BuffettNews.com

drunkpirate66 wrote: Rose and Jackson should be in. It should be on the individual's performance on the field; nothing more . . .

I'm with you AND Garry on this one.

Caribbean Soul wrote:Gotta vote for The Goose!
Rich Gossage really changed how relievers were perceived.
Prior to him most were just failed starters, not specialists.
So he was somewhat of a pioneer, IMHO anyway...

He scared the crap out of me just watching pitch him on TV I can't imagine standing in the batters box.

jonesbeach10 wrote:I'll throw one in for Rich Gossage.

317 saves (in an era where it was common to have more than 3 out saves)

WHile I agree that Gossage was great, and should be in, I want to say one thing...


The defense of "Pitching more than one inning makes him better" is, to me, hogwash.

WHY?

If you pitch 2 innings, you can get a save with as much as an 8 run lead.
If you pitch 3 innings, there is no limit to the size of the lead you are "protecting".

Remember, this past season, a save was awarded to a pitcher in a 27-run ballgame!!!!!

I think it may have been EASIER to get saves in the past.

Guys...the game was to pick ONE ELIGIBLE player.


I agree that Rose and Jackson belong in. We can debate, and have debated, the merits of many other players.

I was just looking to find that one name you would pick off of the list.
If you could only pick one.
ONE.
OFF THE LIST.
PLEASE!!!!

CaptainP wrote:
If you pitch 2 innings, you can get a save with as much as an 8 run lead.
If you pitch 3 innings, there is no limit to the size of the lead you are "protecting".

Remember, this past season, a save was awarded to a pitcher in a 27-run ballgame!!!!!

I think it may have been EASIER to get saves in the past.

I don't think that part is right.

part of the "save" rule:

(a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches at least one inning;
(b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck; or
(c) He pitches for at least three innings.

chippewa wrote:

CaptainP wrote:
If you pitch 2 innings, you can get a save with as much as an 8 run lead.
If you pitch 3 innings, there is no limit to the size of the lead you are "protecting".

Remember, this past season, a save was awarded to a pitcher in a 27-run ballgame!!!!!

I think it may have been EASIER to get saves in the past.

I don't think that part is right.

part of the "save" rule:

(a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches at least one inning;
(b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck; or
(c) He pitches for at least three innings.

Part 2...I always thought they added 3 for the extra inning?

CaptainP wrote:

chippewa wrote:

CaptainP wrote:
If you pitch 2 innings, you can get a save with as much as an 8 run lead.
If you pitch 3 innings, there is no limit to the size of the lead you are "protecting".

Remember, this past season, a save was awarded to a pitcher in a 27-run ballgame!!!!!

I think it may have been EASIER to get saves in the past.

I don't think that part is right.

part of the "save" rule:

(a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches at least one inning;
(b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck; or
(c) He pitches for at least three innings.

Part 2...I always thought they added 3 for the extra inning?

Nope. The complete rule:

The official scorer shall credit a pitcher with a save when such pitcher meets all four of the following conditions:

(1) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team;
(2) He is not the winning pitcher;
(3) He is credited with at least a third of an inning pitched; and

(4) He satisfies one of the following conditions:
(a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches at least one inning;
(b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck; or
(c) He pitches for at least three innings.

chippewa wrote:

CaptainP wrote:

chippewa wrote:

CaptainP wrote:
If you pitch 2 innings, you can get a save with as much as an 8 run lead.
If you pitch 3 innings, there is no limit to the size of the lead you are "protecting".

Remember, this past season, a save was awarded to a pitcher in a 27-run ballgame!!!!!

I think it may have been EASIER to get saves in the past.

I don't think that part is right.

part of the "save" rule:

(a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches at least one inning;
(b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck; or
(c) He pitches for at least three innings.

Part 2...I always thought they added 3 for the extra inning?

Nope. The complete rule:

The official scorer shall credit a pitcher with a save when such pitcher meets all four of the following conditions:

(1) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his team;
(2) He is not the winning pitcher;
(3) He is credited with at least a third of an inning pitched; and

(4) He satisfies one of the following conditions:
(a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches at least one inning;
(b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat or on deck; or
(c) He pitches for at least three innings.

thanks Chip, now I can sleep again!....

