Bonds apparently busted for steroid use.

[HedleyLamarr]

Pete Rose will go in the Hall as soon as he's worm food.

[Cujo]

Pete Rose will go in the Hall as soon as he's worm food.

Who needs Cooperstown when you're already in the Pro Wrasslin' Hall of Fame?!...

[jkrdevil]

I don't know if you're joking, but you're not allowed to wager on games you're managing. For a while in baseball, you were allowed to use steroids. Rose broke the rules, but Bonds didn't.

Blame baseball, not Bonds. Blame Pete Rose, not baseball.

As JKR keeps noting, Steroids were very much illegal, so they both broke the rules. Exile from the game if you must.

But they deserve in the HOF. And as much as I think Bonds (and others) should get in, at least what Rose did had absolutely no effect on his career line (as a player).

What Rose did was far worse than what McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, and others did. At least in the case of the steroid users they did it to pad their stats and to try to help their win. What Rose dis was basically the opposite. By betting on your own team you change the way you manage in order to help you win the bet. So unless Rose bet every single game for the Reds it had a negative effect on the games he didn't bet on. Think about it it is a close game late in a game he didn't bet on and he is planning to bet on the next days game. Does he bring the closer into this game knowing that it would mean he wouldn't possibly have him the next game he bet on, or does he save him for the bet game? Well if he doesn't put him in and saves him for the bet game it has changed the way he manages in a way that it has a negative effect on his team. In essence every game he didn't bet on he essentially bet against his team.

That damages the integrity of baseball in a far worse way than steroids did.

[rams80]

Good. Get his mess out of the record books and keep him from the hall.

Can we throw that racist prick Cobb out while we're at it? I'd hardly classify Babe Ruth as a good person or role model either. Why is he there?

Because neither Cobb nor Ruth ever violated federal law related to their on-field performances?

I believe some of Cobb's on and off-field actions constitute assault and battery nowadays. Which is also illegal as of last checking.

[jkrdevil]

Good. Get his mess out of the record books and keep him from the hall.

Can we throw that racist prick Cobb out while we're at it? I'd hardly classify Babe Ruth as a good person or role model either. Why is he there?

Because neither Cobb nor Ruth ever violated federal law related to their on-field performances?

I believe some of Cobb's on and off-field actions constitute assault and battery nowadays. Which is also illegal as of last checking.

I guess you missed the last part of Mac's statement.

[rams80]

Good. Get his mess out of the record books and keep him from the hall.

Can we throw that racist prick Cobb out while we're at it? I'd hardly classify Babe Ruth as a good person or role model either. Why is he there?

Because neither Cobb nor Ruth ever violated federal law related to their on-field performances?

I believe some of Cobb's on and off-field actions constitute assault and battery nowadays. Which is also illegal as of last checking.

I guess you missed the last part of Mac's statement.

"In spring training in 1907, Cobb, considered a racist by many, fought a black groundskeeper over the condition of the Tigers' spring training field in Augusta, Ga., and ended up choking the man's wife when she intervened...In New York he went into the stands after a heckling fan called him names. He punched, kicked and stomped the fan, who was missing one hand and part of the other because of a workplace accident."

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I don't know if you're joking, but you're not allowed to wager on games you're managing. For a while in baseball, you were allowed to use steroids. Rose broke the rules, but Bonds didn't.

Blame baseball, not Bonds. Blame Pete Rose, not baseball.

As JKR keeps noting, Steroids were very much illegal, so they both broke the rules. Exile from the game if you must.

But they deserve in the HOF. And as much as I think Bonds (and others) should get in, at least what Rose did had absolutely no effect on his career line (as a player).

What Rose did was far worse than what McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, and others did. At least in the case of the steroid users they did it to pad their stats and to try to help their win. What Rose dis was basically the opposite. By betting on your own team you change the way you manage in order to help you win the bet. So unless Rose bet every single game for the Reds it had a negative effect on the games he didn't bet on. Think about it it is a close game late in a game he didn't bet on and he is planning to bet on the next days game. Does he bring the closer into this game knowing that it would mean he wouldn't possibly have him the next game he bet on, or does he save him for the bet game? Well if he doesn't put him in and saves him for the bet game it has changed the way he manages in a way that it has a negative effect on his team. In essence every game he didn't bet on he essentially bet against his team.

That damages the integrity of baseball in a far worse way than steroids did.

