Who should be in the Hall of Fame that isnt

jbellis74 · 08-28-2008, 11:16 PM

So while at a Long Island Duscks game a buddy and I were talking about who we thought should be in the Hall of Fame that isnt...

I am curious what you all think and why...

I voted for Shoeless Joe Jackson because he has a lifetime .356 average and if he was trying to throw the WS he didnt do a real good job of it because he hit .375 with 6 RBI's in the 1919 WS. He also hit .408 in his rookie year.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson - The Official Web Site

Zerokruel · 08-28-2008, 11:49 PM

Im glad you brought this up! About 2 months ago and god knows how much we drank at the pub that night, a group of us had the same conversation. Myself and another friend were saying SJJ and the other guys were saying Mark M.

We was a great player, and I think he should be inducted. He was a great ball player.

Cornerstore · 08-28-2008, 11:51 PM

Rose,Jackson,Rice and Dawson in my mind are HOFs. Rose and Jackson have their problems however I think there has to be a peroid where we look at what they did as players and let people know that they were amung the greats of the game. Rice and Dawson were greats during their time and great hard ballplayers who deserve to get in by ballot...

arodfan17 · 08-28-2008, 11:57 PM

should we count the players that were greats of the game even if they cheated the game itself? I couldnt' vote for Rose regardless of how much I like him. On the same note, I don't know howmuch big mac should be in there either. Granted they both did amazing things during their careers

pskell02 · 08-29-2008, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arodfan17

should we count the players that were greats of the game even if they cheated the game itself? I couldnt' vote for Rose regardless of how much I like him. On the same note, I don't know howmuch big mac should be in there either. Granted they both did amazing things during their careers

The thing you may be overlooking in Rose's case is that getting into the HOF is based on your career accomplishments. What he did as a manager has absolutely no baring on the way he played the game. He should be in the Hall simply for that fact.

I feel that he will be let in once there is a new Commish in place. That lifetime ban will be lifted when someone that isn't on a personal witch hunt against him is in place.

arodfan17 · 08-29-2008, 12:48 AM

I wasn't saying anythign negatve about his career marks, in fact I think he played great. At the same time though I don't know that someone who tarnished the game so should be in the Hall. Its not like I hate Pete if it were anyone else I would say the same. Maybe a tiny personal bias pskell? lol my folks arefrom philly too

derek55 · 08-29-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arodfan17

I wasn't saying anythign negatve about his career marks, in fact I think he played great. At the same time though I don't know that someone who tarnished the game so should be in the Hall. Its not like I hate Pete if it were anyone else I would say the same. Maybe a tiny personal bias pskell? lol my folks arefrom philly too

Biggest understatement I've read in a long time.

arodfan17 · 08-29-2008, 01:22 AM

what would you have rather I said? amazing, awesome, really good????

derek55 · 08-29-2008, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arodfan17

what would you have rather I said? amazing, awesome, really good????

Perhaps calling his career "great" isn't much of a stretch, but it's got to be more than that, right? Maybe it's the entire context that struck me as insufficient. I mean we're talking about the greatest hitter of all-time (arguably I suppose, but he has the most hits anyway). His career was more than "great". Jeff Kent is great. Ryne Sandberg was great. Pete Rose was phenomenal. He's not ahead of Babe Ruth or anything (there's another understatement, by the way), but he's in that phenomenal category in my eyes. Somehow "great" doesn't do his career justice. Maybe I'm being too nit-picky; don't take it personal please.

derek55 · 08-29-2008, 02:25 AM

Arodfan,

Now that I read your lines again, I think maybe my first reaction to "I think he played great" was "Really? You think so?" It's not that I don't think you don't appreciate what a player he was, but to me it's like saying "Kobe Bryant is great, in my opinion". I mean, that's everyone's opinion. "I think Pete Rose played great" is not much of an opinion is all I'm saying... if you want to say "I think Pete Rose is the greatest Cincinnati Red of all-time", now you'll have an argument, but nobody can deny he was great. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.

View Poll Results: Who really got snubbed
Pete Rose	17	53.13%
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson	11	34.38%
Mark Mcguire	1	3.13%
Jim Rice	2	6.25%
Andre Dawson	1	3.13%
Lee Smith	0	0%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

08-28-2008, 11:16 PM	#1 (permalink)
jbellis74 Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Merrick, NY Posts: 526 iTrader: (1 / 100%) Bellis1974	Who should be in the Hall of Fame that isnt So while at a Long Island Duscks game a buddy and I were talking about who we thought should be in the Hall of Fame that isnt... I am curious what you all think and why... I voted for Shoeless Joe Jackson because he has a lifetime .356 average and if he was trying to throw the WS he didnt do a real good job of it because he hit .375 with 6 RBI's in the 1919 WS. He also hit .408 in his rookie year. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson - The Official Web Site __________________ "18 Wins and 1 Giant loss" Last edited by jbellis74 : 08-28-2008 at 11:35 PM.

08-28-2008, 11:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
Zerokruel Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Ripon,Ca Posts: 654 iTrader: (11 / 100%)	Im glad you brought this up! About 2 months ago and god knows how much we drank at the pub that night, a group of us had the same conversation. Myself and another friend were saying SJJ and the other guys were saying Mark M. We was a great player, and I think he should be inducted. He was a great ball player. __________________ Currently trading for Diapers and Formula! Also collecting John David Booty!

08-28-2008, 11:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
Cornerstore Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 113 iTrader: (0 / 0%)	Rose,Jackson,Rice and Dawson in my mind are HOFs. Rose and Jackson have their problems however I think there has to be a peroid where we look at what they did as players and let people know that they were amung the greats of the game. Rice and Dawson were greats during their time and great hard ballplayers who deserve to get in by ballot... __________________ I collect Jets players, Raul Mondesi and Ross gload baseball cards and a lifelong collector of 1990-1996 score baseball cards. In fact, i have 4 complete sets of 1995 score baseball. I am so fly.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-28-2008, 11:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
arodfan17 Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Jacksonville Posts: 387 iTrader: (7 / 100%) arodfan17	should we count the players that were greats of the game even if they cheated the game itself? I couldnt' vote for Rose regardless of how much I like him. On the same note, I don't know howmuch big mac should be in there either. Granted they both did amazing things during their careers

08-29-2008, 12:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
arodfan17 Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Jacksonville Posts: 387 iTrader: (7 / 100%) arodfan17	I wasn't saying anythign negatve about his career marks, in fact I think he played great. At the same time though I don't know that someone who tarnished the game so should be in the Hall. Its not like I hate Pete if it were anyone else I would say the same. Maybe a tiny personal bias pskell? lol my folks arefrom philly too

08-29-2008, 01:22 AM	#8 (permalink)
arodfan17 Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Jacksonville Posts: 387 iTrader: (7 / 100%) arodfan17	what would you have rather I said? amazing, awesome, really good????

08-29-2008, 02:25 AM	#10 (permalink)
derek55 Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Elk Grove, CA Posts: 247 iTrader: (3 / 100%)	Arodfan, Now that I read your lines again, I think maybe my first reaction to "I think he played great" was "Really? You think so?" It's not that I don't think you don't appreciate what a player he was, but to me it's like saying "Kobe Bryant is great, in my opinion". I mean, that's everyone's opinion. "I think Pete Rose played great" is not much of an opinion is all I'm saying... if you want to say "I think Pete Rose is the greatest Cincinnati Red of all-time", now you'll have an argument, but nobody can deny he was great. Hope that clears up where I'm coming from.