Sports is probably one of the pop culture thangs I am most decidedly least interested in. Still, the “Pete Rose comes kinda-clean” story requries at least some comment.
On the one hand … I think it’s wildly scummy of Rose to finally make this (partial) confession of having gambled on baseball back in the day — the sin that got him kicked out of the game — just as his first round of eligibility for getting into the Baseball Hall of Fame is expiring. It strikes me as just the sort of opportunistic ploy that — wel, should make him ineligible for same.
On the other hand, what are the criteria for benig elected to the BHOF? Well, after looking over the web site, I still don’t know. There are lots of rules for voting, but I didn’t see any sort of charter statement as to what the folks involved are voting for.
So, from a sheer talent kind of thing, yes, Pete Rose should be in there — as should “Shoeless” Joe Jackson, another ineligible member.
But it’s not the Baseball Hall of Talent. Arguably, Rose is infamous for his violation of the cardinal rule of baseball play — Don’t Gamble.
On the other hand, it’s been argued that there are plenty of other ot-very-nice fellows in the BHOF, and it should be based on contributions to the sport, not on sainthood.
So does the Rose scandal net out a negative contribution? That would seem to be best decided by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, who are the ones who do the electing (though Rose is running out of time for them; soon he’ll have to be elected instead by the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans, who are thought to be a lot less sympathetic). But nobody can vote for him right now, because Rose, like Jackson, is on the baseball ineligible list, which he on for his only-now-somewhat-confessed gambling.
Net? I don’t think he should be made eligible. He can be — and is — recognized as an outstanding player in the history of the game (even at the BHOF Museum), but keeping him off the BHOF roster seems a fitting punishment for his sins, particularly since they have not fully been confessed.
But, then, what do I know about baseball?
If Ty Cobb, of all people, is in the Hall of fame, I have no problem with Pete Rose being in there for what he accomplished as a player.
Joe Jackson is a whole other story, since he maintained his innocence until his death.
Well, Rose maintained his innocence until just the other day …
As for Cobb, while he seems to have been a very unpleasant man, albeit a fabulous talent, he didn’t get banned from the game, only suspended for his reprehensible behavior. While assault is certainly a worst crime in a societal context than gambling, in the context of professional sports, it’s arguably the other way around.
Because of the Black Sox scandle which took down Shoeless Joe Jackson, gambling has always been the worst crime in baseball (other sports are more concerned with drugs, off-field violence, etc.). Since baseball was the only pro sport at the time of the scandel, there was a strong sentiment ( in the sport and from fans) that cleaning baseball up was important for the American image.
The “Say it ain’t so’ Joe” phrase was more about general cheating in baseball in than it was about Joe’s cheating (or if not cheating, at least not telling).
I concur with Dave, and am slightly annoyed with the timing of Rose’s “admission.”
It’s really convenient that he has a book coming out, isn’t it.
Actually, from what I follow sports, gambling is considered a cardinal sin in pretty much all pro and college sports, far more than off-field behavior (or, sometimes, on-field behavior). And it makes sense, because the game is only successful players (and managers) are only focused on winning it — and if the public believes that. Gambling, even on your own team, raises issues of integrity that could destroy any sport (and isn’t, to hear some tell, isn’t nearly as innocent as it sounds, anyway).
Gambling is, in a way, a sin against the institution, the society of sports (which includes fans). Other failings may be crimes against individuals, or reputations, but gambling calls into question the very idea of whether a sport is any more legitimate than pro wrestling.