it is also of no benefit for the Rose family. If Pete actively tried to stop the investigation then I doubt he or his family would want that. And the HOF should not consider rose for the HOF without completing that investigation. At this point the family’s best interest is to protect his legacy as a snubbed hero versus a shrine that tells the full story.

My point isn’t to say this is practical. But for those demanding he be in the hall, the comeback should be that it is contingent on completing an investigation neither party wants to complete.

Lately? It's been that from the start. The agreement he signed was to be made "permanently ineligible." He's been on the same list as the Black Sox from the beginning.

In 2015, Manfred declined a request to remove Shoeless Joe from the list. Essentially he said that the ineligible list bans players from being affiliated with MLB during their life time, so when they die there is no need to review the case against them. Rose is never being removed from that list. And since the HoF voted that anyone on the list will be subsequently banned from the HoF, he's also never getting into the HoF.

Baseball can suck a booty hole with their ridiculous lifetime ban shit over a game that they allowed to let roids run wild and free and did nothing. They knew it was happening. Players don't even lose money when suspended over it, just sign huge, guaranteed contracts.

Baseball lost any respect they had left when they banned him, Bonds, and Clemens from the Hall. Hypocritical pieces of shit.

Boom!

Bonds and Clemens have never been banned.

They also don’t have any incomplete investigations. Not to mention formally agreed to a ban since rose, not Major League Baseball, chose the ban.

Correct. The reason those 2 are not in the HOF is that there are not enough voters that believe they are deserving.

You know what I meant...JFC

Well, you say a lot of stupid shit, so when you connect Rose to Bonds and Clemens as if they are remotely similar situations, it's not easy to determine if you are just being stupid... again.

Players get 10 years on the ballot, provided they meet the minimum number of votes to return in following years. The people who decide who gets in during those 10 years are sports writers, not MLB. Bonds received 66% of votes in his final year, Clemens received 65%. 75% is required to make it into the HoF. Thus, neither one is in the HoF. However, there is still a chance that they will end up in the HoF by being voted in by the Veterans Committee.

Rose has never been on a ballot because he agreed to be banned from the sport for breaking the #1 rule that is written in every ****ing locker room.

Baseball writers who vote on the Hall of Fame is the biggest group of bundle of sticks in the world. Those pecker heads are stuck on themselves like no other group.

Curt Schilling says hi.

Okay - but it's not really a distinction without a difference.

You can't blame "Baseball" writ large because the BBWAA decided not to vote any of those guys in. They have remained eligible and the HoF voters haven't selected them.

And as Frazod noted, nor have they selected Curt Schilling for petty personal reasons.

I'll never have a positive word to say about the BBWAA, but I don't think you can castigate 'baseball' as an entity because of their actions.

Right.

'Baseball' is the reason Rose never got in. Honestly, I think the BBWAA would've put him in had he actually been on the ballot (because the hero worship among men of a particular age for Pete Rose simply knows no bounds; it's positively Bruce Springsteen-esque).

But the BBWAA decided not to put those other guys in on their own. And many of them DID vote for them and suffered no negative repercussions for it, so it's not as though Bud Selig was back there threatening to pull their credentials or anything.

'Baseball' isn't why those guys didn't make it. Baseball writers are.

Taking a beating, peej. What you got to say for yourself?

Curt schilling is probably a bubble hall of famer. So there could be a merit argument here. But a lot of his case seems personal which is dumb

But if there was ever a true snub this is probably it because he is probably being blackballed for his opinions versus conduct.

There's nothing 'bubble' about Schilling's case.

It's as good or better than Verlanders and he'll get in first ballot. He has more WAR than any pitcher eligible for the Hall who isn't in by a LOT. Kevin Brown is in 2nd and has 68 to Schilling's 80 (and Brown was also an asshole).

That's a massive gap. Meanwhile Jim Palmer, Smoltz, Glavine, Kaat, Morris and a slew of others are in and those guys had nowhere near the career of Schilling. At least Brown's 68 is below the average HoFer's 73, but Schilling's sure as hell isn't. And we're not talking about Schilling vs. the worst HoFer - that's the AVERAGE. He's clearly better than the middle of the pack HoFer -- by any definition that's not a bubble guy.

Oh, and he was a MONSTER in the post-season. 10-1 with an ERA of 2.23 and the 2001 World Series MVP (1993 NLCS MVP as well).

He's above the average HoFer in black ink and gray ink standards and WRECKS the HoF monitor (a 171 w/ a 'likely' HoFer set at 100). He has the peak, the duration and the post-season accolades to stand up to anyone short of maybe the 10-15 best pitchers to ever live.

No, there's nothing borderline or bubble about Schilling's HoF candidacy. He's a guy that probably should've gone in 1st ballot and definitely by the 3-5 range.

The BBWAA didn't let him in because they're petty bitches.

I don’t disagree with you but fair or not, wins and ERA are the shiny object lots of people attach themselves to. But yes I agree he absolutely belongs and unlike drugs or gambling, schilling is being blackballed simply because there are sportswriters who don’t like him which is a horseshit reason

No baseball player is in Springsteen's league. In fact, Springsteen should be in the baseball hall of fame on pure principle.

Springsteen is more overrated than Pete Rose.

I'll never forgive him for trying to pass a kidney stone during "We Are the World"

And...well...pretty much every other song he ever 'sang' for that matter.

Somehow he reached deity status when John Cougar Mellencamp is better in every possible way.

Frankly, I think they both suck.

Y'know what? I'll allow it.

I can't agree, but I can understand the thought.

