Mike Schmidt is wrong: 20 years is not enough for Pete Rose
Aug 24, 2009, 10:57 AM EDT
The best third baseman of all time is given an Associated Press column to make his case for Charlie Hustle. The upshot (apart from merely making Rose’s case on its own merits): Bart Giamatti was a wise and compassionate man who would have eventually given Rose the benefit of the doubt:
An interesting question was posed to me in a recent interview: Do you think things would have been different if Mr. Giamatti was still alive? . . . No one, however, anticipated the untimely passing of commissioner Giamatti, especially Pete. Before Pete could ever meet with him, appeal to him, come clean and apply for reinstatement, Mr. Giamatti passed away from a heart attack. Baseball lost a great ambassador for sure, and as unimportant as it was at the time, Pete’s fate now was in the hands of his successor, Fay Vincent.
The problem with this, however, is that it wasn’t as if Rose was going to come clean but, dadgummit, Giamatti died and he never got the chance. It was 15 years — 15 years during which Rose, for P.R. purposes, constantly misrepresented the deal he struck with Giamatti and constantly complained about how wronged he was — until he finally admitted that he had been lying all along. And even then it was only so he could sell some books. Schmidt glosses over that, probably because he was given a word limit by the AP and was more interested in conserving space to make an irrelevant comparison to steroids:
Pete bet on his team to win and has been banished from baseball for life. Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez et al, bet that they would get bigger, stronger and have a distinct advantage over everyone and that they wouldn’t get caught. Which is worse? Does the penalty fit the crime?
Pete’s banned for life, he sells his autograph to pay bills. Ramirez and his cronies apologize, are forgiven and get $20 million a year. They giggle all the way to the bank and could end up in the Hall of Fame. Is this the way Bart Giamatti would have wanted it 20 years later?
Actually, it’s not at all clear that Rose only bet on his team to win. We only have Rose’s word for that, so we’ll have to wait at least 15 more years, I’d wager, until we know if his story is going to change on that too.
But that’s not the point. The point is that Rose agreed to a lifetime ban, and now he and his defenders are complaining about the “lifetime” part of it. We can debate all day about whether gambling or steroids are worse for baseball, but one thing certainly is clear: the rules Rose broke and punishment Rose received for it had been in place for nearly 70 years at the time he was banned. Ramirez and A-Rod and the other steroids guys are likewise subject to the rules and punishments of their day too. We don’t let burglars out of jail early simply because we think the sentence for drug possession is too light.
Look, no one denies Rose’s talent as a ballplayer. Indeed, if I had my way I’d decouple Hall-of-Fame eligibility from eligibility to work in the game and allow Rose to get the plaque he deserves for his on-the-field accomplishments. Likewise, Mike Schmidt was Rose’s teammate and friend so I don’t begrudge him for making Rose’s case. I’d probably do the same for my friend.
But let’s be clear: it’s no crime or injustice that Pete Rose is still banned from baseball. A ban he agreed to, by the way, voluntarily and with full knowledge that it was intended to be for life. A ban at which he constantly thumbed his nose while lying to both those who had his potential reinstatement in their hands and the fans who were played for idiots after Rose finally, and calculatedly, decided to come clean in 2004.
The headline to Schmidt’s piece asks if 20 years is enough. My answer: no, not really.
-
- Mike - Aug 25, 2009 at 12:24 AM
-
Rose should be in the Hall. Just because he agreed to a life-time ban a couple decades ago doesn’t mean saner minds can’t prevail now. Put him in now. Not that MLB or the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association care what fans think.
-
- Jay - Aug 25, 2009 at 9:37 AM
-
I remember vividly an older gentleman showing me Pete Rose’s WS rings in a bar in Fall River Massachusetts in 1995. Pete had a serious problem and if was desperate enough to give up those valuables to a bookie in southeastern ma then, I tend to believe that he compromised most anything andeverything. He did not hold anything sacred, he was a lousy husband,father and he had/has never shown any hit of morality or ethics. He was an amzing ballplayer but, he sold his soul.
