Baseball Thread

As a non-baseball fan I'm curious what the takes of actual baseball fans are about this. Based on the description of the article, I don't think they should have been unbanned. Cheaters always gonna cheat. Roids I can understand. Corking I can understand. Trying to get a competitive advantage over the other party by any means necessary is simply being too competitive. It seems to me that that match fixing is probably one of the worst sins you can do in a competitive environment. Its not competitive, its anti-competitive. Betting on games is a conflict of interest too, its adjacent to match fixing.

Also don't get me wrong I enjoy going out to watch a game with friends on occasion I just don't follow the game closely at all.
The mythology around Shoeless Joe is that he was the one player that actually didn't cheat if I call correctly.
 
As a non-baseball fan I'm curious what the takes of actual baseball fans are about this. Based on the description of the article, I don't think they should have been unbanned.

There's lots of layers to the Pete Rose saga.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump announced he planned to posthumously pardon Rose. "Over the next few weeks I will be signing a complete PARDON of Pete Rose, who shouldn't have been gambling on baseball, but only bet on HIS TEAM WINNING," Trump wrote on social media Feb. 28.

Trump didn't say what the pardon would cover. Rose served five months in federal prison for submitting falsified tax returns in 1990.

First off, he got the kiss of death from Trump. Baseball these days is incredibly pozzed, especially the baseball writers, but also a lot of the owners and the officials.

Trump’s support alone probably costs Rose much support & many votes.

Giamatti had said Rose's only path back into the game was to "reconfigure his life," a not-so-subtle hint that if Rose continued to bet on baseball, he had no shot to return.

Only eight days after announcing the ban, Giamatti died of a heart attack at 51. His deputy and successor, Fay Vincent, adamantly opposed Rose's reinstatement -- both during his tenure as commissioner (until 1992) and until his death three months ago at age 86.

Then there’s the intrigue that the commissioner that banned him, Bart Giamatti (actor Paul Giamatti's father) died suddenly in office a week after banning Rose.

So it sort ot became a thing that none of his successors wanted to touch the issue because the OG commissioner's plan or road to redemption never happened.

Rose and Jackson's candidacies presumably will be decided by the Hall's 16-member Classic Baseball Era Committee, which considers players whose careers ended more than 15 years ago. The committee isn't scheduled to meet again until December 2027. Rose and Jackson would need 12 of 16 votes to win induction.

It's going to be a tall order for Rose to get 75% of the vote on a closed-door committee full of baseball nepotism apparatchiks.

Rose certainly has the stats to get in, but so much of the Hall of Fame selection process has become whether the baseball world likes you or not.

Curt Schilling missed election a few years back simply because he's an asshole Republican that tanked a Rhode Island MMORPG studio and called for sports journos to be hung. Barry Bonds, the HR king, was shut out because he was gruff with the media and teammates and did roids in an era where the entire industry turned their heads the other way. Roger Clemens for very similar reasons (though he also committed statutory rape on an up&coming country singer that later roped herself). Trevor Bauer is blackballed currently by all 30 MLB teams because he's Republican & called out the league on allowing pitchers to abuse sticky stuff substances.


In 2017, a woman's sworn statement accused Rose of statutory rape; she said they began having sex when she was 14 or 15 and Rose was in his 30s. Rose said he thought she was 16, the age of consent in Ohio at the time. Two days later, the Phillies announced the cancellation of Rose's Wall of Fame induction.

Like Clemens (and Bauer), this was a much later #MeToo thing showing he was probably a scum bag.

But it will also be used by his haters to retcon why he shouldn't be in the Hall now that he is unbanned.

-------------

Personally, I think both Rose & Shoeless Jackson should be in the Hall since I think it should be purely about objective baseball accomplishments & not about projecting morality on these legends, particularly in fake & ghey Current Year.

I don't think Rose will get in. Most people don't remember his playing days anymore, if they did they probably remember him hanging around too long as a shitty player/manager. He wasn't well liked and that's all most will remember these days.

I know less about Shoeless Joe, but being so ancient probably helps him more than Rose. No one actually remembers what happened, so apocryphal tales win the day.

For years, people have pointed out online that he still posted a ridiculous slash line in the series he supposedly threw.

Things like Ray Liotta's sympathetic depiction in Kevin Costner's Field of Dreams will probably have more of an impact on his chances than the actual facts from a century ago.

kevin-costner-ray-liotta-0568bddb048449c79b25480d2a807adb.webp
 
As a non-baseball fan I'm curious what the takes of actual baseball fans are about this. Based on the description of the article, I don't think they should have been unbanned. Cheaters always gonna cheat. Roids I can understand. Corking I can understand. Trying to get a competitive advantage over the other party by any means necessary is simply being too competitive. It seems to me that that match fixing is probably one of the worst sins you can do in a competitive environment. Its not competitive, its anti-competitive. Betting on games is a conflict of interest too, its adjacent to match fixing.

