MLB 09

[KevinG]

Calm down.

 

 

No, it doesn't. It's a game for the best players in the league to exhibit their skills for the pleasure of the audience. It doesn't need to have any contrived larger purpose.

 

I like the All Star Game, now, the players are into it, the fans are into it. If it is meaningless then that goes away, I just don't want to see it turn in to the NFL pro bowl.

 

If it is an exhibition of skill why not do a skills competition? Home Run Derby, Fly Ball catching, whatever.

 

And in a recent interview Bud said it wasn't reactionary, that it had been in the works for a long time to make it mean something. Mostly to the urging of Ron Santo and Hank Aaron.

 

I am not gonna convince anyone of anything. I just like to see a game where the players try. It is unfortunate that the All Star Game needs to mean something to make players try, but that is the way it is.

[bobbob1313]

So the argument isn't 'he knew the rules'? That was my only point.

 

In all honesty, I think rose, bonds and anyone else who has 'tarnished' the game deserves to be recognized if they were a good enough player, especially since many other guys knowingly cheated, lied, and were generally shitty people and are in. It's not an implicit endorsement of their actions, but a recognition of their play.

 

Either way, i think an important question is whether the HoF is going to deny the existence of the steroid era? I'd be very dissapointed if they pretend it didn't exist.

[MattZ]

Either way, i think an important question is whether the HoF is going to deny the existence of the steroid era? I'd be very dissapointed if they pretend it didn't exist.

 

An argument could be made that inducting players like Bonds/Sosa/etc would be a better example of pretending the steroids era didn't exist.

[Lammycat]

Rose, Bonds, etc. are recognized, though. They are in the record books. Nobody is denying them the acknowledgment of what was done on the field (and in people like Bonds' case that's a shame, imo). Just because they aren't (or most likely won't be) in the HoF doesn't mean what they did on the field is ignored.

 

I don't buy the argument that just because other douchebags are in more douchebags should be allowed in. What other guy who bet on the game is in? What other guy who used steroids is in? This ultimately comes down to one side seeing no distinction between cheating, regardless of the level/variance, and the other side making a distinction between forms of cheating. Apparently, the Commissioner's office and most HoF voters tend to make distinctions.

[bobbob1313]

I don't think citing the comissioners office or hall of fame voters is a good point in your favor because those two entities have consistently shown themselves to be, at the very best, dumb, but I suppose that is beside the greater point.

 

I was referring more to the museum part of the hall. When they talk about the 80's and 90's, it will be an absolute travesty if they try to ignore the impact of steroids.

 

And when I bring up past douchebags in the hall, I'm just saying it seems unfair to set this precedent with cheaters now, especially when there is plenty of proof that steroids were being used in baseball as far back as the 1960's, and in the early days there is very little doubt in my mind many, many players were betting on and throwing games.

 

Really, it doesn't matter. If bonds doesn't get in, it will be pretty hypocritical, but it won't affect anything. Most fans don't care about steroid use, or at least not enough to stop

going and watching, so they won't care if steroid users are in the hall, most likely. The people that cover the game have always seemed more concerned about steroid usage, probably because feigning moral indignation is going to get more inches and because they feel the players cheating somehow cheapens the sportswriter's job.

 

I don't know. Put them in, or don't. I feel like there is far too much romanticism of the early days of baseball, and it kind of sucks that the era I grew up watching will be remembered by the old guard of fans as the worst period ever, when it's just a more modern, efficient version of the game that came before it in every way, both good and bad. Keeping mark McGwire out of the hall isn't going to make me feel bad about freaking out when he hit 62.

[Sir Stewart]

I was referring more to the museum part of the hall. When they talk about the 80's and 90's, it will be an absolute travesty if they try to ignore the impact of steroids.

 

They will, I bet. They don't ignore the impact of racism in the past.

[John Smith]

So the argument isn't 'he knew the rules'? That was my only point.

 

In all honesty, I think rose, bonds and anyone else who has 'tarnished' the game deserves to be recognized if they were a good enough player, especially since many other guys knowingly cheated, lied, and were generally shitty people and are in. It's not an implicit endorsement of their actions, but a recognition of their play.

 

Either way, i think an important question is whether the HoF is going to deny the existence of the steroid era? I'd be very dissapointed if they pretend it didn't exist.

