MLB formally reinstates Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson

[Brock Beauchamp]

19 minutes ago, homer said:

Rose had his chance under Selig:

For nearly 15 years, he denied having placed a single bet on baseball. In the early 2000s, then-commissioner Bud Selig offered Rose a chance -- but with conditions, including admitting that he gambled on baseball, making no casino appearances and stopping all gambling. Rose declined

This right here is half of why I will never care about what happens to Pete Rose and would just as soon forget he existed. The other half of why is the whole "sex with a 15 year old" thing for obvious reasons.

[tmwiese55]

Another big thing overlooked in the years of arguing about this is that his ban was something he agreed to in order to avoid any further investigation. Which could have led to them finding even more damning info (betting on games as a player and or throwing of games) and/or criminal prosecutions.      

I'm a gambler, and I still would've left him banned.  He agreed to that, then proceeded to lie for 20+ years. Then some prompting got him to admit to it as manager. Chances are he continued to lie about not doing it as a player. Not sure how anyone could take anything he said with any value.

[RobertCrawley]

14 hours ago, UsainJolt said:

I think sports are funny sometimes because it creates a morality tale out of things that can radically flip later on — younger me, in my baseball adolescence would have ABHORRED today. Even the me of a few years ago, at best, would be completely apathetic.

Today, with time and age, I almost view Rose as a tragic figure, though I reserve the right to change my mind on that (I had never heard of the statutory rape until now, for instance). He seemed like a victim of himself as well as his own tormentor, never having a personality that wasn’t his baseball accomplishments, never able to figure out that Pete Rose, the person, and Pete Rose, the man, could be two separate entities. Pete Rose made Charlie Hustle his entire psyche — always the underdog, always trying to get one over, always the little dog in the fight; but once you take baseball out of that equation for 30 years, what do you have left except the husk of a man? He wasn’t a great businessman or an investor and wasn’t a magnetic personality; he made baseball his end-all, be-all.

Instead, he hangs on far longer than he probably should have were he not managing himself with Ty Cobb’s record being his sole focus because baseball was literally all he was and all he knew. Add to that a hero complex that you see in a lot of professional athletes where everything they touch turns to gold/create an aura of infallibility around themselves that gets reinforced by everything around them, I can see easily how a guy would fall victim to his own vices.

Suddenly, for the first time in his life, that player turned manager turned personality begins facing legit criticism and consequences for maybe the first time since adolescence, where he previously could do no wrong. Furthermore, it comes from the very game that he’s surrounded his entire life around. It makes him do actions that seem illogical to someone with a normal sense of self, but to someone like Rose, so absorbed in the accomplishments of his past that he never had to think about of a future without baseball, it’s the only thing that makes sense.

So he attacks; he lies; he twists the truth into something that makes sense to his worldview, even as he paints himself into a corner, so far is he in his own head that it’s better to play a malicious gadfly than an apologetic screwup. He tries to play the all-conquering titan to the people, who more and more view him as just another flawed mortal, so he buries his head in the sand further. Even eventually coming clean with his involvement, I don’t think there was ever contrition or true apology there, being mostly a transactional reaction of “if I apologize, maybe I’ll get something back”, which I feel like forced him further into a spiral of near-irrelevancy outside of a few very dedicated superfans and a small yearly mention during the HOF votes every season…though that could be my own biases from the past showing.

As an aside, I feel like we’re living a lesser version of this in the constant soap opera of late career Aaron Rodgers right now — a guy who for so long controlled his own destiny, suddenly not being able to confront the fact that his own athletic skills are waning and being too stubborn to adjust to a new present that he can’t reconcile with his past, and not being able to confront a future without controlling the present on his own obsolete terms.

I don’t pity Rose, the person, too much, just like I have very few thoughts to spare on Rodgers making his own bed and then complaining about the knives he hid in it poking him through the sheets — we’re all responsible for our own actions regardless of the factors that lead us to our decisions, and personally, Rose always came off as smug and all-knowing, which is usually not a healthy vibe to give if you ever want to be considered a creative or interesting person — but I wonder if things would have ended better for him if he’d ever internalized any sort of validation for who he was as a person, divorced of anything athletic-related, or if he by nature was always set for this kind of rise and burnout.

Well written. You have a talent, sir. 