Shows what I know. But yes, I agree with the above -- Rose's crime was far worse.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't know if you're joking, but you're not allowed to wager on games you're managing. For a while in baseball, you were allowed to use steroids. Rose broke the rules, but Bonds didn't.

Blame baseball, not Bonds. Blame Pete Rose, not baseball.

As JKR keeps noting, Steroids were very much illegal, so they both broke the rules. Exile from the game if you must.

But they deserve in the HOF. And as much as I think Bonds (and others) should get in, at least what Rose did had absolutely no effect on his career line (as a player).

What Rose did was far worse than what McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, and others did. At least in the case of the steroid users they did it to pad their stats and to try to help their win. What Rose dis was basically the opposite. By betting on your own team you change the way you manage in order to help you win the bet. So unless Rose bet every single game for the Reds it had a negative effect on the games he didn't bet on. Think about it it is a close game late in a game he didn't bet on and he is planning to bet on the next days game. Does he bring the closer into this game knowing that it would mean he wouldn't possibly have him the next game he bet on, or does he save him for the bet game? Well if he doesn't put him in and saves him for the bet game it has changed the way he manages in a way that it has a negative effect on his team. In essence every game he didn't bet on he essentially bet against his team.

That damages the integrity of baseball in a far worse way than steroids did.

Shows what I know. But yes, I agree with the above -- Rose's crime was far worse.

For the record, I was never disagreeing with that.

I guess here's my point...

I don't think denying admittance to Cooperstown should be a punishment. If you want to keep Bonds or McGwire out because you think the steroids gave them their HOF numbers, that's one thing (although I, one, disagree, and, two, think that's a stupid approach anyways). But if you want to keep guys out who you believe were HOF-caliber players just to PUNISH them?

Well that's dumb.

And that's why I also think Rose should be in, and why I think it's not even close for him. Because not only did he commit his offense after his playing days, even if he would have gambled during his playing days, it would not have INCREASED his stats.

Keeping Rose out of the HOF is a punishment, it's not based on his playing career. At least with McGwire, Bonds, etc. you can somewhat make a case that the only reason they have their numbers is because of what they did (again, I disagree and think that's stupid).

So one more time...

What Rose did was far worse for the integrity of the game.

But what Rose did unquestionably, did not increase his statistics and HOF credentials.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to assert that we had any disagreement about who was worse than whom. It's just that I think yes, Rose's later sins do indeed merit his exclusion and it really is his bad news.

I think you make a convincing argument about playing days vs. non-playing days, but that's Rose's baggage that he decided to manage baseball instead of go into broadcasting or presumably any other upteenth money-making opportunities.

[Mac the Knife]

Good. Get his mess out of the record books and keep him from the hall.

Can we throw that racist prick Cobb out while we're at it? I'd hardly classify Babe Ruth as a good person or role model either. Why is he there?

Because neither Cobb nor Ruth ever violated federal law related to their on-field performances?

I believe some of Cobb's on and off-field actions constitute assault and battery nowadays. Which is also illegal as of last checking.

I guess you missed the last part of Mac's statement.

"In spring training in 1907, Cobb, considered a racist by many, fought a black groundskeeper over the condition of the Tigers' spring training field in Augusta, Ga., and ended up choking the man's wife when she intervened...In New York he went into the stands after a heckling fan called him names. He punched, kicked and stomped the fan, who was missing one hand and part of the other because of a workplace accident."

And this impacted Cobb's on-field performance how, exactly?

[rams80]

I believe the intimidation factor worked for him.

[wdm1219inpenna]

Good. Get his mess out of the record books and keep him from the hall.

Can we throw that racist prick Cobb out while we're at it? I'd hardly classify Babe Ruth as a good person or role model either. Why is he there?

Trying to sweep the steroids era in baseball under the rug by keeping its participants out of the hall does nothing to educate the future generations about the game and its history.

However, said education is the very raison d'etre of the Hall of Fame. So Bonds and his fellow 'roiders should be in the Hall.

While there is no denying that Ty Cobb was racist, rude, and downright mean, and while I do not condone nor justify why he acted as he did, are you familiar with his story? Are you familiar with what happened during his childhood?

Babe Ruth was good in some respects, and very bad in others. He was a womanizer, and had little or no self-control. Again, not to condone nor justify his actions, look upon his childhood. Both players' childhoods are touched upon in Ken Burns' "Baseball". I believe if one takes the time to learn more about these 2 legendary players, one can perhaps begin to better understand why they turned out the way they did.