-
- Bill@TDS - Aug 25, 2009 at 11:16 AM
-
It would be nice if we could work the term “lifetime ban” back out of the vocabulary of this debate. The ban, both in the language of the rule and in the sanctions Pete agreed to, is a “permanent” one. And I don’t think baseball has any more compelling reason to celebrate Pete after he’s dead than it does right now.
-
- HOTROD - Aug 25, 2009 at 11:36 AM
-
I BET ROSE WOULD GET YOU WITH A GOOD 1,2 PUNCH ………
CAN YOU HAIR YOURSELF HITTING THE CANVAS
-
- HOTROD - Aug 25, 2009 at 11:39 AM
-
CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB, WHO DID THAT HURT ……….
PETE GAMBLED, WHO DID THAT HURT ……
THE IS BIGGER SHEET GOING ON ……
-
- HOTROD - Aug 25, 2009 at 11:41 AM
-
HEAR, SORRY
I HOPE I DON’T GET INTO AS MUCH TROUBLE AS PETE
-
- mgflolox - Aug 25, 2009 at 2:46 PM
-
TCM,
I appreciate your reasoned comments, the only thing that I’d like to clear up for people is that Pete agreed to an INDEFINITE suspension with the possibility for reinstatement, NOT a lifetime ban. I think that’s a big difference, as far as understanding Pete’s mindset when he was signing the agreement.
-
- steve1953 - Aug 25, 2009 at 8:06 PM
-
as a life long reds fan who lived and died with the reds since early 60′s remember one thing. betting on baseball and betting on your own team IS a lifetime ban. lifetime is lifetime, Pete Rose knew what he was doing and his ego let him think he could get away with it, that he was special and one and only. well congratulations Mr Rose, u are one special person now, hows it feel?
-
- James Etling - Aug 26, 2009 at 1:13 AM
-
I agree with you on the steroids, Ann. Ben Johnson’s bust in 1988 was a sign to all the major US sports to get on board with the Olympic drug testing program. No one moved with the momentum from that outrage. And, in turn, they are now subjected to it.
The fact still remains tht Pete bet on baseball, which was a rule that he saw right in front of him every single day he walked into the clubhouse. And, in line with the point about penalizing retroactively, popping “greenies” to stay sharp.
The baseball writers seem intent on keeping McGwire, Sosa, Bonds et al. out of the HOF. So be it. Bonds went 400-400 before he got big, and likely would have achieved 500-500 if he hadn’t. But it wasn’t against the rules even IF he had tested positive. As for Rose, it remains to be seen if the writers would keep him out. But if betting on the games you are in isn’t considered as damaging to the game as steroids…then it’s not really a game, is it?
-
- danny lazo - Aug 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM
-
IF PETE DID SO BAD WHY DONT THEY TAKE AWAY THE RECORDS FROM SOSA ,A ROD SO ON AND SO ON THEIR MANY MORE
-
- mike - Aug 27, 2009 at 8:03 PM
-
Lazo, learno how to use a computer, spell and make sense. Lifetime should be liftime. Pointing at Arod and Sosa doesn’t excuse Pete. He was a singles hitter who was good at many poistions and great at none. Most overrated player in MLB history.
-
- mike - Aug 27, 2009 at 8:04 PM
-
Lazo, learn how to use a computer, spell and make sense. Lifetime should be liftime. Pointing at Arod and Sosa doesn’t excuse Pete. He was a singles hitter who was good at many positions and great at none. Most overrated player in MLB history.
-
- Vo1 - Aug 28, 2009 at 10:06 AM
-
The Elephant in the room is: Did he THROW games?
Our only evidence is that he accepted a lifetime ban and baseball quickly brushed everything under the rug. Since then it’s been lie after lie after lie. If I had to bet on it I’d say he probably did. That’s why baseball didn’t want to go into a huge Pete Rose “trial.” Everyone would come out a loser. So what’s the verdict if you throw a game? No Hall for you. Unless the Fans don’t even care about that anymore. Then I’ve got nothing except enjoy the WWF.
-
- John - Sep 2, 2009 at 11:00 AM
-
Let’s not pretend the HOF is filled with saints.
Prior to 1920, dozens of major league baseball players were accepting money from gamblers. Generally speaking, gamblers would pay the best players to do poorly in a game that attracted heavy betting. There should be little doubt that many players with connections to gambling are in the HOF.
The Chicago team was an arch rival of Judge Landis’s favorite team, and were positioned to dominate the next few years. Did this influence Landis’s actions and approach?
As a fan, I want to see an honest game played by virtuous and unselfish players. And I would prefer the HOF be filled with players who possess those qualities.
Pete Rose gains more fame from not being in the HOF than he would get if he were in. Nevertheless, the fact that he cares so much about being in leads me to see him as selfish. The man lacks character. My preference as a fan would be to keep him out.
I have similar feelings about Frank Thomas as a player who was more concerned about racking up the counting statistics he thought would get him elected than helping his teams win championships. A great individual player in his prime but a terrible team player.
I’d rather see less gifted players who play with a lot more heart than selfish players who have all of the talent in the world and don’t care about anyone else as long as they get theirs.
-
- Bunting - Sep 2, 2009 at 11:38 AM
-
“Rule Five (5) of the entrance requirements that say voters shall consider a player’s integrity, sportsmanship and character.
Integrity: Pete lied about gambling. Check
Sportsmanship: Pete admitted gambling on baseball. Check.
Character: Pete lied, gambled on baseball, hung out with a seedy and criminal crowd. Check…Check and Check.
Case closed.”
Not as long as Cobb is still in the Hall. Virulent racist, paranoid, beat a man nearly to death with a phone, drank himself to death, didn’t show up for his own induction because he didn’t want to share the spotlight with Ruth.
Was also accused of gambling. Several times.
And “hanging out with a seedy crowd”? Girl, please. What is this, a social hygiene film? Some athletes are not good people. Duh. The Hall is for the best players and their historic achievements, not for scout badges. Get over it.
-
- Steven R. - Sep 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM
-
Pete Rose should NEVER be allowed in the Hall of Fame. Gambling almost destroyed the game and it could still destroy it. Bonds, Manny Ramirez, A-Rod, Palmeiro, Mark McGwire all belong in the Hall before Rose. Lifetime ban MEANS lifetime.
-
- SwingingAway - Sep 2, 2009 at 1:07 PM
-
Was the HOF applying those same rules when Cobb was elected? If not, then your argument collapses.
“Best” is an arbitrary standard. Baseball is a competitive team sport where the players play to win and to win championships. Or at least they’re supposed to. And the ones who are truly deserving of being called the “best” do.
Did Sosa help the Cubs with all of those solo home runs and 160 strikeouts a year? The at-bats where he would swing for the fences and strike out instead of hit a bloop single that would advance the runners? No. As entertaining as that may have been, it hurt the team and their chances to win championships. The meaningful historic achievement is winning. The players (and managers) who aren’t playing to win, no matter what the reason, are doing a disservice to the game, their teammates, the fans, and everyone who trusts and believes in them.
Whatever Ty Cobb’s off-the-field flaws may have been, are there any stories that he wasn’t playing or managing to win, or that would even cast doubt?
The last time the Yankees won a World Championship, they had Paul O’Neill batting third, Scott Brosius playing third, and Tino Martinez at first. Not superstars, but champions. The hundreds of millions spent on superstars since then have gotten them what? A bunch of historic achievements that haven’t brought victory to New York.
-
- John - Sep 4, 2009 at 8:24 AM
-
Let me put it to you this way BASEBALL…….I will boycott your so called Hall of Fame until you do the right thing and enshrine Charlie Hustle. Do the right thing! Just do it already.
-
- John - Sep 7, 2009 at 1:36 AM
-
Pete Rose never bet on his team to lose. First of all, you’d better believe that if he had, someone would have come forward with the evidence by now. They’d make a fortune, and it would be the biggest story in baseball since the Black Sox, since that would clearly mean Rose threw a game.
Secondly, any bookie who would take a bet from a baseball manager on that manager’s own team to lose a game would be in serious need of a lobotomy.
Third, John Dowd may have been right about Rose betting on baseball, but the man clearly had it in for Rose personally. All he’s ever brought forward on the subject is saying that Rose didn’t bet on his team to win when a couple of washed-up pitchers were starting for him. But he didn’t bet on them to lose, either.
-
- paul_k_666 - Sep 7, 2009 at 10:15 AM
-
Although Rose was a great hitter his stats are inflated by the fact that he hung around way too long after he started to decline. For instance, in 1980, six years before he retired, he played in every game and batted .282 with 1HR and 64 RBI. He was probably the worst regular player in baseball that year, and undoubtedly the worst offensive 1st baseman.
-
- 2nd Mortgages - Sep 8, 2009 at 10:35 AM
-
Rose broke the rules and bet on baseball. When questioned about it he lied instead of apologizing. He only admitted it years later to make a few bucks selling books.
He has no business being amongst the greats enshrined in the Hall.
-
- Dave Glick - Sep 10, 2009 at 5:21 AM
-
Would be a no brainer except for the question of Rose ever betting against his team. For all the low life things that he has done I guarantee one of them that will never be proven is that he wagered on his team ever losing. To me that offsets the other traits, barely!
-
- Mike - Sep 14, 2009 at 2:48 PM
-
I agree with the comments concerning the selective memory of the writer and sardonic nature of this piece. Pete Rose may be a reprehensible human being, but he does deserve to be in the hall of fame. The comparison Mike Schmidt made between gambling and steroids is completely relevant because both are considered offenses by MLB (and by some state governments as well as the federal government in certain situations). Both should result in some sort of sanction. Quite frankly, if the punishment should fit the crime, players who test positive for illicit substances should be banned from baseball and prosecuted by the proper jurisdictional body. If they were prescribed steroids by a physician, the physician should be investigated as well. Just because they are athletes does not mean that they have some sort of natural immunity to legal action. Steroids are not a game. Gambling, on the other hand, is typically a less severe crime and carries a less severe sentence (relative to the possession and use of controlled substances). In certain states, it is legal. It should probably not result in a lifetime ban, but rather in the 50 game suspension and increasing disciplinary action plan that Manny benefitted from when using illegal drugs.
Oh…and the 1919 White Sox should be reinstated as well. At the very leasy Weaver and Jackson — that’s an utter travesty.
-
- skylar - Sep 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM
-
Craig,
I agree, his 20 yrs isn’t long enough. I totally agree with it–30 or 40 yrs won’t be long enough either, but remember this:
Michael Vick was gone for what, 2 yrs and it is okay for him to play?!?!?
At least what Rose did didn’t harm a single soul ( even though he knew what he was doing was in fact, illegal. ) Same goes for Vick, he tortured dogs ( and who knows for how long! ) and gets a measely slap on the wrist and is suddently allowed to play?!
People say “well those were just dogs”. Well I say, well what Rose did was just “on paper”. I am totally against Rose being allowed to play again ( and btw, Mike Schmidt has and always will be, my favorite all-time player ) but by God, take Vick out with him!
I hate to wish harm to a single person, but I really hope some animal rights activist beats the crap out of Vick–because he really deserves for that to come to him, instead of trying to get everyone to feel sorry for him and how hard he had it in prison, blah blah blah. Well Boo-hoo!!
On the other hand, if they’re going to let Vick play, then guess what, let Rose in the Hall of Fame!
-
- george dorman - Sep 15, 2009 at 5:14 AM
-
for you people who want rose banned til he dies.god say if you don’t forgive you will not be forgiven.there are no angels in the hall.womanizers, brawlers,drunks,cheats etc.
angels in the hall
are there angels in the hall
i bet there are very few
if looked at most ofthose would fall
those heroes which we knew
with women most of them has ran
most were drunks who drank
pitchers and hitters used what they can
there are no angels to be quite frank
some were always fighters
they never played for the game
they would drank and have one-nighters
no angels, oh what a shame
with no hit leader in the hall
steriod users, they make us frown
even crooked commissioners must fall
you may as well tear it down!
by george l dorman
txu1-010-094
