Reasons I Hate Major League Baseball

[bigunreal]

Where do I begin? Well, first of all, as has been noted so often here, the league has become overwhelmingly non-white, outside of pitchers. I don't care how they classify them, most of the "non-blacks" like David Ortiz are black. Period. Here are some other reasons:

- The media now hypes only non-white players, outside of a handful of aging veterans like Clemens. How can they ignore truly great white players like Todd Helton, whose .332 career average dwarfs any of the other present-day "stars?" The all-star voting reflects this. The game's acknowledged "stars" are Bonds, Griffey, Ortiz, Delgado, Vladmir Guerrero, Jeter, A-Rod, etc. Where are the white "stars?"

- The dilution of talent, because of expansion and the inclusion of so many latin players who are there for reasons other than having major league skills, has resulted in a horrible, shoddy level of play. Fundamentals are non-existent. Ty Cobb, if he were playing today, would quite possibly bat .1000 against the ridiculous pitchers most teams employ.

- The Hall of Fame has become a complete joke. How can Pete Rose not be in? If I had a vote, there are only a handful of players who have played in the past 35 years or so that I would have considered worthy of induction. Those would have been George Brett, Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Robin Yount, Rod Carew, Wade Boggs, Ferguson Jenkins, Steve Carlton and Jim Palmer. Voting in the likes of Tony Perez, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, Joe Morgan, Ozzie Smith, Don Sutton, Dave Winfield, Eddie Murray and many others just disgraces the truly great players like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, etc., who have to share space there with players who were good to very good, but never "great" in any sense of the word. The veterans committee has also contributed to the problem, by adding solid but never great players like Jim Bunning, Nellie Fox, Bobby Doerr and Tony Lazerri. To top it all off, they inducted one of the most despicable figures ever to participate in professional sports in Leo Durocher. Every living member should have left in protest when they inducted that idiot, whose famous motto "nice guys finish last," is a fitting slogan for Don King's America.

- The game has become bereft of tradition, which was once its major attraction. Landmarks that once meant something, like winning 20 games in a season, are just a vague memory now. Even the best pitchers of the modern era, like Greg Maddux, are simply not comparable to starting pitchers in the time period before the 1970s. Maddux, for instance, has TWO 20 game seasons in his long career. He has never won more than 20 games in a season. That's ridiculous! The "great" Nolan Ryan also only had TWO 20 win seasons in his long, long career. I know there is something to be said for longevity, but if a pitcher hasn't had a single dominant season in his career (and that used to be defined for a starting pitcher as a 24-25 win season), it's hard to call them "great." The same goes for hitters- if a player has never had a single "great" season, how can we call them great just because they play long enough to accumulate impressive lifetime totals? Rafael Palmeiro is a perfect example of that.

- Salaries are obscene. Even if the caliber of play was top-notch, and Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb themselves were playing today, I simply could not support the game due to the outrageous amounts of money these pampered athletes are paid. These ungrateful players "work" for about half a year. If they are a pitcher, they only "work" about once every 5-6 days during that half a year. If they are a "closer" (the ridiculous term invented to try and make relief pitchers seem more important than they really are), then they "work" for about 5-10 minutes a night (and not every night). Even if so many of the players were not the jerks they are, or if all of them could speak English fluently (which an increasing number can't), the average working stiff just can not relate to them in any way due to the huge disparities in income between themselves and the players.

Okay, present rant off. Comments are welcomed.

 

[Bart]

I don't care how they classify them, most of the "non-blacks" like David Ortiz are black. Period.

Yeah,MLB, and the media are trying to pull a fast one on us. Dan Patrick and Olbermann today were discussing the lack of African Americans in baseball and touched on the lack of respect shown them in Boston. Someone commented that David Ortiz is a fan favorite, but that was dismissed by the hosts who said he was Dominican and Hispanic. What does that mean? Is he not black? Is he not a Negro?


The old-time pitchers were expected to throw a lot of pitches and complete games or at least make it to the later innings. Now, many of them are pulled even if doing well because of pitch counts. Sometimes managers are quoted as saying the pitcher did his job by giving them 5 quality innings. I don't know if we can blame the pitchers in this day of specialization. Also, pitchers today, for whatever reasons seem more fragile, and are often hurt, so they are pampered and given more time off.