I do not know the story of Barry Bonds' childhood. I do not know whether he and his father Bobby had a good relationship or a bad one. I do know that Barry often accompanied his dad to games, as I recall Joe Morgan talking about seeing Barry at times during his childhood.

Ruth's personaity was likeable at times, Cobb's and Bonds' perhaps not so much. However, I would have a great deal of difficulty being persuaded that either Ruth or Cobb did anything that was against baseball's rules to inflate their numbers. During the early part of Bonds' career, he was a magnificent player. As Cobb & Ruth aged, their gameplay declined proportionatly so. In Barry Bond's case, he became disproportionately better.

None of these three men belong in the "Good guys" or "Role model" halls of fame but then, which of us does? Frank Sinatra was bossy, egotistical, treated people badly at times. That being said, I think he's one of the most outstanding singers ever, and I love his music for his music. Jim Morrison of The Doors was phenomenal, yet, he hardly led a role model type life. The trouble with our youths is they are unable to separate admiring someone for only their talent vs. having to admire them completely, lock, stock & barrel. Ruth & Cobb played by the rules. They did nothing to enhance their bodies. In fact, if anything, they did things to their bodies that caused them detriment, Cobb was a heavy drinker later in life, but I do not know if he did so during his playing days. Ruth's eating, drinking and carousing habits all should have been far more detrimental to his overall playing ability. Bonds broke the rules, and his personality not withstanding, Barry Bonds and many of his peers of the day, have skewed the record books all for money and glory. Both Ruth & Cobb had their lives end being very sickly. With Bonds doing what he did to his body, there is a very good chance that his health too will decline rapidly.

Ultimately, Cobb & Ruth belong in baseball's hall of fame, because of what they did on the field of play. To suggest removing them because they were "pricks" or not ideal role models is an argument I cannot subscribe to.

[The_Admiral]

And that's why I also think Rose should be in, and why I think it's not even close for him. Because not only did he commit his offense after his playing days, even if he would have gambled during his playing days, it would not have INCREASED his stats.

Keeping Rose out of the HOF is a punishment, it's not based on his playing career. At least with McGwire, Bonds, etc. you can somewhat make a case that the only reason they have their numbers is because of what they did (again, I disagree and think that's stupid).

It's based on his baseball career, though. Joe Torre is going to get in the Hall of Fame as an average player and great manager; Pete Rose is out for being a phenomenal player who, as a manager, broke the cardinal rule. And think of it as a deterrent, in some ways: if you're going to say that gambling and baseball should never meet, you gotta mean it. Mantle and Mays were both banned from baseball for working at a casino, because they had to show they were serious about keeping baseball away from gambling. Of course, that was probably an overreaction becausethey were retired and just greeters or something, and baseball did eventually reinstate them. Pete Rose the person, which is who we're inducting or not inducting here, most certainly called the integrity of the game into question by betting on games. If you can't be sure the games are real, you're nothing. They couldn't do anything less than drop the 2-ton cartoon anvil on him. Plant a seed of doubt in the integrity of the game, you're out for life. I can get behind it.

[HedleyLamarr]

I guess here's my point...

I don't think denying admittance to Cooperstown should be a punishment. If you want to keep Bonds or McGwire out because you think the steroids gave them their HOF numbers, that's one thing (although I, one, disagree, and, two, think that's a stupid approach anyways). But if you want to keep guys out who you believe were HOF-caliber players just to PUNISH them?

Well that's dumb.

And that's why I also think Rose should be in, and why I think it's not even close for him. Because not only did he commit his offense after his playing days, even if he would have gambled during his playing days, it would not have INCREASED his stats.

Keeping Rose out of the HOF is a punishment, it's not based on his playing career. At least with McGwire, Bonds, etc. you can somewhat make a case that the only reason they have their numbers is because of what they did (again, I disagree and think that's stupid).

So one more time...

What Rose did was far worse for the integrity of the game.

But what Rose did unquestionably, did not increase his statistics and HOF credentials.

How else would you punish a guy who placed the integrity of the game into question? Not one player or person is bigger than the game.

There's a reason why Rose has a lifetime ban. No one's doubting his stats and play isn't Hall-worthy. As soon as Rose dies, he'll get into the Hall. He'll just never get the satisfaction of seeing his plaque in Cooperstown.

