A Rose By Any Other Name…

By now you know that Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred issued a ruling that a Lifetime Ban from baseball ceases to exist after the death of the person who was banned. OK, I guess I can go along with that. This means that the ban is over for Pete Rose, “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, and 16 others. There are some interesting cases among the 16 (for example, take some time to learn about Benny Kauff, who was banned after he was accused of , but never convicted for , stealing, repainting and selling a car - it is a strange and fascinating story) but the main repercussions surround Rose and Jackson and their new eligibility for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Will these two be elected? They are no longer eligible to be voted on by the Baseball Writers Association, but will be considered by one of the Era Committees which meet annually. The process is very different from the yearly elections by the writers, as the 16 person committees are comprised of HOF players, executives, and media members/historians. At least 12 must vote for the nominees. Time will tell.

I’ve always been curious about Jackson’s ban. He apparently took $5000 to participate in a scheme to throw the 1919 World Series, but batted .375 in the games. The facts are too hazy for me to have a strong feeling about his inclusion in the HOF, but I do have an opinion about Pete Rose. (You knew I would)

Between the lines Rose was one of the best players to ever take the field. “Charlie Hustle” is MLB’s all time leader in hits, games and at bats, and played six different positions over a 24 year career. It has been said that he participated in more wins (1972) than any other athlete in history. So he deserves to go in the Hall, right? Not on my ballot. Here’s why I couldn’t vote for him:

Rose signed an agreement with Commissioner Bart Giamatti in which he agreed to be banned from baseball for life in return for baseball not making a formal determination about whether he bet on baseball. For years he denied that he had bet on baseball, then later he admitted that he had, but never on Reds games. Then he said he never bet against the Reds. It’s the old “I was lying before, but I’m telling the truth now” game. I don’t know what all really happened, but I’ve always felt that Rose wouldn’t have asked for confidentiality if he had nothing to hide. He absolutely violated baseball’s Rule 21, which is posted on the walls of every clubhouse in professional baseball.

So I propose that we celebrate Pete Rose’s career in the museum at Cooperstown (as we already do). There are several exhibits which refer to his illustrious accomplishments. There is nothing there to downgrade his records or denigrate his career. All of this is well deserved, but I couldn’t vote to put his plaque in the sacred halls.

That’s one man’s opinion - what’s yours?