Rick's Cafe Americain

There is no way, no goddamn way, that Pete Rose should be admitted to the Hall of Fame or to be reinstated to baseball.  In fact, his I was going to write a long entry about his potential reinstatement, but this article by Thomas Boswell says almost everything I was going to say, so I can keep this relatively brief. Maybe.

But Ugarte, there has never been an allegation that he bet AGAINST the Reds.  Clearly he was trying to win, although at times his personal financial stake may have clouded his judgement (overly aggressive moves when his team was batting, overusing his most relaible relievers, etc).  Hence, it can’t be as bad as the 1919 “Black Sox,” who conspired to lose the World Series.  Bottom line:  Pete Rose is a dick; his book and all of his rationalizations are not worth reading; he should not be reinstated to MLB; but he belongs in the Hall of Fame with a plaque that explains his accomplishments and the reasons why he was permanently banned from baseball.  There are plenty of worse characters in the HOF (bigots, wife beaters, etc), so let’s forget about baseball’s romantic notion that the worst sin a man can commit is to bet on a baseball game.  After all, someone got all of those hits, right? 

I think he should just be ignored.  What we really need to do is stop writing about him, stop talking about him, stop caring about him.

It doesn’t matter whether he was betting for or against the Reds, Frank. You are thinking about it the wrong way.  He wouldn’t do anything differently in the games he did bet on - he was trying to win them just as he would if he never bet at all.  The bigger problem is the games he didn’t bet on: Should he save his closer for tomorrow? When should he rest his starters? etc.

The worst sin a man can commit is obviously not to bet on a baseball game.  It is only the worst sin a player can commit against baseball. (OK, second worst - actually fixing a game is the worst. Shoeless Joe, one of my favorite players, gets no sympathy from me for his own exclusion.)

Rose isn’t being kept in prison, he isn’t being asked to stop profiting from his fame.  He is being kept out of a club that has ONE RULE because he couldn’t follow it. That seems right to me.

As for all of those hits, that’s what the record books are for.

Baseball has one rule against betting on a baseball game for players and others associated with MLB--like managers, umpires,etc--in which the bettor “has no duty to perform” and another rule against betting on a game in which the bettor “has a duty to perform.” No argument about the first rule, but how can betting against your team be equivalent to betting for your team?  The penaltiy should NOT be, but is, the same--permanent ineligibility.  Whether or not he bet on a game, he still wanted to win it, b/c he was the manager, and losing managers get fired.  Betting warps your priorities, but it doesn’t cross the line you drew b/w “competition and entertainment.” No outcomes were predetermined, and no one has ever accused Pete of trying to “throw” a game as a manager.  And your POV on gambling means that if a manager bets on all 162 games, he’s okay.  But I don’t even need to argue that, b/c I have no real problem with his being banned for life, I just think it’s ludicrous to pretend that the all-time MLB hits leader doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. 

As for the HOF, two things.  First, Pete’s sins were committed as a manager, not a player. If there is any evidence he placed bets as a player, I’ll reconsider my current position.  Secondly, at the time Pete was banned from baseball, there was no rule that you couldn’t be admitted to the HOF b/c you were on the “permanently ineligible” list.  That was changed two years LATER by the HOF directors, at the urging of the MLB commissioner’s office, specifically to bar Pete from being voted on by the Baseball Writers of America in 1991, his first year of eligibility for the HOF.  If the writers are the judges, why would the HOF directors and MLB keep his name off the HOF ballots?  Because they know most of the writers would vote him in based on his credentials as a player.  Even the most recognized baseball purist around--Bob Costas--acknowledges that Pete belongs in the HOF, even if his actions after retiring as a player make the voters want to hold their noses while voting for him. 

It crosses the line, Frank.  If I were buying a ticket to a game, I wouldn’t want to go to a game that Rose [i]wasn’t[/] betting on.  The “162” argument is just sophistry.  It solves the dilemma caused by selective gambling but introduces the even more serious problem of “pervasive gambling.”

As for your two main arguments: he is considered for the hall as a player and a manager at the same time.  The roles are intertwined and inextricable.  His actions as a manager poison his accomplishments as a player.  And I grant that, as a principle, evidence is important, but there is no evidence that he didn’t bet on baseball as a player.  Nobody looked as far back as his playing days because it wasn’t necessary to do so at the time.  Given that he is a long time compulsive gambler, I think the burden of proof has long since shifted to Rose and his credibility problems are his own fault.

No ex post facto ban was needed for Shoeless Joe because there was (properly) no serious consideration given to his enshrinement when he would have been up for consideration.  If the stewards of the HOF felt that changing social mores meant that the writers would not have the same sense as their predecessors, adoption of the rule is a rational response.  Rose claims that if he knew he wouldn’t be allowed in the HOF he never would have agreed to a lifetime ban.  Who cares?  His lack of consent would only have forced Giamatti to ban him without an agreement.

No, there are separate wings of the Hall for players, broadcasters, managers, etc.  You can play ten seasons, have a .150 BA, and still get elected to the HOF as a manager if you are a great manager, and your playing career is not factored in at all.  How can one violation as a manager--even a horrible one--entirely negate a stellar playing career? 

Glad that you recognize that as a principle evidence is important, and then blatantly ignore that principle.  Can you point me to any evidence that ANY player in the Hall DIDN’T bet on baseball?!  Look, Pete was such an obvious gambler that he was caught after less than 3 years of managing.  Do you really think no one would have caught on over a 24-year playing career?  Do you have any reason to believe the investigation would have been limited to just his managerial days, even though he went straight from player to player-manager to manager?  Compulsive gambling doesn’t take decades to develop (see your latest poker-grovel). 

