Saturday, January 24, 2004
The House of Selig
I must admit that I was caught up in the hype this past October. For the first time since I was 12 years old, I actually cared about professional baseball. I know, I know, sad but true. It was much to my wife's distaste, but between the prospect of at least one curse being broken in either Chicago or Boston and my general distaste for buying a great team (New York) or basing a team sport on one person (San Francisco) coupled with my relief of not having to see Roy Rogers hat this year, I couldn't take my eyes off of the television. Not even the ridiculous advertising broadcast on the blue screen behind home plate could take away from the theatrics. That is of course until Boston and Chicago lost. However, the damage was done. The sport that I loved to play as a child had returned to me in all of its former glory.
So why the dissertation on the wonders of baseball in the middle of January? Two little words that plague the sport: Pete Rose. Last week it was revealed to the world (via making a profit with his new "tell all" book) that he did indeed bet on baseball prior to being banned from the sport in the 1980's. Now, I am not interested in moralizing what he did. It does not interest me as to debate the extent to which his deplorable behavior whittled away at the foundation of America's pastime. My problem with this whole scenario has to do with the debate as to whether or not Pete Rose should be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Pete Rose's affirmation of gambling was, by all accounts, an declaration of years of systemic despicable behavior including those years in which he, quite literally, gambled with the career he had -- the career that most of the rest of us consider a dream. I do not excuse his behavior, nor do I attempt to make sense of it. I cannot fathom putting yourself, your career and your life at risk, especially when you consider the gift that his career really was. But I cannot understand why he has been excluded from the Baseball Hall of Fame, either. Pete Rose remains the most prolific hitter in the history of baseball and as a player, and later as a coach, was one of the great figures in the game's history. No one questions this. And yet, the commissioner of baseball has yet to rule on whether or not he will be reinstated to the game after he was banned for life. The baseball writers association who make the determinations as to who enters the Hall of Fame have denounced his actions. Many writers have gone on to say they would boycott any ballot with Pete Rose's name on it. They associate Pete Rose with the Chicago Black Sox (8 players in 1919 who were banned forever from baseball when they were accused of throwing the world series for $100,000 -- they were all acquitted of any criminal charges, but remain banned from baseball). In short, the prospect of Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame to them is akin to having a whore as the pope.
The whole scenario makes me laugh. Not so much that so many people are against Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame; that much is understandable. What is funny is that from the inception of this scandal back in the late 1980's, baseball is attempting to take the moral high road! BASEBALL!!!! THE MORAL HIGH ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is there anything that is more obscenely perverse and yet hilarious? Pete Rose is not allowed in the Hall of Fame. But Babe Ruth is in the Hall of Fame. The "Sultan of Swat" is one of the biggest hitters ever. He was also considerably overweight (especially for a professional athlete), smoked like a chimney, drank like a sailor and womanized. Or then there is Ty Cobb, the notorious Detroit Tiger (whose hitting record Pete Rose broke) not only was an incredible hitter (over two days once, he switched his grip on his bat like Babe Ruth to prove that it didn't take any talent to hit homeruns, but it did to hit -- he knocked 5 out of the park in those two days) but was also considered the meanest guy in baseball, and a racist. He once was suspended for climbing into the stands and getting into a fight with a fan. Perhaps most ironically, he was also forced to quit baseball after allegations that he (and others) fixed a game in 1919. He was later reinstated when witnesses wouldn't testify. In fact, he was the first person inducted into the Hall of Fame, getting 222 out of 226 votes. These are only two of many stars with somewhat questionable pasts who reside in Cooperstown.
