Browns could be “front-runners” to land on HBO’s Hard Knocks
March 23, 2015Audio: Kevin Love talks Cavs role and relationships on Mike and Mike
March 23, 2015Oh, no doubt. It was entirely predictable. It was just a matter of time until momentum began to build, in earnest. Public sentiment for Major League Baseball to restore Hall of Fame eligibility to Pete Rose was bound to reach the tipping point at which we find ourselves today.
After all, we are a forgiving culture. It’s a trait related to our Christian tradition. If offending parties appears sufficiently repentant, we want to welcome them back into our ‘good graces.’ Sure- we’ll beat them right down to their figurative pavement stains, and their chalk outlines will be examined by a 24/7 media witch hunt. But eventually, we prefer to rebuild them as well.
Pete Rose is Baseball’s Hit King. Derisively nicknamed as a Cincinnati Reds rookie by New York Yankee Whitey Ford in spring training, “Charlie Hustle” portrayed a maximum-effort approach to the game. Fans identified with what appeared to be his ability to get the most out of seemingly average physical skills.
Rose became a seventeen-time All-Star. He was a three-time World Series champion, and a three-time National League batting champion. He was a two-time Gold Glove winner who played every position except pitcher and catcher. He still holds the current career major league records for hits, singles, games played, at-bats, and plate appearances.
Into the latter years of his career, Pete Rose tackled the player-manager, and then manager-only, role for the Reds with the same fire and hustle with which he’d always displayed.
By 1989, reports had surfaced that Rose had bet on baseball while managing the Reds. A circus environment began to follow the team. Although Rose denied the reports, Baseball’s investigation led them to the firm belief they were true.
Gambling, of course, had once threatened to destroy the professional game. The threat escalated to a full blown crisis with the 1919 “Black Sox” scandal. Members of the Chicago White Sox, disgruntled at miserly owner Charles Comiskey, were reported to have thrown the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds. Accusations led to suspensions in 1920, contributing to the Cleveland Indians beating out the White Sox for the American League pennant that year. Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis (coincidentally from southwest Ohio, near Cincinnati) was installed by team owners as the first-ever powerful league commissioner, and while the 1921 “Black Sox” trial resulted in ‘not guilty’ verdicts, Landis permanently banned from Baseball the eight White Sox players involved in the scandal.
This included one-time Cleveland Naps/Indians star outfielder ‘Shoeless’ Joe Jackson. Jackson had confessed to a grand jury that he’d accepted $5000 (a large sum then, of course) from the gamblers. He later recanted the confession, and these days, many hold that Jackson had not been involved. The other seven players stated he was not present at their meetings, and evidence surfaced that indicates he was not guilty. Furthermore, he was the top hitter among both teams in the 1919 Series. He did not commit an error, and threw a runner out at home plate No one disagrees that Jackson was a simpleton, and perhaps easily confused…
A few years later, Indians star player-manager Tris Speaker and pitcher “Smoky Joe” Wood became embroiled in another baseball gambling scandal. In 1926, Detroit Tigers pitcher Dutch Leonard, who’d retired after the 1925 season, had become disgruntled with his treatment by player-manager Ty Cobb. He alleged, in a statement to Landis, that Speaker had offered to throw a game to the Tigers in September of 1919. The Indians had just clinched second place, and were eliminated from pennant contention.
Leonard produced letters from Cobb and Wood that purported to prove his accusation. Wood’s letter included the amounts that each of the four had won as a result of the fixed game. Cobb’s expressed disappointment that he hadn’t received more than he did.
By early 1927, the players were cleared by Landis. Speaker and Cobb, perhaps the biggest stars in the game immediately preceding the Babe Ruth era, were forced by the league to resign as player-managers. Interestingly, they each were elected to the Hall of Fame in the 1930s.
The current list of banned ball players consists mainly of those who had been caught while being involved in gambling.
The suspension of Pete Rose was a crushing blow to the fans in the Cincinnati area. He is a native son, and had been an ongoing source of pride. His ban was akin to the sucker punch in the gut administered to Cleveland by LeBron James’ ‘taking his talents to South Beach.’ It was the culmination of a drawn-out affair that also attracted the IRS, and resulted in prison time tax evasion for Rose.
Through it all, and for fifteen years thereafter, Rose repeatedly refuted claims he bet on baseball. Finally, in 2004, he published an autobiography. In it, he admitted he made sports bets while playing for and managing the Reds. For the first time, he conceded that he bet on the Reds. He said he never bet against them. The book included his hope that this admission would help to end his ban.