SMLCHNG wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote: Rose and Jackson should be in. It should be on the individual's performance on the field; nothing more . . .

I'm with you AND Garry on this one.

Joe Jackson should not be in. I know a lot about that 1919 scandal and Jackson was not Mr. Innocent.

BottleofRum wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote: Rose and Jackson should be in. It should be on the individual's performance on the field; nothing more . . .

I'm with you AND Garry on this one.

Joe Jackson should not be in. I know a lot about that 1919 scandal and Jackson was not Mr. Innocent.

so?

ever learn what Ty Cobb did?

can only judge by numbers . . . not ethics.

I not denying Ty Cobb was a mean SOB, but that's not illegal. What Rose did, betting baseball and on his own team, was clearly against baseball's rules. Rules put in place because of 1919. And if he admitted it right away, he might have been forgiven by now. But he denied it for years, then admitted to betting on other teams, then finally said he bet on the Reds. What he did strikes to the integrity of the game.

Angels owner says the upcoming baseball drug report will name names...

"The names of players will come out that people will be mad about," Moreno, quoted by The Los Angeles Times in Thursday's editions, said. "Some of my information is secondhand, but I know there's going to be names."

chippewa wrote:I not denying Ty Cobb was a mean SOB, but that's not illegal. What Rose did, betting baseball and on his own team, was clearly against baseball's rules. Rules put in place because of 1919. And if he admitted it right away, he might have been forgiven by now. But he denied it for years, then admitted to betting on other teams, then finally said he bet on the Reds. What he did strikes to the integrity of the game.

Of course, so does Steinbrenner's hanging with a known gambler too..

chippewa wrote:I not denying Ty Cobb was a mean SOB, but that's not illegal. What Rose did, betting baseball and on his own team, was clearly against baseball's rules. Rules put in place because of 1919. And if he admitted it right away, he might have been forgiven by now. But he denied it for years, then admitted to betting on other teams, then finally said he bet on the Reds. What he did strikes to the integrity of the game.

running into the stands to beat up a black man for booing you to the point where he could never see straight again is illegal. There are more illegal acts as well . . . like me to name them?

again; HOF should be on the field stats . . . adultery, rape, drug use, assault are all things MLB players have been convicted of over the years . . . fact; look it up . . . and they are all illegal or immoral.

Why focus on a select few?

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote: Rose and Jackson should be in. It should be on the individual's performance on the field; nothing more . . .

I'm with you AND Garry on this one.

Joe Jackson should not be in. I know a lot about that 1919 scandal and Jackson was not Mr. Innocent.

so?

ever learn what Ty Cobb did?

can only judge by numbers . . . not ethics.

It comes down to two questions:
1) Was Jackson told about the fix by the conspirators before it happened?
2) Did Jackson receive a cut of the money?

The answer to both is yes and Jackson admitted this.

Jackson accepted $5000 from gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series and he knew about the fix before the series started and asked Kid Gleason to bench him.

In college I wrote a 10+ paper about this scandal, going in I thought Jackson was getting railroaded but after researching it my viewed changed.

Recently a report came out that new documents about the scandal were found and going to be auctioned off, maybe something in there will change things but for now I stand by my opinion.

He was given a lifetime ban but I guess because he is now dead the ban is no longer active so maybe he should be allowed to be on the ballot.

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote: Rose and Jackson should be in. It should be on the individual's performance on the field; nothing more . . .

I'm with you AND Garry on this one.

Joe Jackson should not be in. I know a lot about that 1919 scandal and Jackson was not Mr. Innocent.

so?

ever learn what Ty Cobb did?

can only judge by numbers . . . not ethics.

It comes down to two questions:
1) Was Jackson told about the fix by the conspirators before it happened?
2) Did Jackson receive a cut of the money?

The answer to both is yes and Jackson admitted this.

Jackson accepted $5000 from gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series and he knew about the fix before the series started and asked Kid Gleason to bench him.

In college I wrote a 10+ paper about this scandal, going in I thought Jackson was getting railroaded but after researching it my viewed changed.

Recently a report came out that new documents about the scandal were found and going to be auctioned off, maybe something in there will change things but for now I stand by my opinion.

He was given a lifetime ban but I guess because he is now dead the ban is no longer active so maybe he should be allowed to be on the ballot.

