Posted by tecwrg on 3/19/2015 2:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Pete Rose's reinstatement is, in my opinion, primarily driven by a desire to be put in the Hall of Fame. I know you don't think Bonds/Clemens should be in the HOF. I was assuming that, since you started a thread about his reinstatement, that you think Rose should be in the HOF. I was interested in how you reconciled the Rose-Yes/Bonds-No opinion.

You clearly didn't want to talk about it, which makes it weird that you came in here to talk about it.

Rose and Bonds/Clemens are apples and oranges.

Rose deserves to be elected to the HOF based on his on the field accomplishments as a player.  There are no "stains" on his resume as a player that precludes that.

Bonds and Clemens' accomplishments as players are tainted by steroids.

I know you don't care about steroid use, but even you have to see that there is a difference.

Or maybe you don't.  Which boggles the mind that you're unable to see the difference.

I think all of them had playing careers worthy of induction. I think gambling on baseball is a much, much worse offense than using a PED. Especially when PEDs (amphetamines, steroids, HGH) were used for decades by a very large percentage of players while MLB looked the other way.

Do you, or do you not, see the difference between gambling and PEDs in how they affect on-the-field accomplishments/statistics?

Oh, I see the difference between gambling and PEDs. I think gambling is much worse.

Role reversal.

Now it's BL being intentionally dense.

I'm not being dense. I see and understand tec's point. PEDs help you play better, gambling doesn't. 

Despite that point, I still think gambling is much worse.

Honestly, I'm just disappointed that the idiotic bickering has scared everyone off. Once upon a time there were dozens of people discussing baseball here. Now there are about 5 or 6. Of course it may pick up when the season starts.

But people arguing with each other used to be the minority. Now the two of you just argue back and forth in every thread. I'm not sure what enjoyment you get out of it, but it sure ruins it for everyone else.

Point taken.

I'm going to block BL for the remainder of Lent.  Starting now.

Promise? Because that will make my day. When does lent end? (2017? Fingers crossed)

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 6:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm not being dense. I see and understand tec's point. PEDs help you play better, gambling doesn't. 

Despite that point, I still think gambling is much worse.

That depends on your perspective.  From the perspective of Major League Baseball, I agree that gambling is much worse.  From the perspective of the Hall of Fame, it gets a lot more ambiguous.  Regardless of stated intentions, the HOF is a museum, and not responsible for preserving the "integrity of the game."  If I'm the Hall, I'm much more concerned with highlighting the best and most important players in the history of the sport.  That definitely includes Pete Rose and Joe Jackson.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/20/2015 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2015 6:41:00 PM (view original):
I'm not being dense. I see and understand tec's point. PEDs help you play better, gambling doesn't. 

Despite that point, I still think gambling is much worse.

That depends on your perspective.  From the perspective of Major League Baseball, I agree that gambling is much worse.  From the perspective of the Hall of Fame, it gets a lot more ambiguous.  Regardless of stated intentions, the HOF is a museum, and not responsible for preserving the "integrity of the game."  If I'm the Hall, I'm much more concerned with highlighting the best and most important players in the history of the sport.  That definitely includes Pete Rose and Joe Jackson.

I agree with that. But I'm giving my opinion from my perspective.

PEDs, in one form or another, have been around for a very, very long time. And they aren't going away. Roster spots are just too valuable for guys not to do everything they can to gain an edge. Cheating isn't a good thing for baseball and I'd rather players didn't cheat but, big picture, it really isn't that big of a deal.

A gambling problem, on the other hand, could wreck the sport.

Regarding Rose and Jackson, was it you that said something about the Hall ignoring the MLB ineligible list? I can get behind that.

Tec:

DURRRRRRRRRRR, bad_luck ruined my thread!

Yeah, I see no reason why the HOF has to honor the MLB ineligible list.  One of the advantages of having an unaffiliated HOF museum.

Posted by stinenavy on 3/20/2015 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Tec:

DURRRRRRRRRRR, bad_luck ruined my thread!

Lol. Then he followed me into another thread to whine about it.

Had Rose bet against his team, THAT would have been a big deal, but he bet on his team. What bigger incentive to win is there? The only argument I've ever seen or heard against that is "He may have tried too hard to win that game.". To me, there is no such thing. Give me a Manager who badly wants to win every single game and worry about tomorrow tomorrow, any day.