 Last week Mike Muschiano argued that it is an "empty" Hall of Fame without Pete Rose. I could not disagree more, and in my mind Pete Rose is one of the most odious, undeserving figures in baseball with no viable claim whatsoever to being Hall of Fame worthy.
Lets consider a few points:
1. His career is irrelevant- The talk about how Pete is a Hall of Fame quality player misses the point entirely. His playing career is irrelevant as to why he is not in the Hall. It is nothing more than the baldest of red herrings.
2. Gambling on your team to win is no excuse- I find this to be the most unusual and misguided argument in favor of Rose. Clearly Rose would have, and did, manage his team differently on games that he bet on. He used Mario Soto longer, for example, as has been detailed elsewhere. As far as why gambling is far worse to baseball (as opposed to society) than drugs, racism and the usual crimes bandied about as if Pete Rose's crimes against baseball are the same as Ty Cobb's, Gerald Posner had the following to say (and thanks to Sean Lahman, who has an entire page dedicated to the Rose debacle):
In a 1989 article, Gerald Posner offered this explanation:
"The possibility exists that decisions won't be made in the team's best interests, but rather because of the money riding on the game. If a manager bets on a game, he may bring a player off injured reserves sooner than he should in order to win, or he may pitch a reliever without enough rest, not caring that he won't be able to pitch for several extra days. If a betting manager gets in large debt to bookies, he can clear his account by merely revealing inside information about the team. The opportunity for corruption is greatly increased. This is not to suggest that Rose compromised the Reds in any way. The chance that such impropriety could result is the reason for such a strict taboo on betting baseball."
This position does not entirely make the argument though; it does not go far enough. One thing that Posner misses is that as Rose got more into debt, the opportunity existed for gamblers and bookies to whom he owed money to get him to fix games. THAT is the main reason that gambling, even on your team to win, is taboo and easily the highest crime against baseball as an institution, as opposed to racism, steroids, drugs etc.
Sean Lahman posits a perfect analogy: Consider a student who passes a final exam under the influence of illegal drugs. The professor might be inclined to call the police, but there's no reason why the student shouldn't get the grade he earned. Then consider another student who cheats on the same exam. No crime has been committed, but as a student that's the worst possible behavior, and deserves the harshest penalty.
3. Rose AGREED TO BE PERMANENTLY INELIGIBLE- The Pete Rose supporters always forget this inconvenient fact, so it is bolded and in caps so they do not miss it this time. In order to avoid going to jail and in order to prevent a conclusion that he did, in fact, bet on baseball, Rose agreed to be placed on baseball's "permanently ineligible" list. This means, among other things, that he cannot be inducted into the Hall. This is certainly a fair trade for him, he bargained for it, was represented by a lawyer and knew exactly what the import of the deal meant. No one has ever provided a good argument to ignore this fact and induct him in the Hall despite this agreement.
Not that the agreement helped him avoid prison, since he went anyway for other crimes.
4. Rose admitted betting on his team to win "every night." And even here he lied.- Did I fail to mention this? After denying it for 15 years and assassinating the character of everyone from Giamatti to Bud Selig and John Dowd, he finally admitted that Dowd was right that he bet on baseball.
But even here Rose is a liar. He didn't bet on his team every night! He specifically did not bet when Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched. Why is this significant? Because it tells the bookies that he expects to lose. He didn't bet on Soto, so he worked him harder, saving his pen for games that he did bet on.
When the day comes that someone makes a convincing argument to ignore the fact of Rose's agreement to be permanently ineligible, only then will I even consider the question. Until that day comes it is an open and shut case: he and everyone else should live up to the agreement. In my opinion nothing else matters; this agreement is a trump card that renders all other arguments irrelevant. Either Rose made the agreement or he did not; and no one disputes that he understood the full import of this agreement. The questions of comparing his crimes to drugs, or whether his perfomance was Hall-worthy or whether betting on your team to win is acceptable cannot be considered at all until you address the agreement issue. His supporters cannot and have not yet convinced me.
And please don't tell me that they changed the rule in 1990. It was understood at the time whether codified or not that he would not be HOF eligible, Rose allegedly knew this at the time though he now disputes it, and even if they changed the rule so what? He is still ineligible now and whether he was eligible in 1989 is moot.
What does the anti-gambling rule say? Here it is, and it is posted in every clubhouse:
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
No other rule about drugs, racism, steroids or any other crime of moral turpitude is posted, and with good reason.
The fact is that Pete Rose is a lying, sleazy, fake, miserable self-aggrandizing grandstander who is a deserving pariah. The whole "Charlie Hustle" thing was and is a perfect example of his narcissism, fakery and his desire to craft an image. And even to this day he refuses to admit the truth, so much so that one wonders whether he has convinced himself that he has truly been wronged when it is the other way around.
Trackback(0)
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