 

[Don Wassall]

The Caste System will not simply downplay baseball as a sport even though there "aren't enough American blacks in it", as is done with hockey, because unlike hockey non-whites can be found elsewhere to compete. The "hispanics" in particular have led the way in casting aside fundamentals, much like blacks have done in football and basketball. Anything that promotes "diversity" and globalization will be strongly rewarded.


The 20 win season has become rare because baseball has gone to a five-man starting rotation. That's why Maddux and other pitchers haven't put up the kind of single season win numbers that we saw pre-1985 or so. The specialization in relief pitching is another factor.


As I posted in the Maddux thread in this forum, what he (and Clemens) has done as far as career wins while starting only every fifth game, is truly remarkable. 340 wins (Maddux) and 349 (Clemens) is amazing imo and I can't give either enough credit for it. They are very special athletes.


I've lostmuch of my former interest in baseball for many of the same reasons cited by bigunreal. I follow baseball and other sports now as an observer and chronicler, just as I do with politics andsocial issues and everythingelse in this country, a country that has been systematically gutted from within, the Caste System being an importantpart of a greater whole.

 

[Burts]

To me, Pete Rose is the most over-rated baseball player, ever. He was nothing but a singles hitter, who accumulated his number of hits because of the huge number of at-bats that he had in his career.
If he had played his entire career as a second baseman, I maybe would say he was a hall of famer. But when you look at his offensive numbers for the years he was playing first, third or the outfield, other than batting average, he didn't provide half the value of other players in that position.
He was a good player, who played many seasons, that's all. And I didn't even mention what a complete a**hole he is.

 

[foreverfree]

Someone commented that David Ortiz is a fan favorite, but that was dismissed by the hosts who said he was Dominican and Hispanic.  What does that mean?  Is he not black?  Is he not a Negro?  

Talk about a fan favorite. After taking in a Bosox/Orioles game as part of a typical Fenway full house on 5/7/06, I walked past the players entrance and there was Big Papi, holding court with the autograph hounds as usual.

The old-time pitchers were expected to throw a lot of pitches and complete games or at least make it to the later innings.  Now, many of them are pulled even if doing well because of pitch counts.  Sometimes managers are quoted as saying the pitcher did his job by giving them 5 quality innings.  I don't know if we can blame the pitchers in this day of specialization.   Also, pitchers today, for whatever reasons seem more fragile, and are often hurt, so they are pampered and given more time off.

What I don't get is how "quality start" is defined. I read it's defined as

1) Pitching at least the first six innings
2) Maximum 3 earned runs yielded

Excuse me, but pitching exactly the first six innings and giving up exactly three runs, works out to an ERA for the day's "work" of 4.50. Not too much quality there IMO (probably not in 1930, either).

And then there's the schedule, which, with the implementation of interleague play, is left with little rhyme or reason outside of the divisional matchups.

FWIW here's an article from the Wilmington (DE) News Journal suggesting an RX for MLB scheduling. I was going to give it a separate thread, although it has next to nothing to do with Caste-ing, but I think it fits here.

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=200 70624&Category=SPORTS01&ArtNo=706240359&SectionCat=SPORTS&Te mplate=printart

MLB schedule needs major overhaul
By KEVIN TRESOLINI, The News Journal
Posted Sunday, June 24, 2007
June is about to become July and the Phillies still have not played the team that, until Major League Baseball went from two divisions to three, many fans would likely consider their main rival, the cross-state Pittsburgh Pirates.

It's just one more reminder what an absolute joke the Major League Baseball schedule has become. We adore baseball for its wonderful symmetry and geometry, its many numerical measures.

Too bad MLB schedule-makers flunk math every year.

The imbalanced schedule is an atrocity, made necessary by a dreadfully uneven alignment of teams -- a 16-team National League, with two five- team divisions and one with six teams, and a 14-team American League, with two five-team divisions and one with four teams.

Looking at the lopsided standings every day makes me dizzy.

Remember when each league had two six-team divisions? Each team played its five divisional foes 18 times each and the six teams in the opposite division 12 times each.

It neatly added up to 162 games. The schedule had a rhythm to it. Now, it has just disorder and inequity.

The Phillies play their NL East rivals 18 times each. That's fine. But they play some NL teams six times, including the Pirates, some seven, one (the Giants) eight and, for some reason, another (the Cardinals) nine. That makes no sense.

And they've played five AL teams at this point but still haven't even played the NL's Rockies, Dodgers, Padres or those Pirates (see you July 27) once.