Again so? I agree Jackson is guilty. That is not the point. Read above . . . MLB players have done far worse AND gotten convicted for it and still made the HOF based on numbers . . . can't judge ethics. It is impossible.

CaptainP wrote:Guys...the game was to pick ONE ELIGIBLE player.


I agree that Rose and Jackson belong in. We can debate, and have debated, the merits of many other players.

I was just looking to find that one name you would pick off of the list.
If you could only pick one.
ONE.
OFF THE LIST.
PLEASE!!!!

Rich Gossage.

(And Pete Rose from NOT on the list).

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:I not denying Ty Cobb was a mean SOB, but that's not illegal. What Rose did, betting baseball and on his own team, was clearly against baseball's rules. Rules put in place because of 1919. And if he admitted it right away, he might have been forgiven by now. But he denied it for years, then admitted to betting on other teams, then finally said he bet on the Reds. What he did strikes to the integrity of the game.

running into the stands to beat up a black man for booing you to the point where he could never see straight again is illegal. There are more illegal acts as well . . . like me to name them?

again; HOF should be on the field stats . . . adultery, rape, drug use, assault are all things MLB players have been convicted of over the years . . . fact; look it up . . . and they are all illegal or immoral.

Why focus on a select few?

I'm certainly not a Cobb expert, but as fas as Rose is concerned, his mistake was violating baseball's rules more than society's. He could have been involved in a betting scandal involving other sports. Even baseball, if his managerial career was over. But having a current manager involved in betting strikes too close to home. He had too much control over the outcome of the game in that position. True, he's no longer a player, but he's still "in the game."

chippewa wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:I not denying Ty Cobb was a mean SOB, but that's not illegal. What Rose did, betting baseball and on his own team, was clearly against baseball's rules. Rules put in place because of 1919. And if he admitted it right away, he might have been forgiven by now. But he denied it for years, then admitted to betting on other teams, then finally said he bet on the Reds. What he did strikes to the integrity of the game.

running into the stands to beat up a black man for booing you to the point where he could never see straight again is illegal. There are more illegal acts as well . . . like me to name them?

again; HOF should be on the field stats . . . adultery, rape, drug use, assault are all things MLB players have been convicted of over the years . . . fact; look it up . . . and they are all illegal or immoral.

Why focus on a select few?

I'm certainly not a Cobb expert, but as fas as Rose is concerned, his mistake was violating baseball's rules more than society's. He could have been involved in a betting scandal involving other sports. Even baseball, if his managerial career was over. But having a current manager involved in betting strikes too close to home. He had too much control over the outcome of the game in that position. True, he's no longer a player, but he's still "in the game."

Running up into the stands to beat a man half to death for booing you does effect the game. It certainly effected Cobb's team for the rest of that season. It effected the future of the team because no one wanted to play with him . . . and it is illegal. That was the point . . . YOUR point: illegal. Comment?

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote: Rose and Jackson should be in. It should be on the individual's performance on the field; nothing more . . .

I'm with you AND Garry on this one.

Joe Jackson should not be in. I know a lot about that 1919 scandal and Jackson was not Mr. Innocent.

so?

ever learn what Ty Cobb did?

can only judge by numbers . . . not ethics.

It comes down to two questions:
1) Was Jackson told about the fix by the conspirators before it happened?
2) Did Jackson receive a cut of the money?

The answer to both is yes and Jackson admitted this.

Jackson accepted $5000 from gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series and he knew about the fix before the series started and asked Kid Gleason to bench him.

In college I wrote a 10+ paper about this scandal, going in I thought Jackson was getting railroaded but after researching it my viewed changed.

Recently a report came out that new documents about the scandal were found and going to be auctioned off, maybe something in there will change things but for now I stand by my opinion.

He was given a lifetime ban but I guess because he is now dead the ban is no longer active so maybe he should be allowed to be on the ballot.

Again so? I agree Jackson is guilty. That is not the point. Read above . . . MLB players have done far worse AND gotten convicted for it and still made the HOF based on numbers . . . can't judge ethics. It is impossible.

Because Jackson admitted he violated the integrity of the game.... Cobb and others like him are guilty of violating the integrity of the law not related to baseball. When it comes to the Hall of Fame there is a difference. Break the law you're eligible, violate the integrity of the game you're not.

Jackson will never get in. Rose has a better shot than Jackson.