Also don't get me wrong I enjoy going out to watch a game with friends on occasion I just don't follow the game closely at all.
There’s been new research to suggest that Shoeless Joe may not have actually thrown the world series, this explains it in way more detail. There’s just so much going on with it and the further back you look the worse anything baseball related is archived, so there’s certainly room for speculation.

https://sabr.org/journal/article/an...s-public-statements-on-the-black-sox-scandal/

 
Betting on games is a conflict of interest too, its adjacent to match fixing.
I used to think like Trump and say, "Well, if he only ever bet on his team to win, then what's the big deal?" I still think that's borderline* for a player, but Rose was a player/manager. His managerial decisions would have been inevitably tainted by knowing he had money on the line. Pitcher complaining about a little twinge in his throwing arm while nursing a one-run lead in the 8th? Eh - see if you can finish it out for us. And then that twinge turns into significant pain that turns into surgery, and you've derailed a player's career because you had $500 riding on the game.

* I still think it falls on the wrong side of the border, but not as far as a manager betting on a game. Similar to the above, if you believe your replacement will not be able to help win games as well as you could, you may withhold disclosing a minor injury that turns into a major one. And if you were right about your replacement (and Rose almost certainly would have been correct there), you've just hurt your whole team's chances while you recover.
 
Last edited:
As a non-baseball fan I'm curious what the takes of actual baseball fans are about this. Based on the description of the article, I don't think they should have been unbanned. Cheaters always gonna cheat. Roids I can understand. Corking I can understand. Trying to get a competitive advantage over the other party by any means necessary is simply being too competitive. It seems to me that that match fixing is probably one of the worst sins you can do in a competitive environment. Its not competitive, its anti-competitive. Betting on games is a conflict of interest too, its adjacent to match fixing.

Also don't get me wrong I enjoy going out to watch a game with friends on occasion I just don't follow the game closely at all.
In Rose's case, there was never any evidence of fixing it; he was just betting on games as the Manager of the Reds. A massive no-no. He absolutely deserved to be punished, but the whole "banned from being voted into the HOF" was something the MLB and the MLBHOF concocted a year after Rose was put on the MLB ineligible list. It was called in the press "The Pete Rose Rule", and although the HOF and MLB denied it, it was hard to argue. And now that Rose is dead, both are deemed no longer ineligible?

What gets my goat, in Shoeless Joe's case, while banned from baseball, he was always eligible for the HOF...until Rose was banned, because they knew Rose would absolutely have been voted in which I believe would have been about another year or so after he was initially banned, and they wanted to rake him over the coals as much as possible. Mostly due to the MLB blaming him for Bart Giamatti's (MLB commish during the Rose scandal) death. Rose dug his own grave when he started betting on baseball, but the MLB has been very, very petty over this issue, IMO.
 
It's kinda the accepted theory that Joe was scapegoated as the face of the team who had a pretty bad world series. He'll likely get in if only as a nod and a back pat to the historian friends of the writers who make up the classic voting shit.

Pete on the other hand was one million percent guilty as shit. If it goes to the writers he has a 50/50 chance of getting in. A lot of the dumb shit writers are ardent Rose supporters who won't shut the fuck up about Pete Fucking Rose. However, the media hates Trump with a burning passion so there might be some spite votes in. Also given that he was largely just a guy who 'got hits' and was middling to bad at the rest of baseball doesn't help, but Frank Thomas is in the Hall of Fame and he was a very inconsistent power hitter with nothing else going for him. So who the fuck knows. My dad called it the Hall of Allstars and refused to ever mention it again when Ken Griffey Jr didn't get 100% of the vote, but Mariano Rivera did. I think that may have been what killed him actually and he was a Yankees fan.
 
If they're gonna let gambling-nigger corpos and smartphone app bookies into the game like all the big 4 sports have, it's the right call to exonerate Charlie Hustle now that they're gonna look like a hypocrite if they don't. And not a single soul believes Shoeless Joe was match-fixing with a slashline of .375/.394/.563.

My point with hypocrisy is because Manfred is currently going with a 'if this thing was exceptional during the era, that's when we'll bring down the hammer' doctrine. That's why the Astros got a slap on the wrist and got to keep their ring: if they had to investigate twenty other teams using technology to steal signs like that's gonna help them hit prime Jacob DeGrom, the league's reputation will be destroyed.

This doctrine does not extend to the BBWAA whose septuagenarian average membership will probably take a couple more decades before they're replaced by younger voters who would be open to apply the same doctrine and give roid-heads like Manny, Pettite, and A-Rod a pass.

And I personally believe they should give it to em. Unlike match-fixing, the Steroid Era actually contributed to the fun of the game with all these cartoonishly large men sending balls ten area codes away or being walked and having to waddle around the base paths with the speed of a mobility scooter. Their normalcy in the game also added to the mythology of non-roid players like Ken Griffey Jr., Ichiro, and Pedro Martinez.
 
but Frank Thomas is in the Hall of Fame and he was a very inconsistent power hitter with nothing else going for him.

Thomas was a career .301 hitter with 521 HRs, was 56% better than league average offensively for his career and finished with 200+ more walks than Ks (which I never would've guessed before looking it up, unheard of for modern sluggers).

He did have zero baserunning or defensive value, but it's hard to find a more well-rounded offensive player.

