I don’t think baseball should reinstate Pete Rose for the rest of his life. I think he should be eligible for the Hall of Fame, after he finishes serving his lifetime ban. He shouldn’t be able to get money and endorsements as “Hall of Famer Pete Rose”, and if he’s inducted posthumously, then he won’t be able to make any ill-gotten money from the honor.
The best argument against reinstating Pete Rose is that he’s a bad person. As a player, he separated Ray Fosse’s shoulder when he barrelled into him at the 1970 All Star Game (a exhibition game) in a clip that still gets played to show what a “fiery competitor” he was, picked a fight with the scrawny Bud Harrelson in the 1973 NLCS, and complained that Braves pitcher Gene Garber was “showing him up” by striking him out to end his 44-game hitting streak in 1978. And as a manager, he violated Rule 21 (betting on baseball games in which he had a duty to perform), which carries a lifetime ban, no matter whether you bet for or against your team, or on some or all of their games.
PS: I hope no one took my George Washington upset pick seriously. That wasn't a very good pick, but it's the only game I've lost so far.
1 comment:
I think your posthumous Hall election idea makes sense - but I'm going to disagree with your argument. Plenty of players in the Hall clearly were "bad people" (hello, Ty Cobb?). The issue ought to be: were they good ballplayers? And despite arguments that Rose wasn't "the best hitter ever" (what does that mean?), he still holds the lifetime record (I think - not a huge baseball person), and did a pretty good job stealing bases, too. He belongs in the Hall - but I think you're right, not while he's alive to benefit from it. Because clearly, he's clueless as to why people are pissed at his behavior, and unrepentant.
Post a Comment