[Brian]

Since were talking illegal didn't Doc Ellis and Vida Blue pitch no hitters on LSD when baseball was fun? 

[Playing Catch]

Firstly, @UsainJolt's post was well thought out, and well written. Thanks for the contribution to the conversation.

I'm not interested in the social debate surrounding the morality of gambling -- at least not from the point of view of MLB. MLB isn't going to single-handedly deny the riches associated with cozying up to the gambling industry. Doing so, I think, would come off as moralistic and a bit self-righteous.

I AM really interested, however, on the integrity of the game. I don't look at the game's integrity as a new-school/old-fashioned debate. I feel like with the proliferation of gambling and prop bets, this integrity of the game has never been more at risk -- in all sports. Or at least not since the days of Mountain Landis. There is evidence of this as recently as this week with Lance McCullors Jr.

I don't think MLB has taken a moralistic stance on this at all. I believe that MLB, correctly, has drawn a thick, dark line in the sand in order to prevent gambling corruption.

[Underachiever]

2 hours ago, Playing Catch said:

I don't think MLB has taken a moralistic stance on this at all. I believe that MLB, correctly, has drawn a thick, dark line in the sand in order to prevent gambling corruption.

I think that for the past 100 years the line has been in stone, and Manfred has decided to move it to sand. Sand, by its nature, is a great medium in which to draw a line, because you can always wash it away and redraw it in a different place. MLB could have left it in stone if they wished. They didn't. I have no doubt the line will continue to move, no matter how thick and how dark it is currently.

[Playing Catch]

6 hours ago, Underachiever said:

I think that for the past 100 years the line has been in stone, and Manfred has decided to move it to sand. Sand, by its nature, is a great medium in which to draw a line, because you can always wash it away and redraw it in a different place. MLB could have left it in stone if they wished. They didn't. I have no doubt the line will continue to move, no matter how thick and how dark it is currently.

Excellent point.

In fact, my very first thought when I heard this, was about what isn't publicly known about Shohei Ohtani's relationship with gambling, and what MLB knows about it. But I thought that was too cynical to suggest w/o knowing much about that whole thing.

[LouisEly]

There is one other aspect to a lifetime ban - MLB teams cannot do anything to honor or mention that player.  That's why the Reds put seven baseball bats in each of the two riverboat smoke stacks when Great American Ballpark was built - that was the closest thing they could do to paying any type of homage to Pete Rose.

Not sure if people read the entire article, but Manfred's comment:

"Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game,"

Was actually a reference to something he said in 2015.  Rose applied for reinstatement shortly after Manfred took over as commissioner, and Manfred said at the time:

"(Allowing Rose back into baseball was an) unacceptable risk of a future violation ... and thus to the integrity of our sport," Manfred declared on Dec. 14, 2015.

It's a difficult subject.  It's really hard to apply any type of "morality" lens, because what is considered socially acceptable and socially reprehensible evolves over time.  I hate to use this example, but it's the easiest to apply - racism was socially acceptable not that many years ago.  And because of that, known racists were elected into the baseball Hall of Fame.  Now we know that racism is socially reprehensible and nobody with any type of racist behavior would ever be elected today.  Swearing on TV (not pay networks such as Netflix, HBO, Cinemax, etc.) used to be socially reprehensible; in recent years I've heard the F-bomb said on the USA network.  I wasn't around, but it doesn't sound like many eyebrows were raised when Joe Jackson married a 15-year-old girl in 1908.  Now that's not only socially reprehensible, but a felony. Ads for sports betting sites used to be banned; now they are all over MLB broadcasts and stadiums.  "Greenies" in the clubhouse... it's a long list.  Society changes.

The one thing that was and still is socially reprehensible is lying.  And Pete Rose did that many times for many years.

I wouldn't support him being elected into the Hall of Fame.  But if the Reds want to honor what he did for their franchise... whatever.  It's easy for us to criticize the Reds if they do so, but many still revere a certain former Brewer who is in the Hall of Fame who admitted to using cocaine as a player.  Lots of people have died or had their lives ruined by using cocaine, getting cocaine into the hands of wealthy Americans to make money, or trying to stop cocaine from getting into the hands of the wrong people.  I guess, nobody died because Pete Rose lied.

[RobertCrawley]

23 hours ago, LouisEly said:

There is one other aspect to a lifetime ban - MLB teams cannot do anything to honor or mention that player.  That's why the Reds put seven baseball bats in each of the two riverboat smoke stacks when Great American Ballpark was built - that was the closest thing they could do to paying any type of homage to Pete Rose.

Not sure if people read the entire article, but Manfred's comment:

"Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game,"

Was actually a reference to something he said in 2015.  Rose applied for reinstatement shortly after Manfred took over as commissioner, and Manfred said at the time:

"(Allowing Rose back into baseball was an) unacceptable risk of a future violation ... and thus to the integrity of our sport," Manfred declared on Dec. 14, 2015.

It's a difficult subject.  It's really hard to apply any type of "morality" lens, because what is considered socially acceptable and socially reprehensible evolves over time.  I hate to use this example, but it's the easiest to apply - racism was socially acceptable not that many years ago.  And because of that, known racists were elected into the baseball Hall of Fame.  Now we know that racism is socially reprehensible and nobody with any type of racist behavior would ever be elected today.  Swearing on TV (not pay networks such as Netflix, HBO, Cinemax, etc.) used to be socially reprehensible; in recent years I've heard the F-bomb said on the USA network.  I wasn't around, but it doesn't sound like many eyebrows were raised when Joe Jackson married a 15-year-old girl in 1908.  Now that's not only socially reprehensible, but a felony. Ads for sports betting sites used to be banned; now they are all over MLB broadcasts and stadiums.  "Greenies" in the clubhouse... it's a long list.  Society changes.

The one thing that was and still is socially reprehensible is lying.  And Pete Rose did that many times for many years.

I wouldn't support him being elected into the Hall of Fame.  But if the Reds want to honor what he did for their franchise... whatever.  It's easy for us to criticize the Reds if they do so, but many still revere a certain former Brewer who is in the Hall of Fame who admitted to using cocaine as a player.  Lots of people have died or had their lives ruined by using cocaine, getting cocaine into the hands of wealthy Americans to make money, or trying to stop cocaine from getting into the hands of the wrong people.  I guess, nobody died because Pete Rose lied.

In Ty Cobb's time and in Reggie Jackson's time, racism was accepted by racists, just like now. Maybe it's true that a racists would not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, but they might be elected to other things.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

31 minutes ago, RobertCrawley said:

In Ty Cobb's time and in Reggie Jackson's time, racism was accepted by racists, just like now. Maybe it's true that a racists would not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, but they might be elected to other things.

Like in most conversations, nuance is required here. 80 years ago, most white Americans were at least mildly racist. There's some wiggle room to contextualize "a man of his time" when a person held unfortunate viewpoints but wasn't actively harming people.

Then there's the next class, which is actively harming people or using outsized influence to steer policy. That's where we get into Cap Anson and Kennesaw Mountain Landis territory, two people who I have huge ******* problems with, irrespective of the time period in which they lived.

Everyone is a product of their time and environment but some people are just flat-out wrong regardless of when they lived.

[RobertCrawley]

6 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Like in most conversations, nuance is required here. 80 years ago, most white Americans were at least mildly racist. There's some wiggle room to contextualize "a man of his time" when a person held unfortunate viewpoints but wasn't actively harming people.

Then there's the next class, which is actively harming people or using outsized influence to steer policy. That's where we get into Cap Anson and Kennesaw Mountain Landis territory, two people who I have huge ******* problems with, irrespective of the time period in which they lived.

Everyone is a product of their time and environment but some people are just flat-out wrong regardless of when they lived.

Agreed. But there were abolitionists in the early 1800s, and there was that little thing called The Civil War that was largely fought over slavery. These people who sacrificed everything for what is right were products of their time also.

Good men and women have existed in this country since its founding. 

[TURBO]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Like in most conversations, nuance is required here. 80 years ago, most white Americans were at least mildly racist. There's some wiggle room to contextualize "a man of his time" when a person held unfortunate viewpoints but wasn't actively harming people.

Then there's the next class, which is actively harming people or using outsized influence to steer policy. That's where we get into Cap Anson and Kennesaw Mountain Landis territory, two people who I have huge ******* problems with, irrespective of the time period in which they lived.

Everyone is a product of their time and environment but some people are just flat-out wrong regardless of when they lived.

I'm pretty curious what you have against Kennesaw Mountain Landis?

[Samurai Bucky]

On 5/14/2025 at 7:27 PM, LouisEly said:

The one thing that was and still is socially reprehensible is lying.  And Pete Rose did that many times for many years.

Maybe he was planning on being a politician?  😉

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, TURBO said:

I'm pretty curious what you have against Kennesaw Mountain Landis?

He was staunchly against integration. 

[Austin Tatious]

I loved Rose as a player.  But he had every chance to get reinstated.  He decided to live his life like a seedy character and he couldn’t see the big picture.  

Instead of living in Vegas and attending card shows and signing memorabilia for money, he could have made millions and millions in baseball.  He did it to himself.  If he played his cards right he could have come clean, expressed contrition, changed his ways, etc.  Basically make it impossible for baseball to not reinstate him.   He did the opposite of that.  

As for Joe Jackson, he apparently was given money that he didn’t seek out.  He didn’t seem to participate in throwing anything.  He had more hits in the 1919 WS than anyone had in any series until 1964.  I believe his defense was fine too although there’s some vague accusations of him not being positioned correctly in the field, leading to some triples.  I don’t think he was ever convicted.  There was a gambling scheme developed by others,  he was given money, but he didn’t throw anything based on the data.  He was an illiterate guy born in 1800’s South Carolina and was ignorant more than anything else.  

[Sixtolezcano]

On 5/15/2025 at 6:37 PM, RobertCrawley said:

In Ty Cobb's time and in Reggie Jackson's time, racism was accepted by racists, just like now. Maybe it's true that a racists would not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, but they might be elected to other things.

 

 

True that. And everyone here is worse for it, even if they know it or not. It will come back to bite them if the like it or not. 

[BrewerFan]

On 5/13/2025 at 6:29 PM, RobertCrawley said:

Or: If you throw games for money in baseball (and you are caught), people will never forgive you, not even for 100 years.

That's a useful piece of knowledge to keep the integrity of the game.

It doesn't exist anymore though.

He did a really bad job of throwing those games.

[BrewerFan]

On 5/15/2025 at 6:37 PM, RobertCrawley said:

In Ty Cobb's time and in Reggie Jackson's time, racism was accepted by racists, just like now. Maybe it's true that a racists would not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame, but they might be elected to other things.

 

 

Lets stop even bringing up Ty Cobb's name when it come to racism in general. It seems like outside of a drunk writing a fictional book, his family and he were both...the antithesis of racists.

He defended a young black mascot for the Tigers on the road, met with Jackie when he was allowed to play(he advocated for integration)...his family had a history of fighting for black men's rights. His Grandparents were abolitionists(though mine were...pretty racist, so that's not the most compelling I suppose).

There's a lot of other anecdotal evidence that suggests Al Stump just made up most of the stories. The beating of a black bellhop.

 

I also realize the point was simply made that during the ERA in which he(and Reggie) played there was a great deal of racism... which is clearly true, but it doesn't feel accidental that Ty Cobb is mistakenly used as the poster boy for it when you could more easily argue he was well ahead of his time.

[Brock Beauchamp]

25 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

Lets stop even bringing up Ty Cobb's name when it come to racism in general. It seems like outside of a drunk writing a fictional book, his family and he were both...the antithesis of racists.

He defended a young black mascot for the Tigers on the road, met with Jackie when he was allowed to play(he advocated for integration)...his family had a history of fighting for black men's rights. His Grandparents were abolitionists(though mine were...pretty racist, so that's not the most compelling I suppose).

There's a lot of other anecdotal evidence that suggests Al Stump just made up most of the stories. The beating of a black bellhop.

I also realize the point was simply made that during the ERA in which he(and Reggie) played there was a great deal of racism... which is clearly true, but it doesn't feel accidental that Ty Cobb is mistakenly used as the poster boy for it when you could more easily argue he was well ahead of his time.

Yeah, we need to take a step back on Cobb. While I'm not exactly convinced he was some beacon of race relations, it has become apparent that some of those stories about him aren't... accurate, to put it lightly.

If you want to blast someone for racism during that time, just put Cap Anson in place of Ty Cobb.