Order must be restored for the season to regain its shape and its competitive integrity, neither of which exists right now. Here's the plan:

First, there must be two 15-team leagues, which means the Houston Astros, the most obvious candidate geographically, should be transferred from the National League Central to the American League West and be financially rewarded for their trouble, of which there really isn't any.

Then, a balanced schedule will return. Teams will play their four divisional rivals 16 times each, eight home and eight away. They'll play the 10 teams in the other two divisions in their league eight times each, four home and four away.

And then, since interleague play has become a popular part of the schedule, they'll play five teams from one division of the opposite league three times each. All five teams from one division will play the same five teams from another division, the only fair and equitable way.

They'll do so on a rotating basis, like in the NFL. For example, the NL East plays the AL East this year, the AL Central next year, the AL West the year after that. With two 15-team leagues, there'll always be an interleague series taking place.

That equals 159 games. The final three games, enabling baseball to stick with its traditional 162-game schedule, would be the only divergence from a balanced arrangement and add a little fun and variety. It would be "rivalry weekend," in which local interleague adversaries -- Mets-Yankees, Cubs-White Sox, Nationals-Orioles, Giants-Athletics, Dodgers-Angels -- would be sure to meet on an annual basis.

But it wouldn't have to be just interleague play. The Phillies and Pirates, or other members of different divisions in the same league, could meet an extra three times if they wanted. In the absence of such desired matchups, teams could draw for opponents and home field.

Major League Baseball's clumsy schedule needs a complete overhaul, a return to some semblance of symmetry. Now, they have a blueprint.

It all adds up.

JohnEdited by: foreverfree

 

[bigunreal]

A few other things I forgot to mention in my earlier rant. For many of us, the charm of baseball lies in how different it is from other sports. The absence of a clock and the lack of impact the umpires have, in comparison with the way referees and officials can absolutely determine the outcome of games with their penalty calls in other sports, make baseball special. Those are about the only things about the game that haven't changed over the past few decades.

Doubleheaders used to be a great deal for fans; a traditional staple of the game, it was a way for families to spend a long day or evening together, and you only paid one admission price for the two games (unless you were in a place like Boston, which split the games up and charged twice). Thanks to the despicable players union, and the attitudes of modern players in general, doubleheaders are now nearly as obsolete as the dead ball. It's a shame, but represents just one of many traditions lost in recent times.

Another great thing about major league baseball was the fact that, whenever you went to a game, however meaningless it might be to the standings of the two teams in question, you always could dream of witnessing history. For instance, some unknown pitcher might possibly throw a no-hitter in some meaningless early September game. When pitchers suddenly became unable to throw complete games, starting in the 1970s, the no- hitter became ever more rare than it used to be. We've seen managers take pitchers out of the game when they had a no-hitter going on more than one occasion over the last 30 years or so. It would have been unthinkable for any manager to have done that, back when tradition ruled the game, and certainly any pitcher would have loudly protested being denied the opportunity to make history.

When the majors went to a 162 game season, it had a dramatic impact on the statistics which have always held a greater importance to baseball fans than the fans of any other sport. I think these eight extra games every year have not only affected single-season records (the first notable case of this was Roger Maris hitting 61 HRs in the new, longer season), but career totals as well. For players that have a long career, these extra games per season give them what it tantamount to an extra season of totals for their career (8 games per season times an average 20 year career). Needless to say, this has contributed mightily to all the solid, but not great players, who have become the "compilers" of impressive lifetime totals that we see today. Landmark single-season achievements like 20-wins or 300 strikeouts for pitchers and 200 hits, 100 runs or RBIs and 40 HRs for hitters just didn't have quite the same meaning when all players were given an extra 8 games in which to achieve those numbers.

When you add in the slap in the face that the designated hitter was to traditional fans, and the more recent disasters of wild-card teams and interleague play, you have a total mess that bears little resemblance to the wonderful game so many of us used to love.

 

[sunshine]

Lets put this not enough "black americans " in baseball to the test. You want black players OK lets increase the total of black pitchers and catchers by the truckload. Say 6-8 total per team on average. But lets reduce the number of CF's and SS's to zero starters. Sounds like a fair trade off you would more than quadruple the amount of black american players. Oh lets see if that cuts the mustard---------I hear more whining.
And how come you don't hear moaning about lack of black kickers in NFL? I will cut to the chase. The whiners aren't all that interested in blacks playing so called"non athletic" positions or filling up rosters. They want to be front and center at the glory speed positions to continue to promote and sustain the idea of "black athletic superiority.". That folks is the real truth and this carping about lack of blacks in baseball is not only hypocritical but the most disgusting disguised attempt to promote black athleticism in cult like fashion anywhere to be found in the world of sports.