I am a Cardinal.

[DDR]

I guess here's my point...

I don't think denying admittance to Cooperstown should be a punishment. If you want to keep Bonds or McGwire out because you think the steroids gave them their HOF numbers, that's one thing (although I, one, disagree, and, two, think that's a stupid approach anyways). But if you want to keep guys out who you believe were HOF-caliber players just to PUNISH them?

Well that's dumb.

And that's why I also think Rose should be in, and why I think it's not even close for him. Because not only did he commit his offense after his playing days, even if he would have gambled during his playing days, it would not have INCREASED his stats.

Keeping Rose out of the HOF is a punishment, it's not based on his playing career. At least with McGwire, Bonds, etc. you can somewhat make a case that the only reason they have their numbers is because of what they did (again, I disagree and think that's stupid).

So one more time...

What Rose did was far worse for the integrity of the game.

But what Rose did unquestionably, did not increase his statistics and HOF credentials.

How else would you punish a guy who placed the integrity of the game into question? Not one player or person is bigger than the game.

There's a reason why Rose has a lifetime ban. No one's doubting his stats and play isn't Hall-worthy. As soon as Rose dies, he'll get into the Hall. He'll just never get the satisfaction of seeing his plaque in Cooperstown.

I am a Cardinal.

I'm not so sure about that. Shoeless Joe isn't in there.

[rams80]

I guess here's my point...

I don't think denying admittance to Cooperstown should be a punishment. If you want to keep Bonds or McGwire out because you think the steroids gave them their HOF numbers, that's one thing (although I, one, disagree, and, two, think that's a stupid approach anyways). But if you want to keep guys out who you believe were HOF-caliber players just to PUNISH them?

Well that's dumb.

And that's why I also think Rose should be in, and why I think it's not even close for him. Because not only did he commit his offense after his playing days, even if he would have gambled during his playing days, it would not have INCREASED his stats.

Keeping Rose out of the HOF is a punishment, it's not based on his playing career. At least with McGwire, Bonds, etc. you can somewhat make a case that the only reason they have their numbers is because of what they did (again, I disagree and think that's stupid).

So one more time...

What Rose did was far worse for the integrity of the game.

But what Rose did unquestionably, did not increase his statistics and HOF credentials.

How else would you punish a guy who placed the integrity of the game into question? Not one player or person is bigger than the game.

There's a reason why Rose has a lifetime ban. No one's doubting his stats and play isn't Hall-worthy. As soon as Rose dies, he'll get into the Hall. He'll just never get the satisfaction of seeing his plaque in Cooperstown.

I am a Cardinal.

I'm not so sure about that. Shoeless Joe isn't in there.

And yet Comiskey is. What the hell Veterans Committee?

[The_Admiral]

He can't be all that bad if they named a park after him, right? That's the same case I've been making for Harvey Fenway and yet nobody's listening.

[rangerfan94]

No one had a problem when McGwire and Sosa were chasing 61 did they? Was Mac on the juice then? Sosa? back then it was the best thing for baseball, after baseball screwed the fans.

HOF...Rose, Mac, Bonds, in. This is just my opinion. It may be wrong in others eyes , but to me, these guys should be in.

[The_Admiral]

Keep 'em all out, Sosa too. I feel defrauded by the whole 1998 thing.

Look, we know Pete was a great hitter, but part of his baseball career entailed breaking the one rule they tell you not to break under any circumstances! And then he lied about it till he had a book to sell! Future generations will learn how great Pete Rose was without Cooperstown enshrining him.

[IceCap]

Keep 'em all out, Sosa too. I feel defrauded by the whole 1998 thing.

Look, we know Pete was a great hitter, but part of his baseball career entailed breaking the one rule they tell you not to break under any circumstances! And then he lied about it till he had a book to sell! Future generations will learn how great Pete Rose was without Cooperstown enshrining him.

I agree with all of this.

As for Bonds, no, he shouldn't get in. Why not? Well it has nothing to do with how much of a douche he is. That really doesn't matter. What does matter is what people seem to overlook or forget; that he broke both Federal law and MLB bylaws. That's why he shouldn't get in.

Ty Cobb was a racist asshat and Babe Ruth was overweight. So what? Being a bigot and being fat, while not desirable traits, don't (or didn't at the time in Cobb's case) violate any Federal laws or MLB bylaws. Simple as that.