But maybe the argument should be restricted to modern players? How about Darryl Strawberry? Multiple instances of drug usage and possession leading in multiple suspensions (but never expulsion). How about Ken Caminiti, who admitted recently to using steroids prior to and during his 1996 MVP season. Estimates of steroid use among big leaguers is anywhere between 30% and 85% of all players. ALL PLAYERS!!! Barry Bonds, the current record holder for most homeruns hit in a single season (beating out Mark McGuire's record set a year earlier - but "tainted" when a steroid-like substance was found in his system), said in 2002 of testing for steroids, "Doctors ought to quit worrying about what ballplayers are taking. What players take doesn’t matter. It’s nobody else’s business." In November of 2003 when Barry Bonds personal trainer Greg Anderson was found to have anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs within his possession, Bonds did a big mea culpa, but never admitted to using.
But I digress. If you are to use MLB's argument that baseball is somehow too sacred for including Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, one begins to question exactly what kind of double standard exists. When MLB won't include a sensible drug testing policy for its players because it fears the lost revenue for up to 85% of its players not playing due to various drug violations (including steroids), how can anyone take Major League Baseball seriously on this? When you look at the sordid history of this great sport, how can MLB even think for an instant that Pete Rose is somehow worse than any of the other multitude of colorful figures that live in the history of Cooperstown? Of all of the challenges that face modern MLB, how can we say that the greatest hitter of all time isn't allowed a place in history, as if Pete Rose didn't exist? Imagining that his personal problems are somehow worse than those of Ruth, Bonds or Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Yes, by all means decry that Pete Rose is a deplorable person. Please, if you desire, put a large plaque next to his display in Cooperstown that says that he was banned from baseball for gambling. Require that his entry into Cooperstown is only contingent on him providing x number of hours per year doing community service speaking out against gambling and then only upon his death will he be considered for the Hall of Fame. There are concessions that he should make. But how can we justify excluding him from the Hall of Fame when he was one of the best to ever play the game? Worst of all, what are we to tell our kids who emulate players when playing "pickle" and dream of walking out to thousands of screaming fans in the house that Ruth built? If we take the lead from MLB, then it's, "Son, if you wanna make it to Cooperstown someday, feel free to drink, snort, smoke or inject yourself with whatever it takes to get you there. Be whatever SOB you wanna be. Get a good agent. But whatever you do, DON'T gamble. You don't wanna end up like Pete Rose."
I must admit that I was caught up in the hype this past October. For the first time since I was 12 years old, I actually cared about professional baseball. I know, I know, sad but true. It was much to my wife's distaste, but between the prospect of at least one curse being broken in either Chicago or Boston and my general distaste for buying a great team (New York) or basing a team sport on one person (San Francisco) coupled with my relief of not having to see Roy Rogers hat this year, I couldn't take my eyes off of the television. Not even the ridiculous advertising broadcast on the blue screen behind home plate could take away from the theatrics. That is of course until Boston and Chicago lost. However, the damage was done. The sport that I loved to play as a child had returned to me in all of its former glory.
So why the dissertation on the wonders of baseball in the middle of January? Two little words that plague the sport: Pete Rose. Last week it was revealed to the world (via making a profit with his new "tell all" book) that he did indeed bet on baseball prior to being banned from the sport in the 1980's. Now, I am not interested in moralizing what he did. It does not interest me as to debate the extent to which his deplorable behavior whittled away at the foundation of America's pastime. My problem with this whole scenario has to do with the debate as to whether or not Pete Rose should be allowed into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Pete Rose's affirmation of gambling was, by all accounts, an declaration of years of systemic despicable behavior including those years in which he, quite literally, gambled with the career he had -- the career that most of the rest of us consider a dream. I do not excuse his behavior, nor do I attempt to make sense of it. I cannot fathom putting yourself, your career and your life at risk, especially when you consider the gift that his career really was. But I cannot understand why he has been excluded from the Baseball Hall of Fame, either. Pete Rose remains the most prolific hitter in the history of baseball and as a player, and later as a coach, was one of the great figures in the game's history. No one questions this. And yet, the commissioner of baseball has yet to rule on whether or not he will be reinstated to the game after he was banned for life. The baseball writers association who make the determinations as to who enters the Hall of Fame have denounced his actions. Many writers have gone on to say they would boycott any ballot with Pete Rose's name on it. They associate Pete Rose with the Chicago Black Sox (8 players in 1919 who were banned forever from baseball when they were accused of throwing the world series for $100,000 -- they were all acquitted of any criminal charges, but remain banned from baseball). In short, the prospect of Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame to them is akin to having a whore as the pope.