 

[jaxvid]

To me, Pete Rose is the most over-rated baseball player, ever. He was nothing but a singles hitter, who accumulated his number of hits because of the huge number of at-bats that he had in his career.
If he had played his entire career as a second baseman, I maybe would say he was a hall of famer. But when you look at his offensive numbers for the years he was playing first, third or the outfield, other than batting average, he didn't provide half the value of other players in that position.
He was a good player, who played many seasons, that's all. And I didn't even mention what a complete a**hole he is.

Very irresponsible remark, completely off base and not even related to the topic.

Pete Rose was a tremendous baseball player. Not only did he hit safely more then any player ever did, more then Cobb, Musial, Wagner, Boggs, Gwynn, every guy that's ever played the game, but the two things he were known for: hustle and versatility, are impressive qualities.

Rose won 3 batting titles, won Rookie of the Year (1963), MVP (1973), two Gold Gloves as an outfielder, won a Silver Slugger award as a first baseman, finished in the top ten in slugging twice, and played in 17! All-Star games.

Yes he hit singles, more of them then anybody ever, he also is the ALL TIME career leader in hits, at-bats, games played, plate appearences, times on base, and his .303 career average was attained while playing in the most difficult offense era in baseball history.

His career was a testimony to his work ethic, desire, and ability. He is one of the greatest ball players ever and has been cheated out of his rightful place in history by a minor scandal that had no effect on his time as a player.

MLB will be celebrating Barry Bonds, a guy who used illegal substances to suppliment his accomplishments, but a hard working, follow the rules player like Rose is banned for life.

As for being an a-hole, lots of players were, Cobb and Williams foremost among them, but Rose has always been an ambassador for the game and in every interview I've seen him is cooperative and forthright.

There is plenty of misguided Rose-hate amongst the major media because they can't stand a white icon, I see no reason that the media's tainted view of the man should be one that is reflected on this website which should be protective of our people when they are the targets of undeserved MSM propaganda.

 

[jaxvid]

Back to topic!

Here is why I hate MLB. The following line-up for the Detroit Tigers when I turned on the game. They say there aren't enough blacks in baseball, I think there are too many!

Magglio Ordonez and Pudge Rodrieguez are the "whitest" guys in the line-up! This includes pitcher and DH

 

[Lance Alworth]

A few other things I forgot to mention in my earlier rant. For many of us, the charm of baseball lies in how different it is from other sports. The absence of a clock and the lack of impact the umpires have, in comparison with the way referees and officials can absolutely determine the outcome of games with their penalty calls in other sports, make baseball special. Those are about the only things about the game that haven't changed over the past few decades.

Doubleheaders used to be a great deal for fans; a traditional staple of the game, it was a way for families to spend a long day or evening together, and you only paid one admission price for the two games (unless you were in a place like Boston, which split the games up and charged twice). Thanks to the despicable players union, and the attitudes of modern players in general, doubleheaders are now nearly as obsolete as the dead ball. It's a shame, but represents just one of many traditions lost in recent times.

Another great thing about major league baseball was the fact that, whenever you went to a game, however meaningless it might be to the standings of the two teams in question, you always could dream of witnessing history. For instance, some unknown pitcher might possibly throw a no-hitter in some meaningless early September game. When pitchers suddenly became unable to throw complete games, starting in the 1970s, the no- hitter became ever more rare than it used to be. We've seen managers take pitchers out of the game when they had a no-hitter going on more than one occasion over the last 30 years or so. It would have been unthinkable for any manager to have done that, back when tradition ruled the game, and certainly any pitcher would have loudly protested being denied the opportunity to make history.

When the majors went to a 162 game season, it had a dramatic impact on the statistics which have always held a greater importance to baseball fans than the fans of any other sport. I think these eight extra games every year have not only affected single-season records (the first notable case of this was Roger Maris hitting 61 HRs in the new, longer season), but career totals as well. For players that have a long career, these extra games per season give them what it tantamount to an extra season of totals for their career (8 games per season times an average 20 year career). Needless to say, this has contributed mightily to all the solid, but not great players, who have become the "compilers" of impressive lifetime totals that we see today. Landmark single-season achievements like 20-wins or 300 strikeouts for pitchers and 200 hits, 100 runs or RBIs and 40 HRs for hitters just didn't have quite the same meaning when all players were given an extra 8 games in which to achieve those numbers.

