January 08, 2004
Stark On Rose
Jayson Stark outlines why Selig may be changing his mind about reinstating Rose:
For nearly 15 years, baseball has allowed Rose to position himself as a sympathetic martyr in the eyes of a huge segment of the public. Now, all of a sudden, he isn't looking so sympathetic.
After years of living with all the calls and letters from fans urging Selig to bring the Hit King back into baseball, people in the commissioner's office say they've been stunned by the reversal of that tide in the last week. Since Monday, the anti-reinstatement calls and emails have vastly outnumbered the pro-Pete sentiment, they say.
"He's done a lot of damage to himself in the court of public opinion," said one source. "And that's the court he's always thrived in."
I'm not sure how many opinions have changed, but until Monday, the people against Rose had no reason to call the commissioner's office. Now they do. It's good to see.
I usually find Stark unreadable (who is this royal "we" he constantly refers to, even in articles which also contain first-person; get this man an editor, STAT), but this was a pretty good piece. It makes me pretty happy to see this large-scale negative reaction to this event; it would be even greater justice if the book tanks.
Now even Joe Morgan's blasting Pete. What with everyone piling on, it's almost enough for me -- who doesn't want Pete in the Hall -- to have some sympathy for the guy.
Nah.
Stark says "It always sounded so simple: If the guy would just come clean and admit what he did, it would open the door to reinstatement." I can't fully agree; I -- and most likely many, if not most, baseball fans -- had always felt that Pete's inclusion into the HoF was dependent on whether or not he was guilty of gambling on baseball games. He has finally admitted to his guilt.
Keep him out.
Restitution is part of the process of forgiveness.
Wouldn't it be interesting to watch Pete's reaction to someone suggesting he donate ALL the proceeds of his book (including the 1 Mil advance) to indigent former Major Leaguers?
This gesture would show true remorse and do some real good to those who need help.
The pot could be increased by presenting the idea to Pete via pay-per-view with the binding papers there for him to sign or refuse
.
The squeeze play of all time.
It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Character. I would agree he shouldn't be re-instated or allowed in if we called it the Hall of Character, but that's not what it is.
There are wife beaters, known racists, bigots and just all around general bums and "assholes" in the Hall. (Sorry David, I know you don't like profanity)What makes Pete Rose's case so different? Because he wasn't elected PRIOR to him being caught gambling? Is gambling worse than being a racist? A wife beater?
Had he been elected prior to, would the passion to have him removed be the same? I think not. The guy deserves to be in. His accomplishments on the field warrant it. Yes he lied, for fourteen years. Again, is that worse than some of the others elected in?
The Hall of Fame is somewhat of a joke anyway. People who aren't so deserving are elected every year.
Pete Rose will be reinstated. Pete Rose will be elected into the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame for his on baseball playing accomplishments. He's not being elected for being a superior manager, or a stand up guy.
For the record, I'm a Yankee fan, not a Pete Rose or a Red Fan.
Actually character and integrity are part of the criteria:
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Racism (which was the norm for Ty Cobb's time) or wife beating do not bring the game into disrepute. Betting on the game, especially ones in which you play or manage, does.
Robert: I don't see any percentages attached to the list of criteria. A voter can choose to diminish "character" or "integrity" and promote selection based "record", "playing ability" and "contribution."
That's how Ty Cobb made it in. And while "racism" might have been approved by MLB and rampant in society it doesn't excuse ignoring it for Cobb. That is, if you buy into voting based on nebulous criteria such as "integrity" and "character."
Personally, I say leave out everything except playing record and contributions to the team. (And even the latter is arguable.)
Finally, Rose admitted he bet on the Reds as a manager. Does anyone believe he should enter the Hall of Fame as a player AND be banned from MLB for life?
Certainly Chuck, there are no percentages. That's why Kirby Puckett made it in, but not Albert Belle, even though Belle has better numbers.
Ty Cobb went in when, 1937? I don't think the "he's a racist" thought was going through all that many people's minds. But I tend to view the character/integrity points as more in relation to the game itself, not to a person's character away from the game. Albert Belle was a jerk on the field -- throwing a ball at a fan. Kirby was a big booster of the game, even though it turns out he's no paragon of virtue.
But Pete Rose committed THE cardinal sin: betting on the game, especially ones in which he had a duty to perform. It calls into question every game he managed -- I do not believe he ever bet against his team or sabatoged any game, but did he play someone hurt, just to win, did he believe he had no chance of winning in games he didn't bet?
I don't expect players to be saints, or even very likeable, but I do expect them to preserve the integrity of the game.
Robert,
You are absolutely right. It calls into question every game he managed, NOT every (or any for that matter) game he played in which he became the hit leader for baseball. His sin that he admitted to was for his time AFTER his playing days.
I say again, for his on field accomplishment, and while he was a player, he did nothing short of play hard, play tough and be great while doing it, hence a hall of fame member for his performance.
I'll repost your Rule 5 from HOF.org:
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
I see nothing pertaining about Managing. Only about accomplishments as a player. When it's modified to read "and managed" at the end, I would certainly then agree with your argument.