Hall of Fame Ballot

After seeing Druids recent post it showed me strecher is still up to his antics. I've had to use the foe feature for the first time in my entire history of this online game because strecher either does not understand the definition of opinion or can not handle his opinion not being treated as the definitive opinion. Then resorts to disrespect and attempts at belittling people. I'm surprised Strat allows strecher to continue his reckless, disrespectful ways of dealing with people that are simply trying to contribute different points of view on a given topic. I guess only a shrink would be able to understand this type of behavior disorder.

Druid claims they got caught gambling as managers. Apparently, the evidence against Speaker and Cobb hasn't been convincing. If somebody does provide such substantial evidence, then they, too, should be barred.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePQ ... sp=sharing
[url][/url]

The above is a 2005 article from NINE: A Journal of Baseball History and Culture that lays out the facts that Cobb and Speaker were more than likely guilty. In any event, it makes for fun reading.

Bill

Speaker and Cobb DID get 'caught' gambling. [ie. There was enough smoke around the issue that they were called into Judge Landis' office, given a talking to, and released from their teams- this is why Cobb went to the A's and Speaker to the team he went to].

Rose more than likely started betting on baseball while still a player. Gambling(to the extent Rose gambled) is a very slippery slope. I base this statement solely on Joe Morgans relationship with Rose while on the Phillies- he stayed away from him- which tells me Rose was not in a good way or with good company.

I LOVE Rose's ethic as a player, he absolutely made his teams better. His switch to 3rd base is totally underrated and his stats relative to the era in which he played were phenomenal.

Joe Jackson WAS amazing. 3rd highest lifetime average.

All those steroid players were great. I rooted for all of them at one point or another.

There should never be a question about whether a game is on the level. If a player's actions even raise the question, they should be gone. This is why McGuire cried, he gets it, and he's gone.

Those that say the selection and omission is subjective AND erratically implemented are correct. The decision about who gets in and who stays out is extremely flawed.

But NONE of those guys(Rose, Jackson,the Steroid crew) should go into the Hall.

Of all these characters, I think Pete Rose knows this the best.

Baseball should be better. These guys tarnished the game. Their legacy should be tarnished. Forever.

Firstly I have to say, it's very lame that Badjam didn't even read my posts, but still made personal attacks on me about them. That's not what educated grown-ups do. Secondly, that's exacerbated by his relying on Druid, whose first post to me was disrespectful, reckless, and used abusive language forbidden by the forum. I guess only a shrink could understand Badjam's behavior disorder.

Secondly, as I said in my passage George quoted, I am completely fine with Cobb and Speaker being barred from the Hall of Fame if Baseball deems their gambling worthy of such disbarment. I also correctly said such an action doesn't exculpate Rose. It would merely give him two "companions" in his sordid managerial activity meriting disbarment.

Finally, I have to say it is nice to discuss the matter with grownups who don't have to rely on playground vulgarity and hostility. We are discussing Pete Rose here, not something controversial or significantly weighty like abortion or the death penalty. There is no reason our disagreements can't be civil.


P.s. CTStough, if the selection process/committee has made judgments--such as the Rose and Jackson ones--you significantly agree with, you can't condemn it as extremely flawed and erratically implemented. Partially subjective, flawed, and at times erratic, yes, but "extremely flawed" and "erratically implemented," no. It clearly shares your and my feelings about Rose's "place" in the HOF. So, you have to give it credit for having its moral compass pointed in the right direction.

Actually, I CAN agree with it and disagree with it at the same time. I just did.

Which underscores the nature of this process and debate.

In other words,

If you're in favor of banning players from baseball, you're argument is ultimately subjective. Morality is subjective (and any argument to keep them out is a moral/ethical one). I'm fine with that.

If you're in favor of adding these players to the hall, you're argument can ultimately either be subjective or objective, preferably it is objective; because it's based on numbers.

Likewise, the selection process.

Yes, anyone can say anything. You can say you hate all green things and then say you love green beans. You would still be making a contradictory, hypocritical statement. Secondly, I never said you couldn't agree and disagree with the selection process at the same time. I said, you couldn't commend the committee's moral decisions on steroids, cheating, and gambling--their main--ethical decisions and then call that decision process "extremely flawed" and "erratically implemented." Those phrases don't apply to selection processes you commended as being successful.

If you're in favor of banning players from baseball, you're argument is ultimately subjective. Morality is subjective (and any argument to keep them out is a moral/ethical one). I'm fine with that.

First of all, you yourself argued for banning players from baseball, and you based it on principles outside yourself. So, you don't really think the decision is entirely subjective. That's a good thing, since morality isn't. Morality is partially based on the objective material world around us and societal structures informing and superceding our subjective opinions. This applies to baseball morality, where the objective rules and principles of baseball inform baseball's particular morality. So, those--like you and I--judging Rose unworthy of the HOF are not being entirely subjective.

If you're in favor of adding these players to the hall, you're argument can ultimately either be subjective or objective, preferably it is objective; because it's based on numbers.

This also is inaccurate. Nobody is making a purely objective statement when arguing for Rose's place in the Hall. They are putting personal value on what merits inclusion, what constitutes immoral baseball behavior, and whether or not morals have a place in such a decision. All of those decision factor in subjective perspective. So, people arguing for Rose being barred are being subjective and objective, as are people voting for his inclusion in the HOF.

I'll stand by my post above. Nice try though.

That's the best you can do?

My post wasn't a "try;" it was a successful debunking of yours. Your inability to counter it just bolsters it.

I guess only a shrink would be able to understand this type of behavior disorder.

Right on the money, Badjam. Truth's self-appointed oracle claims that he is married to a psychiatrist.

It's not too hard to imagine where they met.

The day I met my wife is a great story, and it was the most important day of my life. I certainly wouldn't share such a day with someone as sadly loathsome as Druid.

Only he would steep so low as to badmouth a member's wife. Family should be off-limits in any civilized forum. So, Druid's sad behavior just keeps getting more pathetic. He's still too afraid to counter my post that deconstructed his, so that sad behavior is all he's got.