When you add in the slap in the face that the designated hitter was to traditional fans, and the more recent disasters of wild-card teams and interleague play, you have a total mess that bears little resemblance to the wonderful game so many of us used to love.

I'm not sure if I agree with all of that bigunreal. While I do agree that the players union is more of a mafia than a union, and should be taken out to woodshed and be shot, there is some other things I disagree with. First, I actually like the DH, and I think its cool that one league uses it and the other doesn't. The American and National leagues are treated as two separate products and I like that. I also like interleague play because when you think about it, say you live in a National League city, but are a fan of an American League team. Under the old system you would never get to see that team in person because the two leagues never played each other. I know this is true because I speak for myself when I say that I live in a National League city but have always detested the National League. I was an American League guy through and through.

I also like the wild card because it allows teams with lower payrolls to win the world series. Without it, you would see the Yankees win it all just about every year, and trust me that is not good for the sport. In fact, due to the players union's refusal to instill any sort of salary cap, the only other alternative I see in order to level the playing field is to have even more teams make the playoffs. I'm talking about 12, or possibly even 16 teams making it. This would make it a lot more fair, and would allow a David to knock off a Goliath in the post-season. It would also set up for a more competitive league

 

[Bart]

Rose won 3 batting titles, won Rookie of the Year (1963), MVP (1973), two Gold Gloves as an outfielder, won a Silver Slugger award as a first baseman, finished in the top ten in slugging twice, and played in 17! All-Star games.

Yes he hit singles, more of them then anybody ever, he also is the ALL TIME career leader in hits, at-bats, games played, plate appearences, times on base, and his .303 career average was attained while playing in the most difficult offense era in baseball history.

He alsomadeAll -Starteams at fivedifferent positions and hit over .300 inthirteen seasons. In the past I was more critical of him, but my views have changed. Why should he be treated with contempt and excluded from the HOF while Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Sheffield and many others are given free passes.In fact, it could be argued that Rose is more deserving, since hislongevity and numbers ON THE FIELDweremost likely not artificially enhanced by steroids, HGH, and who knows what else. Edited by: Bart

 

[Realgeorge]

To me, Pete Rose is the most over-rated baseball player, ever. He was nothing but a singles hitter, who accumulated his number of hits because of the huge number of at-bats that he had in his career.
... yada yada yada yada .... And I didn't even mention what a complete a**hole he is.

Hello Burts

Glad you made this post. It gives me the opportunity to join the tirade against your anti-Pete Rose blather. Rose was a MAGNIFICENT baseball player, much as Jaxvid and others have pointed out. I watched him play, he was a Hall of Famer for good reason. I wish that MY sick, pathetic MLB team had Pete Rose instead of any of the twelve or so Negroes and morose "Dominicans" that they have.

 

[Burts]

To me, Pete Rose is the most over-rated baseball player, ever. He was nothing but a singles hitter, who accumulated his number of hits because of the huge number of at-bats that he had in his career.
If he had played his entire career as a second baseman, I maybe would say he was a hall of famer. But when you look at his offensive numbers for the years he was playing first, third or the outfield, other than batting average, he didn't provide half the value of other players in that position.
He was a good player, who played many seasons, that's all. And I didn't even mention what a complete a**hole he is. []

Very irresponsible remark, completely off base and not even related to the topic.

Pete Rose was a tremendous baseball player. Not only did he hit safely more then any player ever did, more then Cobb, Musial, Wagner, Boggs, Gwynn, every guy that's ever played the game, but the two things he were known for: hustle and versatility, are impressive qualities.

Rose won 3 batting titles, won Rookie of the Year (1963), MVP (1973), two Gold Gloves as an outfielder, won a Silver Slugger award as a first baseman, finished in the top ten in slugging twice, and played in 17! All-Star games.

Yes he hit singles, more of them then anybody ever, he also is the ALL TIME career leader in hits, at-bats, games played, plate appearences, times on base, and his .303 career average was attained while playing in the most difficult offense era in baseball history.

His career was a testimony to his work ethic, desire, and ability. He is one of the greatest ball players ever and has been cheated out of his rightful place in history by a minor scandal that had no effect on his time as a player.