 

Part of the argument is that he knew the rules, the other part is that he knew the punishment and did what he did regardless of what he knew. If the punishment is not enforced then what good are the rules in the first place? Sure some less than reputable players are in the hall, Heck Ty Cobb by himself nearly renders any character arguments moot. However he is in, he was not found to be in violation of the one rule to get a player the banishment (though it in hindsight he may have gambled on the game and used his friendship with Landis to stay out of trouble). Others, like Perry, broke minor rules that really have been part of the game, or rather had been. I still remember Rhil Regan getting checked out by the umps constantly, Perry is not the only guy to use spit balls after they were made illegal. But for those rules violations the player gets kicked out of the game, it maybe costs them a win or a little pay. They get caught doing other things and get suspended. But those are the punishments, getting banned is not a punishment for tossing spit, getting banned is the punishment for gambling on baseball.

 

 

I don't think citing the comissioners office or hall of fame voters is a good point in your favor because those two entities have consistently shown themselves to be, at the very best, dumb, but I suppose that is beside the greater point.

 

I was referring more to the museum part of the hall. When they talk about the 80's and 90's, it will be an absolute travesty if they try to ignore the impact of steroids.

 

And when I bring up past douchebags in the hall, I'm just saying it seems unfair to set this precedent with cheaters now, especially when there is plenty of proof that steroids were being used in baseball as far back as the 1960's, and in the early days there is very little doubt in my mind many, many players were betting on and throwing games.

 

Really, it doesn't matter. If bonds doesn't get in, it will be pretty hypocritical, but it won't affect anything. Most fans don't care about steroid use, or at least not enough to stop

going and watching, so they won't care if steroid users are in the hall, most likely. The people that cover the game have always seemed more concerned about steroid usage, probably because feigning moral indignation is going to get more inches and because they feel the players cheating somehow cheapens the sportswriter's job.

 

I don't know. Put them in, or don't. I feel like there is far too much romanticism of the early days of baseball, and it kind of sucks that the era I grew up watching will be remembered by the old guard of fans as the worst period ever, when it's just a more modern, efficient version of the game that came before it in every way, both good and bad. Keeping mark McGwire out of the hall isn't going to make me feel bad about freaking out when he hit 62.

 

The hall may or may not make note of the cheaters. Time will tell since this is still a developing issue. Just because there is not a roid exhibit today does not mean one will not be there in 5 – 10 years (I was there a month ago and no such exhibit was present). Even if there were an exhibit the hall would be hard pressed because I doubt they would attach any players names to the exhibit for liability reasons.

[bobbob1313]

This is probably gonna go the same route as the steroid discusions of the past, and I'm sure nobody wants to read that again.

[Sir Stewart]

This is probably gonna go the same route as the steroid discusions of the past, and I'm sure nobody wants to read scroll past all that again.

[bobbob1313]

The red sox suck and get too much time on espn.

 

!

[Lammycat]

This is probably gonna go the same route as the steroid discusions of the past, and I'm sure nobody wants to read that again.

 

I don't mind these discussions at all and find merit in them but they apparently annoy some folks. I'd be glad to talk this stuff (history, HoF, steroids, etc.) in a break-out thread. I bet a few others wouldn't mind, either.

[bobbob1313]

I don't mind these discussions at all and find merit in them but they apparently annoy some folks. I'd be glad to talk this stuff (history, HoF, steroids, etc.) in a break-out thread. I bet a few others wouldn't mind, either.

 

you and I seem to be alone in finding these discussions interesting, though whenever we discuss steroids we always do get a rare cryptique post in the MLB thread.

[The High Heat]

You're describing the arc of Major League Baseball, not just the All-Star Game. Baseball, for a number of reasons, got more interesting as the century turned. The decision to make the ASG 'count' was reactionary and short-sighted and it needs to be reversed.

Me thinks Bud was a wee bit embarassed the tie game happened in Milwaukee.

 

-I had the unfortunate displeasure to have Gaylord Perry come to my high school 20 years ago to share his baseball stories and sign autographs. He used stories that actually happened to some Yankee players in the 50's or '60's, placing himself in Billy Martin's role; then he signed cards without looking any one of us in the eye. The guy is a bullshit artist. I've never liked him, but I think his reputation as a cheater has probably been blown way out of proportion. He didn't use the spitball as much as we've been led to believe. He didn't win over 300 games without knowing how to pitch.

