2007-03-14
Pete Rose: One Hopelessly Flawed Man who Belongs in the Hall of Fame
Let's be clear here: It's not the Hall of Integrity. It's the Hall of Fame. Fame comes in all sorts of ways and not all famous people who have been given awards are "legit"so to be speak. There are way too many people in history who were plain jerks or failures as human beings that were brilliant at what they did. Fame is just that: fame. To attach any moral codes to it is hypocritical.
Ok. Let's move on to Pete Rose.
If it were up to me character would be among the primary considerations when bestowing an award on someone. But this would be imply will live in a perfect world inhabited by perfect beings and as well all know this isn’t the case.
So when it comes to the Hall (or any Hall for that matter) and Rose what I'm saying is that we need to separate the character from the accomplishment. In the event that both happen to mesh that only reflects well on the person and in some cosmic way humanity will reward that person.
Pete Rose is one of the most perplexing athletes of the 20th century. Subjectively, he is among the greatest most intense players (Frank Robinson was one intense dude) in the history of baseball. He was the essence of the Cincinnati Reds that won back to back championships in the 1970s. And the Big Red Machine were not short of legends: Concepcion, Bench, Morgan and Sparky all come to mind. Objectively, his stats speak for themselves.
As a human being let’s just say we won’t be pointing to him in a picture one day and saying to our kids, “See son, this is who I want you to model yourself under.”
At the heart of the matter is a person who gambled every night as a manager. Not as a player but as a manager - as in after his career as a player was over. Not only that, he bet on his own team. Worse, he lied about it for nearly two decades. Most people with an addiction tend to do that. To many he was (and remains) a creep, yet swearing that he never bet on his own team he managed to sway even some of his most ardent opponents and cynics about his gambling indiscretions and to consider him for the Hall one day.
Now the truth comes out and it's not pretty at all. It simply reveals that Rose is a flawed human with utter lack of judgment and decency. He could have averted all this had he come clean from the start. Who knows? Maybe he would have been inducted into the Hall by now. Mind you, baseball writers are not exactly a forgiving or sometimes enlightened bunch.
In Pete Rose we see where excellence meets vice. Where vice overcame virtue. It's easy to look at Rose and think that his actions were selfish and arrogant. Of course they were. But he has a disease of a gambling variation. This is not to defend him. Not at all. His explanation and reasoning that he bet on his team every single time to win because he believed in them rings hollow.
Still, we shouldn't be negative. It may have taken him almost two decades but it does suggest he realizes he made a mistake.
On a side note, did anyone catch Katie Couric asking that reporter if his chances of getting into the hall are "caput"? All that money and she could not have come up with a better word?
When it comes to Pete Rose the baseball player we need to disassociate him from the man when considering the Hall. I know many Halls of Fame in several sports considers character but let's be frank: it's not full proof. It's such a dicey thing. Keeping him out is lousy considering who is in there already- from cheats, to gamblers to racists alike the Hall is not a place where we look for Renaissance Men. We should judge him on his accomplishments on the field and nowhere else. Going beyond this to prevent him from getting in is wrong. Questioning and even chastising him for his poor deeds is justified and should be discussed. But isn't that separate issue altogether?
There is, perhaps, an opportunity in all this. We can learn from Pete Rose. Astute parents can teach their kids about his mistakes. There are many life lessons in his story. It's the only way to help combat this addiction - or any other addiction for that matter.
Aside from all this, Pete Rose is simply a baseball player who earned his place in the pantheon of great players.
First image from baseball-almanac.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Alas, we can't even agree on baseball, can we?
ReplyDeleteAny one who bets on baseball, cannot be admitted into its Hall of Fame. For the best of the Game (and the Hall of Fame) I'm willing to concede Pete could be admitted posthumously.
Heh, heh. Well, the Rose thing is so personal to many people. There are literally many sides to this. I'm keeping it simple: judge him on the field of play. Anything beyond that is not our place. Of course what he did was wrong but the Hall then has to say "from now on anyone who engages in behaviour we deem inappropriate outside the game will not be admitted." As for politics, all I'm saying is that I agree with you on the doctrine of preemption as not being part of the American military ethic. American leaders simply did not want to go there. Already war has unitended consequences; imagine one where preemption was declared with wrong information? However, what I am saying is that a) preemption has been used in history and b) things change and with it principles, rules and conventions. I believe, rightly or wrongly, 9/11 changed all this.
ReplyDelete9-11 Changed nothing. It especially doesn't change the principle of allowing baseball players who gambled on & in the game to enjoy Hall of Fame membership. How many players in the Black Sox scandal got in? Whatever are you thinking? There's gambling on horse racing but jockeys don't get to place bets. (Neither do the horses!)
ReplyDeleteAu contraire mon ami, 9/11 changed everything. Just the fact that the neo-con element that wallowed in obscurity ( and probably ignored) for decades was able to sell the Wolfiwiz doctrine post 9/11 is telling in itself. As for the Black Sox completely different. Those guys threw games while playing in the games. It was a scandal. It was like telling a boxer to take a fall. Rose bet on games as a manager when his career was over: as I said I am not condoning it; just presenting a case. Besides, the best player on that team was Shoeless Joe; Rose beats him by miles (or kilometres depending where you live).
ReplyDeletePete Rose is a bully when he played (crashing two all-star infielders in all-star games) and a lying cry-baby after he retired.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have a perverse affinity of for those types, BTW. In politics as well as in baseball.
Do your friends ever question you about your brimming latent hostility?
I looked for the smiley face after your last comment but could not find one so I will proceed. I don't have an axe to grin with anyone. I write as I seem them. Pete Rose did play the game hard. Yes, he did bust up some poor guy's collar bone in an all-star game but sports is filled with SO MANY of these guys - AND MANY ARE IN VARIOUS HALLS OF FAMES. As hard as we're trying to keep him out then you'll have to open up and look at everyone's resumes because guess what! There are many jerks and gamblers and other degenrates i the hall. Best to judge them on performance. That's all. I'm not sure you're reading what I'm saying at all. Same with politics; I don't have "an affinity for these types." Give me a break. Once again from the top: I agree with you that Rose may not be a gentleman in the way Victorian England viewed sports then again we're talking about professionalized sports here. Rose belongs.You seem to think that my thoughts about war are meant to somehow support Bush - just so I'm clear. They are not. :<) And there's my happy face.
ReplyDelete;-)
ReplyDelete(There's mine.)
No question Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame. He just doesn't deserve any satisfaction from it. Award it to him posthumously.
Pete's a big guy. He can take a crushing body blow at home plate in an All-Star game. And this is just my idea as to how it should be delivered to him.
Here's a tip or a hint, TC. Take off COmMENT MODERATION. People who comment like to see their comments up as assurance they've said what they want to say. Plus, it facilitates inter-commenter conversations. I won't link your site unless you make that change. What are you afraid of? You can always take down comments you don't like for any reason. I do. And I make no bones about it.
ReplyDeleteRose is such a different case that there may not be a right answer. I can live with what you said. Looks like that's what's going to happen.
ReplyDeleteWhen I migrated to the new blogger it automatically did this and I never changed it back. Yes, I do procarastinate with things that don't pay me. I'll get around to it. I always had it the other way around. For the record, I have never ever altered or not published a comment. Not afraid of anything or anybody...well, except my 4th grade teacher. But that's another story.
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do with being afraid. If I put in the time and effort to put something up to see what intelligent conversation and comments it can attract which might expand my own thinking, the very last thing I'm going to suffer is some moron-spammer filibustering in my comments, killing the space that smart but impatient people might otherwise use. I don't let anyone on my telephone waste my time. Why should I let them waste my time on my blog?
ReplyDelete