MLB will be celebrating Barry Bonds, a guy who used illegal substances to suppliment his accomplishments, but a hard working, follow the rules player like Rose is banned for life.

As for being an a-hole, lots of players were, Cobb and Williams foremost among them, but Rose has always been an ambassador for the game and in every interview I've seen him is cooperative and forthright.

There is plenty of misguided Rose-hate amongst the major media because they can't stand a white icon, I see no reason that the media's tainted view of the man should be one that is reflected on this website which should be protective of our people when they are the targets of undeserved MSM propaganda.

Wow! First off, irresponsible remark? Why? I'm not allowed an opinion? Completely off topic? Perhaps, and if true, I apologize. But the topic starter, bigunreal stated he didn't know why Rose isn't in the Hall. That pushed one of my favorite argument buttons.
Contrary to what you believe, Mr. Jaxvid, I am not expressing the media's tainted view of "Charlie Hustle."
I could care less what the MSM says about anything.
As I stated, if Rose had stayed at second base his entire career, I wouldn't be upset calling him a great player. But he only played four of 24 seasons at second.
His remaining 20 seasons were played in the outfield, third base, and first base, positions where power is key.
Let's look, shall we, at his numbers as an outfielder, the prime years of his big-league career. I will list how Rose compared to his peers (National League only) each year.

AVG.HR RBI&nb sp;SLG.

1967.301 (8)12 (17)76 (5).444 (11)
1968.335 (1)10 (13)49 (16).470 (7)
1969.348 (1)16 (16)82 (9).512 (5)
1970.316 (5)15 (17)52 (23).470 (15)
1971.304 (8)13 (13)44 (23).421 (18)
1972.307 (11)6 (28)57 (17).417 (21)
1973.338 (1)5 (31)64 (17).437 (20)
1974.284 (15)3 (34)51 (27).388 (30)

So, these are his numbers comparing him to the others at his position, NL only, adding the AL, of course would only make him look worse, except for his batting average, which saves him, and his doubles, which I didn't list, but he excelled in, I'll give him that. But he never hit more than 16 homers in his career, never stole more than 20 bases, (his SB pct., incidentally is very poor), never drove in 100 runs.
His numbers in his subsequent years, when he played third base, show him exelling in average there, but again, woefully weak in homers and RBI vs. his peers.
As for first base, I won't embarass Rose-lovers by listing his pathetic "production" there, especially his final years, when his pathetic drive to get to the most hits mark, is an embarrassment. Of course, those last three years he was put into the lineup by his a manager who should have been run out of town for doing so, given the non-production Rose was giving him. But that didn't happen, since the manager happened to be Pete Rose.
Finally, Mr. Jaxvid, you say he was a follow-the-rules guy. Well, I guess his "minor scandal," betting on sports wasn't against the rules after all, just a creation of the MSM.
I don't care who believes Rose belongs in the hall. If that's what you think, fine. But don't take me to task for giving an opposite opinion. I know what this site is about, and if a white man can't say anythin negative about a white ballplayer, then the site is no better the PCers of the world who won't let a white man say anything negative about a non-white.

 

[jaxvid]

I never said you couldn't say anything negative about a white ballplayer, you did, if "censorship" was the issue then I'd just have deleted your post. Maybe I responded too aggresively but the issue pushed one of my buttons too.

Certainly you should be prepared to defend your point of view when it is critical of the all time hits leader. I guess a guy with 4000 hits is not deserving of being in the Hall of Fame in your opinion. I call that view irresponsible. Clearly you have other reasons to dislike him. His statistical merit is obviously enough to warrent him inclusion in my opinion.

I don't think it is necessary to get into a stat arguement. You are being selective in your listing. Your main complaint is he didn't provide enough power. So what? Every player has to be a home run hitter? He hit for high average. Other guys like Wade Boggs were high average hitters, decent fielders and not much else. What's wrong with that?

You listed HR, RBI and Slugging, all numbers for power hitters. I could list average, on-base percentage, runs, etc. and he would be among the leaders.

An aging player playing a few years too long just to accumulate statistics? Sounds fairly typical to me. Doesn't negate the other years he had does it?

I won't get into the betting thing as I mentioned it should have nothing to do with his playing career just like scandals did not effect Fergie Jenkins and Orlando Cepeda. Also, as I have posted many times on this forum, the whole betting "scandal" is full of holes and the minute someone produces a single shred of evidence against him I will change my opinion.

