you will see hitters hitting to the opposite field and practicing situtational hitting. The first thing they will do when they step into the cage is lay down bunts. Do they always execute? Of course not. The game is played by humans. But the theory that players no longer know the fundamentals is just more suburban myth.

 

No way in hell.

There is a difference between gambling and being racist/taking steroids/doctoring the baseball, etc. Gambling brings along a perception that Rose wasn't managing based on what was best for the Reds, but what was best for Pete Rose's bottom line. You don't think he handled relievers differently in games where he had money down? All that separates baseball from pro wrestling is the thin line that the games are on the up-and-up; that no matter the quality of the people playing the games, they are playing to win and the outcome is not predetermined. Gambling on your team -- either pro or con -- is and should be the unpardonable sin in baseball.

As Starman pointed out, the evidence against Speaker and Cobb is fairly weak. If there was strong evidence against them, I would be in favor of throwing them out as well.

 

No, the evidence against Rose is stronger because there is more of it. John Dowd didn't need the media to do his work -- he got plenty of evidence on his own.

 

hey dick, do you take everything literally, dick?

i'm sure you were the same dick who was all over these types of message boards several years ago professing rose's innocence of betting on baseball, dick.

i'm positive you were the same dick who was all over these types of message boards no more than a few years ago saying rose never bet on the reds, dick.

i'm sure you're the same dick who doesn't believe betting on the team you manage, even if it is only to win, is much the same as telling one lie to cover for another, dick.

 

Geez, TP ... ya can only take "burn in hell" so many different ways ...

 

reading comprehension dick. "several years ago ... a few years ago." whatta dick.

 

if i were to say junkie was a little dick and i hoped he burned in hell, would you take that literally?

 

Uh-huh...

 

so be it.

 

I couldn't agree more. To me, the term "integrity of the game" means everybody is playing (or managing) to win. I can't imagine that was the case with the most prolific liar ... I mean hitter ... who ever lived. Anybody, and I mean anybody, who thinks a compulsive gambler isn't going to play every angle is deluding themselves. Bonds, McGwire, etc., are scum, to be sure, but their crime is the biochemical equivalent of a spit ball or a corked bat. Against the rules? Yes. Worthy of contempt? Of course. Deserving of sanction? ABSOLUTELY! On par with someone manipulating lineups, pitching rotations, etc., to bring about a desired result (which just as easily could mean losing a game as winning one)? I don't think so.

 

yeah, my bad, i'll delete.

 

Given the fact that just about everything that's come out of his mouth over the last 10-15 years has been a lie, I have no idea what his intent was. To me, the compulsive nature of his gambling trumps everything else. The very "competitive fire" you reference easily could have led him to manipulate a game to bring about a desired result.