As for the decision by the HOF, at MLB’s request, to institute an ex post facto ban:  Shoeless Joe and the rest of the Black Sox compromised the integrity of the game by their on the field actions, while Pete did nothing of the kind as a player.  And betting on games as a manager--as long as he didn’t bet against his team--isn’t as bad as fixing games (betting against his team is).  The fact that baseball treats them the same is a mistake, but it was one that the HOF didn’t contribute to until 1991.  If neither MLB nor the HOF can acknowledge that there is a difference between fixing a game/betting against your team, and betting on your team, you end up with long pointless discussions like this one. 

Apart from that, there is the nature of an ex post facto penalty in principle.  When someone is considering doing something that they know is wrong, the slightest factor can sway them either way.  I can’t say for certain that a player as proud--hell, vain--as Rose would have bet on baseball after his playing days were over if he knew he were risking HOF ineligibility.  Thus, I can’t condone MLB/HOF taking the issue of of the BBWA’s hands.  Let them decide the merits as they do for every other player. 

The first point is a specious one.  I can’t conceive of how it could be held against a player that they were a bad manager or vice versa.  But you have stumbled on to something.  I thought that the Veteran’s Committee voted for people, but it turns out that they don’t, they vote for categories. (The writers ONLY vote for players.)

“In those instances when a candidate is prominent as both a player and as a manager, executive or umpire, the BBWAA Screening Committee shall determine that individual’s candidacy as either a player (Players Ballot), or as a manager, executive or umpire (Composite Ballot).”

Interesting. Still not enough, though.  Which leads into your second point.

Hey, look! Specious again.  He is an admitted life long gambler. Can you say that about the other members of the Hall?  I don’t think it is my burden to nail him for betting as a player when he bet so frequently, as you point out, a mere three years after he left the playing field. 

In any event, you are wrong. He did bet when he was a player/manager.  To quote from the Dowd Report summary section, “The testimony and documentary evidence gathered demonstrates that Pete Rose bet on baseball, and in particular, on games of the [Reds], during the 1985, 1986 and 1987 seasons.” He played in more than half of the team’s games during 1985 and 1986. Are we now going to argue about whether he bet on games in which he actually put himself in the game?

Fixing the World Series isn’t, and shouldn’t be, the minimum standard for banishment.  The only reason the penalties are the same for fixing and betting is that there is no additional penalty available to be meted out to fixers.  If Landis could have put the players (except Buck Weaver) in the stocks and left them in the public square to be spat upon I would have approved it.

Why would any player who hasn’t been caught admit to betting on baseball--especially after getting away with it so far as to make it to the HOF?!  That’s just silly.  And I didn’t say he bet frequently (although it appears he did), I said he did it in a very obvious fashion.  So why didn’t anyone see this during his playing days? 

I was unaware that the Dowd report alleged he bet during his player-manager days.  Glad you pointed that out.  That is another reason to keep him on the MLB permanently ineligible list, which I’ve repeatedly said I have no problem with. 

Fixing of any nonexhibition game is equally bad--I’m sorry if I gave the impression that WS games were a special case, but I just don’t know of any other MLB examples besides 1919.  But there is certainly a way to penalize the categories I drew in a different fashion, by either the HOF, MLB, or both working together.  If you fix, attempt to fix, or bet against your team (as a player, a manager, whatever), you are permanently ineligible from MLB and also barred from the HOF forever.  If you bet on your team, you are still eligible for the HOF (you still have to be voted in, after all), but MLB can choose to make you permanently ineligible or ban you from baseball for a period to be determined on a case by case basis.  After all, if Pete had only bet on Yankees games, he would have only been banned for a year under the current MLB rules (which haven’t changed since the time he was busted) and hence be eligible for the HOF. 

Frank, seriously, why do you care so much?  My impression of Pete Rose is that he is a worthless piece of shit and I just wish that he (and Michael Jackson) would just disappear and people would stop writing stories about them and putting their faces everywhere.

But this debate goes beyond Rose, so I’ll weigh in.  Look, I have made bets on most sports(though not on baseball) and I certainly don’t think that gambling, in and of itself, is some monster sin and we all know that it is an important part of the sports revenue.  But that is all the more reason for having harsh penalties for those involved in a sport who bet on it.  Other than those who think they have the power to fix games, I guarantee you that most serious gamblers would be in favor of very harsh penalties for anyone involved with a sport gambling on it because it increases the risk that a game might be fixed and, if you are a serious gambler (and not part of the fix) that is a very bad thing.  Naturally, the same arguments apply with equal, and more morally pure, force to having harsh bans to protect the integrity of the game in general.  Why should the sport have to try and reconstruct and prove whether someone bet on their team to win, or bet against their team (or some “neutral” thing like how many innings a pitcher would pitch).  We are not talking about a government and criminal penalties and civil rights.  It is a simple rule.  Don’t bet on baseball.  If you do, you are going to get suspended.  If you bet on games you were involved in you are gone, no second chance, no nothing.  Sure, fixing a game is worse than betting on your team to win, but that is no reason to not impose a no exceptions ban for betting on games you had an involvement in.  Granted, their needs to be some flexibility in this; i.e., no punishment for two players on opposing teams making a private bet on which team will win, but I think it is not that hard to differentiate between those type of bets and betting with bookies.

As for the Hall of Fame.  I don’t care and I fail to understand why some people care so much about it.  I don’t have a problem with Rose being in for his achievements.  I don’t have a problem with excluding him and Joe Jackson because of gambling (and I don’t think a distinction should be made, either both are eligible or neither).  I think the “best” resolution would be for Rose to be eligible and to be not voted in.  He’d love that.