Free Frolics:

July 18, 2003

You know what? For years, I thought they should let Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, too. I saw it as a ridiculous pissing contest between stubborn guys, and it seemed to me that if you could be in the Hall of Fame despite being a racist, a violent drunk, or whatever else, Pete Rose was no worse.

But he lost me. Because I sat down with the wisest baseball fan I know, and I sort of made this point -- "It's just guys being stubborn." And he said, "No, it's not at all." And he pointed out that as Dershowitz says, this is not just a rule, this is the rule. And it's a rule you absolutely, positively have to have. "I only bet on my own team" doesn't work. You could wind up using your best pitcher today in a game you bet on instead of tomorrow in a game your team actually needs more. You can't be betting on games you're involved in. And you can't be betting on games you're not involved in, either. When you're a manager, you do not bet on baseball games, period. And as soon as this was said to me rationally and calmly, I got it, and I agreed with it, and that's where I am today.

Could it be forgiven if he had ever shown any remorse? Maybe. Maybe not. But the fact that he still lies about it (11 of 12 members of the ESPN "jury" that voted to let him in the Hall thought he was lying and did bet on baseball, according to the article) and the fact that he shows no remorse (which is part and parcel of the lying) makes it impossible. More to the point, the fact that he still lies about it reinforces to me that no matter how much of an all-out competitor he was, he doesn't have respect for the game. I'm not talking about respect for the commissioner's office, which often doesn't deserve any respect, after all. I'm talking about respect for the game itself, as demonstrated by an ability to understand why you are not so important that you can do whatever you want.

It breaks my heart, believe me -- I grew up near Philadelphia, and was there in 1980. The baseball moment that probably made a larger impression on me than any other was the pop-up in foul territory over by the seats that Bob Boone went for and caught with Rose standing right next to him -- only to have it bounce out of his glove and head for the ground, at which point Pete reached under Boone's glove and snagged it. It was un-be-liev-a-ble.

But if I were on this jury, I'd have gone the other way. It's okay that he's a jerk, which he is. If they were keeping him out because he's a jerk, I'd be on his side. It's just not okay that he doesn't get that some rules apply to everybody, regardless of stats.

Posted by Alison-Jane at July 18, 2003 05:31 AM

Comments

Amen, sister. As your friend said, there's one rule you don't break in baseball, and that's the one. I love the way Pete Rose played the game, but he hasn't managed to grasp what he did, and why it was wrong. I'd still stand up for him at a game, because of his accomplishments, but baseball as an institution can't do anything but turn its back on him.

Posted by: avatarhands on July 18, 2003 11:21 AM

I have never understood the argument as to WHY Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. He bet on baseball, including his own team. He agreed to a ban as a way of avoiding being deemed to have bet on baseball. You DO NOT bet on the game as a player, coach, whatever. It goes to the fundamental integrity of the game. I grew up in and still live in Philadelphia and remember Rose as a player and the 1980 World Series. Yet, I still don't think he should be in. I can't believe it even gets the debate that it does. Will Shoeless Joe Jackson get in now, too? Most historians don't think he altered his play one bit in the world series the Black Sox threw.

Posted by: Craig Huffman on July 18, 2003 03:12 PM

Shoeless Joe didn't have more hits than anyone in the game's history. Rose does.

I think he should be in the Hall -- with an asterisk, if that makes people feel better, but if you think Ty Cobb never bet on a game, think again -- but one fact that seems to get lost in the shuffle is that Rose wasn't banned because he bet on baseball. He was banned *because he wouldn't admit it*. Giamatti offered him various lengths of suspension -- six years, seven years -- if he would just admit something either way. Rose was facing a federal indictment on other charges and, thinking that that would hurt his case, refused. (Also helpful to note is the fact that even players deemed "permanently ineligible" may apply for reinstatement after one year. Rose was not denied this.)

Not that that necessarily goes to the argument of whether he should be in the Hall; some people are going to think the hits trump the betting and some people are going to think the opposite, and I think there are excellent points on both sides. But the fact is that Rose was banned from the game not for betting on baseball games, whether he admitted to that in the agreement or elsewhere. He was banned for associating with known gamblers, and if you're going to play it that way, you're going to have to pitch half the electees who played between 1905 and 1930 out of the Hall too.

Posted by: Sars on July 19, 2003 08:05 PM

Sorry, that last should read "was NOT banned from the game for betting on baseball games." Got tangled up in my clauses there.

Posted by: Sars on July 19, 2003 08:06 PM

The thing I don't understand is why he can't remain banned from the game of baseball, yet still be in the Hall of Fame. I don't believe for a second that he should ever play, manage, or coach again. But, to me, entrance into the Hall of Fame should be based on what he did on the field. You can ban him from the game, but you can't ban his stats from the history books. And it's those stats that make him a Hall worthy player. Like Sars said, give him an asterisk. Or put it on his plaque that he's banned from the game for betting, whatever, just don't tell me that he doesn't belong.

Posted by: Anya on July 21, 2003 09:40 AM