 

-Pete Rose was no athlete. He was a baseball player, and a true difference maker on the field. His teams were winners, and alot of credit has to go to Rose for his sheer will and tenacity to control a game. To me, that alone is as amazing as any athletic ability any "stud" player can demonstrate. Plus, he did it for more than two decades. Take a look at his stats. The at bats, hits and run totals are mind-blowing. He holds the record for records held! My family is from SW Ohio, so I grew up a fan of The Big Red Machine. I honestly did not want to believe Rose had bet on baseball for the first few years of his suspension. Whatever doubt I had about his innocence was wiped clean when I was in Cooperstown for the HOF inductions of Carlton Fisk, Tony Perez and Sparky Anderson. Right after the induction ceremony Pete Rose was a block away from the HOF on the street in front of a sponsoring memorabilia store hawking his autograph for $40. I knew right then and there he was guilty. I wanted to walk up behind him and smack right up the backside of his arrogant head (and I coulda - he was right there exposed). He'd been saying for years all he wanted was for Perez to get his day and that he (Rose) wasn't concerned about his HOF status, yet there he was on Tony and Sparky's well-earned day of glory capitalizing on all the Reds fans in town. At that point it was "Fuck every ounce of him," and I still to this day have that attitude towards him. I don't want Rose so much as doing advance scout work, but as a player Pete Rose does deserve a spot in the Hall, unless it can be proven his gambling on the game of baseball was happening during his playing days. So far that has not even been insinuated.

[Lammycat]

I don't want Rose so much as doing advance scout work, but as a player Pete Rose does deserve a spot in the Hall, unless it can be proven his gambling on the game of baseball was happening during his playing days. So far that has not even been insinuated.

“Any player, umpire or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one (1) year.

Any player, umpire or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."

Not sure where the gray area is. The HoF (and baseball, for that matter) owes nothing to Rose.

[Guest Jules]

-Pete Rose was no athlete. He was a baseball player, and a true difference maker on the field. His teams were winners, and alot of credit has to go to Rose for his sheer will and tenacity to control a game. To me, that alone is as amazing as any athletic ability any "stud" player can demonstrate.

Umm, no.

 

Is "will and tenacity" similar to "fire and passion"?

[The High Heat]

Umm, no.

 

Is "will and tenacity" similar to "fire and passion"?

 

Sure it's similar, but Pete's competitiveness was relentless (from ST to the last pitch of the year, he was non-stop gaining an edge on the rest of the field), which, of course, is what brought him down. Have you ever heard Mike Schmidt telling the difference Pete made to both Schmidt's career and to the Phillies rise from division winner to World Champs? He says neither happens without the prescence of Pete Rose.

 

And no, the HOF doesn't OWE Rose a spot, but he did earn one ~ as a player. I'm quite sure he'll never get it, and that does not bother me.

[Guest Jules]

Have you ever heard Mike Schmidt telling the difference Pete made to both Schmidt's career and to the Phillies rise from division winner to World Champs? He says neither happens without the prescence of Pete Rose.

Because of his competitiveness, or because he was really good at baseball?

[MattZ]

both?

[The High Heat]

both?

 

You got it. While other players got tired or hurt, Pete was on it. Every pitch, every play, every second, Pete Rose was ready to take advantage of ANY opportunity to get ahead of the competion. They didn't call him "Charlie Hustle" because he could dance.

[The High Heat]

Here's a refreshing story: Clay Zavada

[Lammycat]

And no, the HOF doesn't OWE Rose a spot, but he did earn one ~ as a player. I'm quite sure he'll never get it, and that does not bother me.

 

He certainly did earn it but he also certainly lost the privelage to be considered due to his subsequent actions. The onus is on Rose, not the HOF.

[The High Heat]

He certainly did earn it but he also certainly lost the privelage to be considered due to his subsequent actions. The onus is on Rose, not the HOF.

 

Absolutely.

[The High Heat]

Sox cut Lugo.

[John Smith]

-Pete Rose was no athlete. He was a baseball player, and a true difference maker on the field.

 

While I agree with the second two statements I have to vehemently disagree with the first one. Rose was as good of an athlete as there was during his era. You don’t play 7 of 9 positions at an all-star level throughout your career because you hustle and have more heart than the next guy, you do it because you are a great athlete. Yes Rose hustled, but in comparison to the players of his day he was a good athlete. Was he as good a pure athlete as Al Oliver or Dave Winfield? Probably not. But he was well above the average.

[The High Heat]

While I agree with the second two statements I have to vehemently disagree with the first one. Rose was as good of an athlete as there was during his era. You don’t play 7 of 9 positions at an all-star level throughout your career because you hustle and have more heart than the next guy, you do it because you are a great athlete. Yes Rose hustled, but in comparison to the players of his day he was a good athlete. Was he as good a pure athlete as Al Oliver or Dave Winfield? Probably not. But he was well above the average.

 

True, but his assests were more along the lines of endurance, hand-eye cooirdination and dexterity rather than the tradtional speed and strength skills. With all things being equal the average baseball player could out-run, out-power Rose; but the difference with Pete Rose was determination. "You're not going to beat me. In the end, I will win," was pretty much his mindset. That stubborness to beat the odds led to his downfall.