Just recently, Pete Rose applied for reinstatement to Major League Baseball. It’s something he’s tried in the past, to no avail. This time, however, it feels different. For one thing, there is a new commissioner. Rob Manfred is openly discussing the possibility of removing Rose’s ineligibility (of course, getting the Hall of Fame to induct him is another matter).
Those who defend Pete Rose’s reinstatement include legions of loyal baseball fans. They believe Rose should be inducted into the Hall of Fame based solely on his achievements as a player. There was no fiercer competitor, and he got the most out of his ability. How do you keep the Hit King out of Baseball? He didn’t take performance-enhancing drugs, like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. And he bet ON the Reds- not against them. He’ll go in some day. He’s almost 74 years old—why wait any longer? While some think Rose ‘killed’ Bart Giamatti—since the commissioner died a few days after the ban—that is unfair.
Those who oppose Rose’s bid to end the ban point to the history of the game. Fundamentally, gambling is a no-no in Baseball. Signs are posted in professional baseball clubhouses that warn of the consequences of gambling. And if you bet ON your team, but not every game, do you not play to win as much on the days you do not place a bet? Also, it does not help Rose’s case that he defiantly lied about his activity for years. In the process, he allowed high-profile defenders- friends of his- to twist in the wind as they erroneously made the case for his innocence. Those who rightly insisted his guilt, like former Indian Bob Feller, drew wrath from those who believed Rose. Also, some point to his attitude, described by one media member as “a kind of swagger, that familiar screw-you defiance.”
Here is my problem with reinstating Pete Rose at this time:
- During the 1980s, Pete Rose and buddy Tommy Gioiosa (among others) were inseparable. Rose was betting on the game, selling bogus memorabilia and failing to pay all his taxes.
- Baseball Commissioner Bart Giamatti did not really want the Rose investigation to continue, as I very clearly recall. He wanted Rose to agree to a ban. In return, Giamatti would end baseball’s investigation.
- Rose signed the ban.
- Tommy Gioiosa was involved in gambling, and was convicted for tax evasion and for selling cocaine.
Presumably, Pete Rose employed a competent defense team; his attorney maintained a high profile in Cincinnati. I keep thinking: is there more than meets the eye regarding what Bart Giamatti expected to find, had Baseball’s investigation continued?
Rose was arrogant enough to think he could get away with engaging in the activity of gambling with the likes of Tommy Gioiosa. What, exactly, was there about Rose’s personality at the time, that would lead one to believe he would draw the line with those guys, with gambling alone?
Is the reason Rose was so adamant for so long about betting on baseball, and the Reds, due to a fear that if that truth were acknowledged, other truths would similarly come to light?
Sorry. I would prefer to avoid another protracted public review of Pete Rose’s gambling scandal. But In my mind, before Pete Rose’s ban is lifted, I prefer Baseball’s truncated investigation be resumed.
18 Comments
I completely see why you feel the way you do about Rose.
For me though, HOF are a museum of the sport. I do not believe that ANYONE should be banned from the HOF. Either you were good enough or you weren’t.
Now, I also believe that as a museum, they should have the whole nitty gritty about the issues (whether it be gambling, PED, or other) in full display.
Your third bullet point is really the only thing that matters in this entire issue: Rose agreed to the ban so baseball wouldn’t go public with everything they had on him. If he truly was innocent or not deserving of punishment, then why would he agree to the deal?
Oh, and there is the whole Ray Fosse incident which should never, ever, be forgotten. Simply no excuse, and for that alone Rose deserves to be left out of the HoF.
“If offending parties appears sufficiently repentant”
Except that Rose has never been repentant, much less sufficiently so.
“He didn’t take performance-enhancing drugs”
Gioiosa, who was Rose’s roommate for quite a while, was a notorious steroid (and recreational drugs too) dealer. The odds that Rose didn’t dabble in PEDs are close to zero.
Rose agreed to the ban only under the terms that he was not admitting to the charges, and that he could apply for reinstatement later on. Giamatti passed away soon after the Rose decision, and before application for reinstatement could occur.
Now, I don’t think that’s good enough to reinstate Rose, but the option to give Rose the equivalent of parole for good behavior was there. Except that Rose never demonstrated that good behavior.
That’s always been the hardest argument in the whole PED/steroid issue. Since baseball never tested anyone we have no way of knowing what was going on during the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s.
We know the San Diego Chargers were using steroids in the ’60s and the Steelers were cheating their way to four Super Bowls by using them in the ’70s, it’s not much of a stretch to think that some usage would have migrated over to other sports. And we’ve seen since testing began in baseball that not everyone who gets caught looks like Barry Bonds or Mark McGuire.
