TDA Bullpen - Our Writers' Blog

Monday, January 05, 2004

Took you long enough, Charlie Hustle!

Is anyone surprised that Pete Rose has finally admitted that he bet on baseball and on the team he was managing at the time, the Cincinatti Reds? I don't think so. But now that we know that he actually did the dirty deed, as opposed to lying about it for the past decade, he's presented one giant snowball (or is it a knuckleball?) of a controversy for us to debate in the coming year or so. Will Bud Selig break down and reinstate Rose in order for the Hall of Fame to even consider him? If that were to happen, would writers ignore the fact that he's eligible and leave Rose off their ballots? And finally...do we really care?

I've always believed that, no matter what a player does off the field, his numbers and career stats should be the only factors in considering him for the Hall of Fame. I know that Rose bet on baseball and on his own team. I acknowledge that it's despicable and crosses the line between on-field and off-field behavior. If he had done it as a player, we could certainly say that it affected and eventually nullified his stellar numbers.

But the voters aren't deciding whether to let him in as a MANAGER. As a player he had a stellar career, and maybe overstayed his welcome in the league (the man finally retired at the ripe age of 45), but in a sport where numbers almost always tell the tale, his stats overwhelmingly spell Hall of Famer. He wasn't a power hitter (career high a modest 16 dingers). But he was above all a hitting machine (4,256 to be exact, and 10 seasons with over 200 hits), and for those achievements along with his role on the Big Red Machine, his plaque should be up there with the rest. It's not called the Hall of Fame for Saints and Angels. Babe Ruth was certainly no saint, and sure enough, George Herman Ruth is deified as one of baseball's gods.

But as former Commissioner Fay Vincent and a slew of writers point out, if you take Rose off the banned list, you might as well take everyone else off too. Shoeless Joe Jackson, who went a giant step beyond than Rose and bet against his team while playing in the World Series, would then become Hall of Fame-worthy. While I'm sure Selig will say that this issue is strictly about Rose, the current Commish will have to answer questions about the rest of the lifetime ban list.

Selig's decision won't come for a while as he weighs his own feelings as well as the wishes of A. Bartlett Giamatti, the late commissioner who banned Rose for life. Over last summer, Selig reported that he was listening to various opinions about whether to allow Rose back into baseball. If he does, everyone will agree to disagree on this issue. The more intriguing aspects of this story are the timing of his admission (can you say "buy my book! Here's a preview!") as well as his lack of remorse in the past. Why didn't he admit it back then? It would have saved us the massive ulcer embedded in baseball that keeps increasing in size.

This controversy won't end tomorrow, but at least we know it begins today, since there's one question definitely answered. Let the arguments rage on.

posted by Charles Curtis 4:21 PM