The whole scenario makes me laugh. Not so much that so many people are against Pete Rose being in the Hall of Fame; that much is understandable. What is funny is that from the inception of this scandal back in the late 1980's, baseball is attempting to take the moral high road! BASEBALL!!!! THE MORAL HIGH ROAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is there anything that is more obscenely perverse and yet hilarious? Pete Rose is not allowed in the Hall of Fame. But Babe Ruth is in the Hall of Fame. The "Sultan of Swat" is one of the biggest hitters ever. He was also considerably overweight (especially for a professional athlete), smoked like a chimney, drank like a sailor and womanized. Or then there is Ty Cobb, the notorious Detroit Tiger (whose hitting record Pete Rose broke) not only was an incredible hitter (over two days once, he switched his grip on his bat like Babe Ruth to prove that it didn't take any talent to hit homeruns, but it did to hit -- he knocked 5 out of the park in those two days) but was also considered the meanest guy in baseball, and a racist. He once was suspended for climbing into the stands and getting into a fight with a fan. Perhaps most ironically, he was also forced to quit baseball after allegations that he (and others) fixed a game in 1919. He was later reinstated when witnesses wouldn't testify. In fact, he was the first person inducted into the Hall of Fame, getting 222 out of 226 votes. These are only two of many stars with somewhat questionable pasts who reside in Cooperstown.
But maybe the argument should be restricted to modern players? How about Darryl Strawberry? Multiple instances of drug usage and possession leading in multiple suspensions (but never expulsion). How about Ken Caminiti, who admitted recently to using steroids prior to and during his 1996 MVP season. Estimates of steroid use among big leaguers is anywhere between 30% and 85% of all players. ALL PLAYERS!!! Barry Bonds, the current record holder for most homeruns hit in a single season (beating out Mark McGuire's record set a year earlier - but "tainted" when a steroid-like substance was found in his system), said in 2002 of testing for steroids, "Doctors ought to quit worrying about what ballplayers are taking. What players take doesn’t matter. It’s nobody else’s business." In November of 2003 when Barry Bonds personal trainer Greg Anderson was found to have anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs within his possession, Bonds did a big mea culpa, but never admitted to using.
But I digress. If you are to use MLB's argument that baseball is somehow too sacred for including Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, one begins to question exactly what kind of double standard exists. When MLB won't include a sensible drug testing policy for its players because it fears the lost revenue for up to 85% of its players not playing due to various drug violations (including steroids), how can anyone take Major League Baseball seriously on this? When you look at the sordid history of this great sport, how can MLB even think for an instant that Pete Rose is somehow worse than any of the other multitude of colorful figures that live in the history of Cooperstown? Of all of the challenges that face modern MLB, how can we say that the greatest hitter of all time isn't allowed a place in history, as if Pete Rose didn't exist? Imagining that his personal problems are somehow worse than those of Ruth, Bonds or Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Yes, by all means decry that Pete Rose is a deplorable person. Please, if you desire, put a large plaque next to his display in Cooperstown that says that he was banned from baseball for gambling. Require that his entry into Cooperstown is only contingent on him providing x number of hours per year doing community service speaking out against gambling and then only upon his death will he be considered for the Hall of Fame. There are concessions that he should make. But how can we justify excluding him from the Hall of Fame when he was one of the best to ever play the game? Worst of all, what are we to tell our kids who emulate players when playing "pickle" and dream of walking out to thousands of screaming fans in the house that Ruth built? If we take the lead from MLB, then it's, "Son, if you wanna make it to Cooperstown someday, feel free to drink, snort, smoke or inject yourself with whatever it takes to get you there. Be whatever SOB you wanna be. Get a good agent. But whatever you do, DON'T gamble. You don't wanna end up like Pete Rose."