It’s not a stretch at all. Tom House said players were loading up. We know Mantle saw “Dr. Feelgood”, Mays had “red juice”, and Aaron admitted to using amphetamines, and just like you said about today’s players, we know it wasn’t just the big names that used.
Pete didn’t have his hit record taken away. He agreed to a ban when presented with evidence and his alternatives. That was his punishment for violating a rule he knew all about. He assumed he had escaped all consequences when Giamatti died but he didn’t get his way. Awww.
Why should we care about Pete? Pete lies (denied gambling on games in every medium, non-stop, passionately, for decades). He slandered his truthful accusers as liars and worse. Then reversed himself because he saw that wasn’t working. Baseball invoked a punishment to set an example. I don’t care about a Grade-A butthole like Pete and his sniveling at every money-for-autograph stop about great injustices. I care about baseball. Notice any other players or managers blatantly gambling on games since? Pete’s not Shoeless Joe, an illiterate rube caught up in accusations of something he probably didn’t even do. Pete’s a permanently entitled manchild. Just shut up. Pete.
That’s quite a lumping. Big difference in gambling vs PEDs. Letting someone in whose merits were ill gotten vs someone whose merits were legit (but did a bad other thing). I say that Pete should be banned from the Hall from managerial consideration but allowed as a player. No known PEDer should be allowed in.
The punishment for PED use is sufficiently outlined – suspension from games, but no ban from baseball until the third offense. The punishment for gambling on games you are involved in are as equally sufficiently outlined, and a bit more harsh, for darn good reason.
We can’t look for guidance in patchwork, retroactive rules that the MLB put in place (as if those clowns could even be entrusted with dogsitting). If we’re generally talking relativity here on PEDs v gambling, then the judgment depends on the context.
Gambling on games is “worse” if we’re talking about preserving the integrity of the game.
PEDs (or any other personal cheating) is “worse” if we’re talking about preserving the purity of the individual statistics, the yardsticks players are measured against for the purpose of the Hall.
Again, here we’re talking about the HOF and individual stats. Rose’s stats, as far as anyone can tell, are pure. While he may be a turd, a terrible gambler, whatever…his credentials are there.
I’m not sure how anyone can think that the purity of individual statistics are kept when gambling is involved.
And I’m not sure where the rules are being retroactively applied. The rules are the rules, and one has, and demands, a much larger punishment.
And, as mentioned below, Rose’s stats, as pertaining to possible PED use, are far from pure. He’s admitted to using greenies at a minimum, lived with a steroid dealer, and would still have zero integrity if those two things weren’t true. This narrative that Rose only cared about competing and winning is foolish. He has proven time and time again that his sole concern is where the next paycheck is coming from.
before any of this pete rose BS can be considered, Shoeless Joe Jackson needs to be figured out first. shoeless joe needs to go in first.
I love Rose the player but he should have his lifetime suspension upheld.
People with a myopia fail to see how gambling nearly ruined baseball and if done routinely, would undermine any professional sport. Everybody knows it is the one thing you can’t do in baseball.
if anything, Pete needs every single last old timer in the HOF to die before he has any chance. They are not fans of his either.
Once gambling is involved, it is impossible to tell if statistics were not also effected (not just for said player, but others). The integrity of the statistics is what the HOF committee is trying to maintain both with the gambling and PED exclusions.
There was a time when sports commissioners and others had some backbone and integrity and did what was best for the game and not just what’s best for the owners’ pockets. Sometimes these two factors overlap, and sometimes they are in diametric opposition to each other (e.g., Thursday Night Football, just about everything Bud Selig ever did).
I hope baseball sticks to what’s left of its principles and does not let Rose back in. He’s got the hit record, so it’s not like he’s forgotten. But he doesn’t deserve the Hall. Neither do any of the steroid boys.
I don’t like PEDs coming into play when talking HOF. Nobody know who used them (other than a hundred or so players). Plus, nobody talks about the pitchers, who, in my opinion, see a greater benefit from them than hitters do.
I’m a huge joe Jackson fan and I think that most would agree that he belongs in the hall. But his scenario is so different that Pete Rose, who never shed a tear for anyone but himself, and always had enough time to pay himself on the back.
If you don’t want to be hit, don’t block the plate. That’s like crying that a quarterback got hit too hard when he was running toward a guy he just threw an interception to trying to make a tackle or force the runner in a different direction.