I just cannot wrap my head around the idea that Bruce Springsteen is amazing in any way.

Born to Run - good song. Born in the USA - banger; make it the National Anthem for all I care.

The rest is junk. Why I am supposed to be amazed by Thunder Road? Badlands? Dude just sounds like lounge singer with a guitar in that song. In fact, in most of his songs he sounds like he's ripping off Elvis.

And frankly it just goes downhill from there. Racing in the Street? "Hey, what if I took a Jackson Browne song and made it worse in every way?" The River is just Bob Dylan if he had a stroke (though in fairness, Bob Dylan kinda sounds like he had a stroke anyway).

Ugh. I don't get the fascination at all.

**** Springsteen. I'll never understand the fascination with that overrated turd.

New York! He struck a cord with NY club scene and the critics picked up on it. Rolling Stone magazine then picked up on it and canonized him.

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

That they have made Nebraska this great album is laughable. I'm sad to say I bought that pos.

Sent from my SM-G986U1 using Tapatalk

You guys clearly don't understand the journey of the American lower economic class male and the tragedy of living in the country with the greatest opportunities on earth when you don't have the ability to capitalize on those opportunities. That, and Cadillac Ranch really rocks.

What's Chris LeDoux have to do with this?

This ****ing guy….

Polarizing as it gets.

This thread of simply RIP….

Bob Costas said it yesterday…. If you’ve got a slow day on radio, just beg the question of Pete Rose and the HOF, and you’ll get lit up …

Everyone has their opinion.

The HOF gets a lot of things wrong. The writers get a lot of things wrong.

In 2006? The writers voted in Negro league players, executives, others, but no Buck O’Neil. It was egregious. And Buck spoke in Cooperstown upon his invite.

Pete would never be that gracious in a million years. Buck was magnanimous, Pete was not.

Pete and Paul Giammati, and MLB bent over backwards for Pete. He signed his own fate, and I guarantee the ugly stuff about Pete is likely NOTHING compared to the sealed reports that Pete never wanted public, probably lead to him gambling a LOT, on his team, against his team, young girls he was ****ing, the mob, bad bets, and he’s lucky he only went to prison for tax evasion.

That’s your hero?

Oh, and then he decides to live in Las Vegas and make every trip to Cooperstown and set up a table to autograph baseballs.

Dude is trash. But RIP

Rose was a waste of oxygen.

All true. BUT, he was an all time great at playing baseball. IMO, Pete belongs in the HOF - TRASH HUMAN and all.
He paid his dues in that now that he is gone, IF voted in, he will never know it.
I get the argument for banning him forever, though. I really don't care either way. Just giving my opinion on the matter.

As long as Shoeless Joe Jackson stays out of the HoF because of the Black Sox Scandal, Pete Rose shouldn't even be considered.

And in my opinion, both of them being banned from the HoF in essence is part of the story of baseball due to the Black Sox Scandal and how baseball had to develop a hard-line "No leniency" stance against gambling. Neither of them should be in the Hall because of how baseball had to have that hard-line stance against gambling for the sanctity of the game due to such.

Remember: This isn't someone betting on other games, Pete Rose bet on his own games (This is 100% definitive). In no way is that okay, and is only amplified by the early history of baseball and that culture already developed within the league. He played in a league that held this stance. He knew the rules. This is the punishment. His legacy SHOULD be forever tarnished because of such, and this is how that's done.

Yeah, there is a clear hierarchy. Betting at all (Ridley), betting on your own sport, betting on your team to win, throwing games or purposefully tanking (Jontay porter). In that order.

Pete and shoeless Joe fall into that last category. Pete would unstack games he didn’t bet on to stack the games he bet on. Shoeless Joe tanked playoff games in high leverage situations and played like a hall of famer in situations that didn’t matter

I'll never understand the argument that Shoeless Joe only did good when it didn't matter. You'll point to his RBI's in the final game after Lefty Williams blew the game in the top of the 1st because he and his family were threatened the day before. What AB was available to him to take when it mattered?

The ones where Chicago hadn't been paid and decided they were going to win.

The differences were stark. He knew when he could turn it on and when he couldn't.

No XBH with runners on until Game 8. A .545 BA with 6 RBI in the games where the players had abandoned the fix. 0-6 w/ RISP in games known to be fixed. In those games he hit .250 w/ zero RBI (until game 5 when he got his first RBI when they were down 10-1).

And again, he admitted he took money and admitted he threw games 2 and 3 in his grand jury testimony.

Was he the driving force behind the decision to throw games? No, I don't think so (that was almost certainly Gandil, Cicotte and Risberg). But was he their best player and did he participate in the fix? Oh absolutely and by his own admission.

Jackson got what he deserved. Buck Weaver might've gotten screwed. And at least Gandil, to his credit, took his medicine. He expressed remorse and conceded that they deserved to be banned.

No. The guy said "he can throw that speedball by you..."

Who the **** calls a fastball a speedball? Fraud.

I have no idea why no one else in the band corrected him on that. Did none of them ever play any sports?

I'm not disagreeing with the ban. I'm just saying that if the argument is purely performance based, thats a tough sell for me. Even batters that aren't throwing games fail 70-80% of the time.

It's been awhile since I went through his testimony because I really dont care, but the gist was that he knew of it and went along with it (which to me doesn't really admit guilt in throwing games, just that he didn't object to the plan). When he was specifically asked about his personal involvement he did not admit to doing anything other than playing to win games.

The most damning thing he said was that he took $5k, even though it was basically forced on him by Williams. Once you do that you kind of have to ban him because of reasonable doubt.