Tags
Bart Giamatti, baseball, Hall of Fame, MLB, Permanent Ineligibility, Pete Rose, Rule 21(d), Thomas Boswell, Tyler Kepner
Baseball’s Rule 21(d): “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.
Pete Rose: Player 1963-86 and Manager 1984-89 broke this rule, betting on baseball games, including games he managed. After lying about his betting on baseball for 15 years, he signed a deal in 1989 with MLB Commissioner of Baseball Bart Giamatti that banished him from the sport forever.
Hall of Fame: A permanently ineligible player cannot be considered for the Hall of Fame. Had Rose not bet on baseball and not been banned, he would have easily been elected to the HOF. See His Accomplishments if you doubt that.
Rose has sought ‘parole’ in the past (5 times?), but neither Commissioners Fay Vincent nor Bud Selig ever considered rescinding the banishment. Now, 25 years later, there is a new Commissioner of Baseball, Rob Manifred, and it is likely he will have to decide if Rose should be reinstated. (Reinstatement would not mean automatic entrance into the HOF as Rose would still have to be voted into the HOF in the usual manner by the Baseball Writer’s Association of America.)
The Debate:
1. Rose has served his time and should be reinstated.
2. Rose broke a cardinal rule and should not be allowed back in baseball.
3. Rose should remain out of baseball but be voted in or out of HOF by the BBWAA just as any other rule breaker (PEDs, etc.).
Two articles that address these issues that are worth your time:
Tyler Kepner, NYT: Pete Rose’s Statistics: 4,256 Hits and a Big Error, where in Mike Schmidt says Rose has served his time and should return to baseball. Paul Molitor disagrees.
Thomas Boswell, WaPo: Consider Pete Rose for HOF, but don’t let him back in baseball, where in Boswell says ‘No Way’ Rose should be let back in, but he could/should be considered for the HOF.
My thinking on this ‘debate’ has changed, particularly after reading the Boswell article. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that Rose should not be reinstated. Not so sure about the HOF issue, however.
Where do you stand? Please so state in the Comment section of this post.
———————————————————————————————–
Reminder: If you haven’t submitted you picks for the 2015 MillersTime Baseball Contests, tempus fugit.
Joe Higdon said:
Baseball only has one hard and absolute rule. Every player knows it from day one. Rose violated it hundreds of times we know of. He has shown no true remorse after years of lying about and vilifying the character of his accusers and investigators for years. He should stay banned for life and possibly considered for HOF after he is gone. The HOF is an honor. What if Pete Rose was enshrined the same year as Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn? I doubt they would feel all that honored.
Chris said:
Pete Rose played an unyielding brand of baseball (see his hit on Ray Fosse in a ‘meaningless’ All-Star game) and would like to see everyhing bend to his will as far as the HOF goes. I think not. He is so arogant that he goes to the Cooperstown HOF inductions (and also, ironically? casinos) to sell his signature. Here is a YOUTUBE look at the man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_-28IMOh4
David Stang said:
My stand is like Boswell’s.
Keep Pete out of Baseball, but let the sports writer’s decide on whether they vote Pete in or out, and let the vote or non-vote stand.
Clare said:
I believe the man has served his time and deserves a second chance. Pete Rose has an addiction gambling is just as difficult to combat as an addiction to any other drug. I was incredibly disappointed to know Pete Rose bet on his own team. It was the first time I remember when I saw a sports legend be punished. However, he has never lost the love for the game or hope of the possibility to be reinstated. I get angry when I see other players who are able to continue to play and who are eligible for the HOF when they have used who used illegal drugs and done significant crimes. Gambling is not a crime. Let him be reinstated and give him a chance to be in the HOF- it might not happen in his lifetime, but at least he like others who have addictions in baseball can be on the same playing field.
Larry Longenecker said:
I agree with Clare. However in the interest of full disclosure, I grew up in SW Ohio and watched Pete and The Big Red Machine play baseball for several years.
Brian Steinbach said:
I’ve always been neutral on reinstatement – as others have noted, as a “crime” it is arguably less than others, and I seem to recall (but will let myself be corrected) that even when he bet on his own team it was to win – so the integrity of the game was never affected (unlike PEDs) – but at the same time, it is the one cardinal rule since the Black Sox scandal. And certainly he has not been particularly contrite.
That said – ignoring his achievement as a player is like pretending that China was not ruled by the Peoples Party. It doesn’t make sense to ignore his achievement. The HOF could honor that while noting what happened later. He won’t get in because of his managing but because of his playing. A similar issue is when wins are taken away from teams and coaches because of rule infractions – but at least there, the infractions arguably could have affected the outcome.
Anyway, Rose belongs in the hall. Cobb was a dirtier player (and racist to boot) but he is in. Let the writers vote.
Ben Senturia said:
If Rose had fully confessed and stopped betting, I think it would be time to lift the ban BUT he hasn’t so I oppose lifting the ban.
Have you heard the (old) joke…
What if the difference between Jesus Christ and Bart Giamatti?
Jesus died, he was buried, and then he rose
Giamatti buried rose and then he died.