I also view this as Swanburg's mom trying to draw me into the "Does Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame?" argument, which admittedly, is one of my favorite baseball arguments. Short answer: no way in hell. Long answer: Well, let's start with Rule 21(d)
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.
Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
Rose has admitted to violating this rule. End of story. There’s a lot of evidence against Rose, and you can read it all in the Dowd Report. There was no confession in there, but he has since confessed his guilt. So Rose is, and deserves to be permanently ineligible. Baseball should not remove him from this list. End of argument, right?
Here’s where people get the story wrong. Baseball has not banned Pete Rose from the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is not run by Major League Baseball, it is a separate institution with its own rules and bylaws. And after Rose agreed to being placed on the permanently ineligible list, the Hall of Fame nipped the argument in the bud by ruling that players on the permanently ineligible list are ineligible for induction to the Hall of Fame. (It’s Rule 3-E)
So, Rose is petitioning the wrong institution. He has absolutely no case that he should be taken off the permanently ineligible list. He gambled on his own team, and that’s a clear violation of the rules of baseball. It’s not like they nailed him on a technicality. He ain’t Buck Weaver or Joe Jackson. Rose should be petitioning the Hall of Fame, not for reinstatement, but for repeal of Rule 3-E.
That’s what is keeping him from the Hall of Fame. Well, that and the BBWAA and the Veteran’s Committee. I actually would like to see Rule 3-E repealed and let the writers vote on Rose, taking his gambling into consideration. I doubt he would merit induction, they didn’t induct Joe Jackson when there was no Rule 3-E and Jackson at least has a case of plausible deniability (which I don’t entirely buy. Field of Dreams is a nice movie and all, but Jackson racked up his big numbers in the late innings of blowout losses or in the games the Black Sox were trying to win after the gamblers’ double-crossed them).
Because check out Rule 5, the voting criteria:
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Rose has a huge check under record, playing ability, and contributions to his teams. He has huge minuses under integrity, sportsmanship, and character. Leave it up to the voters to reject Rose, not the Hall of Fame Board of Directors. Is that so hard? Making Rose eligible for the Hall of Fame is only the first step to getting him inducted. And he's got to get in line behind Shoeless Joe.
Seriously, what a cool present. Thanks, Swanny.
8 comments:
She didn't technically "buy it." To sell gloves, the company brings in athletes and the more a customers order, the more stuff we give them to have signed.
This week we had Pete Rose and Jerry Rice. Last year at the same show we had Reggie Jackson and Magic Johnson. At the NY show the company generally has NY athletes; same for the Boston show, maybe Chicago, sometimes for San Fran. This year the American Dental Convention is in San Fran so I'm guessing they'll have someone interesting.
One show, people including myself wanted Mike Tyson. The higher ups shunned the ideas for the potential liability.
Anyway, my mother specifically said, "You need to give a ball to Baker. Even if he doesn't collect these things, Pete Rose personifies the passions of Baker: Baseball, Gambling, and the law.
You are so passionate about so many things that a Pete Rose signed ball represents that I knew you would appreciate it – I made Swanburg take it back to Waco with a promise that he would give it to you. No my intention was not to draw out should he or shouldn’t he get into the hall of fame - I don't care either way.
You are very welcome for your gracious thank you.
Swanburg’s Mom
I really do appreciate the gift. It wasn't necessary and was very kind of you. You are so much cooler than your son.
OK, so you didn't care about the Pete Rose argument, but it just gave me cover to talk about it. And I like the argument.
Thanks again. The ball is already on my mantle.
Tag, you're it. Check the blog. 10 interesting facts about yourself, etc.
hmmmm...baker's about swanburg's mom's age....
Well with the convention being in San Francisco and all, do you think you could get me a Barry Bonds ball to use in property with my Popov v. Hayashi case???
Since I'm not paying attention to where I'm posting things, that request was directed to Mr. Swanburg! :)
If they have Bonds, consider it done.
Post a Comment