I am tired of him being run down in comparison to other players that get a complete pass on certain things. Rose is a clear Hall of Famer, would have been a first ballot electee, and if they ever allow him to be voted in he will get in comfortably even despite the criticism (similar to yours) that would be brought up.

That's my view on the issue.

 

[Bart]

As I stated, if Rose had stayed at second base his entire career, I wouldn't be upset calling him a great player. But he only played four of 24 seasons at second.
His remaining 20 seasons were played in the outfield, third base, and first base, positions where power is key.

There is some merit to your power positions argument. However, Tony Gwynn played his entire career in right field and put up piss poor power stats and nobody seems to care. He had a power surge in the late nineties, hitting 17 homers as his all-time high. But then again, it seems an awful lot of guys suddenly took off in those years. Gwynn was a great singles hitter, butbased on yourhypothesis, heshouldn't be in the HOF either.At least Rose was named an MVP, Tony never was.

 

[bigunreal]

Burts makes some good points. I didn't mean this thread to center around the merits of Pete Rose being inducted into the Hall. When Rose was playing, I also didn't like him. I thought he was a hot dog, and I was really turned off by his comments after his 44 game hitting streak was stopped (if you recall, he whined about the pitcher trying so hard to get him out on his last at bat, as if the other team should have allowed him to continue his streak). The stats Burts provided do reveal Rose's less than stellar power numbers. However, my main point was that so many, many undeserving players have been voted in, while a guy like Rose, who holds one of the most important lifetime records (most hits- I think he also scored the most runs, another very important record), is still denied admission. On those Reds' World Series winning teams alone, Tony Perez and Joe Morgan have been voted in. I don't think there is any question that Rose was a much better player than those two. When you couple that with totally ridiculous inductees like Orlando Cepeda, I think you have to put the all-time hits' leader in. We can't ignore the racial angle here. Whatever you think of Rose, if he were black, he wouldn't have had to wait very long before to be inducted. If, by some remote chance, the predominantly white "journalists" who make these horrible voting decisions, had the gumption to deny admission to a black player with Rose's identical stats, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be all over them in a second, and they'd quickly lose that gumption, apologize profusely, and vote him in without a single dissenter. If Jesse and Al were angry enough, the jock-sniffers would see to it that the black Rose was given his own wing in the Hall or something, as a form of reperations for initially disrespecting him. So, while I didn't like him at all when he was playing, I have grown to feel more and more empathy for him over the years, as he beomes a really pathetic figure, on the outside of the Hall looking in while so many undeserving players are inducted. It's always great to have differing opinions here- that's what forums are for.

 

[screamingeagle]

I have officially resigned as a Chicago cubs fan of 40 years. I even sent them a letter of resignation (Mind you, I am not expecting a reply, but it is the ploite thing to do.)
The reason the black on white beatings. First Carlo zambrano beats up a white teammate and puts him in the hospital. Then Derrick Lee attacks a white guy. I now call the Cubs "The Chicago Whitebeaters."
I come to the ballpark to relax. These beatings just remind me of the reality of today's problems. White people should stay away from the ballparks. Let the black and hispanic fans replace them. The result will be many empty seats.
The black attackers , and the Manager who is enabling them, must be banned from baseball. Call me when you do this.

 

[Bart]

Burts makes some good points. I didn't mean this thread to center around the merits of Pete Rose being inducted into the Hall. When Rose was playing, I also didn't like him. I thought he was a hot dog,

When I was younger I also thought he was a hot dog.Isn't it interesting how white folks openly bashed Rose, while at the same time describing Clemente and Mays as colorful and entertaining. We also heaped tons of scorn and criticism on Pete Maravich. Bear-Arms posted this link showing Aramis Ramirez hitting a big homer and acting like a goof. Reggie Jackson, Bonds, Sosa, and scores of Latins and Blacks routinely draw attention to themselves and act like clowns, but that is pretty much accepted. Did Mark McGwire have a home run dance? No. Reggie Jackson once advised Mark to drop his bat after hitting a long home run and admire it as it sailed out of the park. Mark wouldn't do it.


http://deadspin.com/sports/baseball/hey-aramis-ramirez-hit-a -home++yeeeeeow-273976.php

 

[white is right]

My father openly praised Rose as the beacon of German-American worth ethic and doggedness. After the downfall he became Charlie the Hustler to him.....