I'm sure there are some one-dimensional sluggers in the Hall that aren't deserving (though I struggle to think of any - Harold Baines? Dave Parker?), but Thomas certainly isn't one of them.
 
Thomas was a career .301 hitter with 521 HRs, was 56% better than league average offensively for his career and finished with 200+ more walks than Ks (which I never would've guessed before looking it up, unheard of for modern sluggers).

He did have zero baserunning or defensive value, but it's hard to find a more well-rounded offensive player.

I'm sure there are some one-dimensional sluggers in the Hall that aren't deserving (though I struggle to think of any - Harold Baines? Dave Parker?), but Thomas certainly isn't one of them.
Yeah, looking back at his stats his offensive work is good. I think it's just might be my inherit hatred of anything connected to Hawk Harrelson, and his absurdly stupid homerisms way back when. So I'll apologize for the Frank hate.
 
Yeah, looking back at his stats his offensive work is good. I think it's just might be my inherit hatred of anything connected to Hawk Harrelson, and his absurdly stupid homerisms way back when. So I'll apologize for the Frank hate.

I experienced Frank Thomas near the end of his career with Toronto in the aughts.

In his one good season before being cut, he was widely hated by the commoners because he got on base too much and "clogged them up" for the rest of his shitty teammates that followed.

-----------------

Screenshot_20250514-103832_Brave.webp
Archive

From the Jays subreddit.

I realize Redditors aren't the same as Voting Members of MLB HoF Selection Committees, but it's a good example of the uphill battle Rose faces.

Includes:
- "SA Trigger Warning"
- only a single word reference to the "gambling" crime he was banned for
- immediate goalpost shifting to allegations of sleeping with a 14 y/o teen in his 30s over 40 years ago (with the #MeToo allegation not surfacing until 2017)
- Rose calling some female beat reporter "Babe" put on the same level as statutory rape
- reference to "Mango Mussolini" pressuring Manfred to reinstate Rose
- leftist REEEing about being tired Boss, screaming, clapping out "Predator"
- impuning Rose's character with a "When did you stop hitting your wife, sir?" request from an opposing attorney when Rose declined to provide a complete list of anyone under 18 he ever fucked

There's enough smoke there to suggest Rose is probably a scumbag. But also note that "gambling" is mentioned once, his baseball accomplishments not at all, but the rest is a whole bunch of sexual innuendo & character assassination.
 
Last edited:
It's kinda the accepted theory that Joe was scapegoated as the face of the team who had a pretty bad world series. He'll likely get in if only as a nod and a back pat to the historian friends of the writers who make up the classic voting shit.

Pete on the other hand was one million percent guilty as shit. If it goes to the writers he has a 50/50 chance of getting in. A lot of the dumb shit writers are ardent Rose supporters who won't shut the fuck up about Pete Fucking Rose. However, the media hates Trump with a burning passion so there might be some spite votes in. Also given that he was largely just a guy who 'got hits' and was middling to bad at the rest of baseball doesn't help, but Frank Thomas is in the Hall of Fame and he was a very inconsistent power hitter with nothing else going for him. So who the fuck knows. My dad called it the Hall of Allstars and refused to ever mention it again when Ken Griffey Jr didn't get 100% of the vote, but Mariano Rivera did. I think that may have been what killed him actually and he was a Yankees fan.
Based on the links provided upthread by @five of em, Joe may or may not have tried his hardest to win, but at the minimum, how I read it, absolutely was in on the fix and was salty that he didn't get all the $$ he was promised.

While I agree 100% that Pete was guilty of betting on baseball and deserved getting banned from the game, I disagree on your assertion that Pete was just a "basehitter". In his prime years, he had good pop in his bat, and if he chose to, could have been a consistent 20-25 homer a year type. He was a doubles machine, even during his past prime years (Phillies run). And he was always solid in the field no matter where you put him (with the possible exception of 2nd base). And speaking of his run with the Phillies, Mike Schmidt credits Pete with turning him into the player he needed to be to carry the Phillies to a WS win in 1980 and a WS appearance in 83

I think those who detract from Pete as a player are giving too much weight to his post Phillies career, where other than 85, he was pretty dismal. He should have retired after the Phils released him in 83, and if not for Marge Schott, owner of the Reds, it's a virtual guarantee he wouldn't have made it past the 1984 season.
 
This isn't enough of a hill for me to die on so I'll drop it, but if he doesn't get voted in just compare his runs, and RBIs to Will Clark. He had nearly a decade longer career and only had 900 more runs and 100 something more RBI's on 2000+ more hits than Will and Will didn't get in. I will acknowledge that it wasn't his fault that the Reds and Philies weren't very good at getting him home, but he didn't help matters by being bad at stealing bases. He was caught nearly as much as he was successful.

Like it or not most writers aren't old enough to remember when he was playing at his peak. They look at his stats and see that the majority of his hits either left him on first with a thumb up his ass or trying to steal 2nd and getting caught 42% of the time.
 
Not even God Himself could save the White Sox. I do appreciate that the new Pope is a Real Ball Knower, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom