Apr 15, 2011, 1:00 PM EST
You knew this was coming, because it’s trotted out by someone whenever a big steroid user is in the news for something. This time it’s Paul Daugherty of SI regurgitating the semi-annual “Why should Pete Rose be punished more than steroids users” column.
Which is fine as far as subject matter goes, because I think it is worth talking about comparative punishment for those who break baseball’s rules. But it does strike me that if you write an extended column about Pete Rose, his ban from baseball and the Hall of Fame without using the terms “Black Sox” “1919” and/or “World Series,” you’re not being historically accurate nor are you being intellectually honest.
Rules have consequences. But they also have reasons for existing. Any intelligent discussion of these matters needs to acknowledge the reasons for the rules Pete Rose broke and the reasons for his ban. Paul Daugherty’s discussion does neither and for that reason it is not intelligent.
- Merry Christmas from HBT! 74
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 86
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 40
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 15
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 120
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 24
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 65
- Curt Schilling goes after Obama, says Ronald Reagan would watch “The Interview” (239)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (120)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (96)
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year (86)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)