Does baseball have a big enough heart to forgive after punishing?

Question

Joe Jackson served out his punishment: banned for life from baseball. Pete Rose has been banned also. They are really the only two banned players who might otherwise have made it to the Hall of Fame. (Eddied Cicotte could possibly be another.)
My question is this: Now that Jackson is dead, hasn't he served out his punishment and shouldn't he now be eligible for the hall? Won't that be the same with Rose? Isn't baseball big enough to accept them after their punishment?
If new evidence arose to clear either of them or to at least cast doubt on the punishment, they would be considered. Jackson has people who speculate that he wasn't so bad, but no hard evidence backs that. However, without the evidence, does banned for life mean eternity? If not, why not allow them in?

Okay, I understand integrity and image, but wouldn't both be just as well served by forgiveness? The players' plaques would obviously reflect their ban, and wouldn't the idea that baseball can also let something go also be good for the game and for children? I'm just asking, needing clarification.

I have to say that this discussion has been one of the best I've had. I think I see what the nay-sayers are getting at, and am re-thinking my position. Score for all you folks. Again, I wish I could choose more than one best answer.

I have to say that this discussion has been one of the best I've had. I think I see what the nay-sayers are getting at, and am re-thinking my position. Score for all you folks. Again, I wish I could choose more than one best answer.

Answer 1

Maybe I'm making too much of this, but I think your question reflects a lot of what is wrong with our country. I work in schools and I see this attitude every day. There are well-known and well-publicized expectations for behavior. There are equally well known consequences for not meeting those expectations. Someone breaks the rules. The expected consequence befalls them. Suddenly, other people step in and say, "Aren't you being harsh? Can't you have a heart?"

The answer is that the one thing (having a heart) has nothing to do with the other (allowing people to pay the consequences for their own actions). Professional athletes get paid A LOT of money and garner a lot of attention and respect from the public, for playing a game. Our expectation as sports fans is that these overpaid babies play their game by the rules, and one of the rules is that you don't gamble on sports while you're involved in playing (or coaching).

Did Pete Rose know what could happen to him when he was gambling on sports? Yes, he did. Did he worry about us, the fans, when he ignored the rules and did what he wanted to do? No, he did not. Now, we're all supposed to worry about him and his place in baseball history. Sorry, I can't muster up that kind of sympathy for a person who is only paying the consequences for actions that he took as an adult in full control of his faculties. He wasn't some dumb kid who didn't know any better.

Why not allow them in? Because it would say to all current players, "If you are good enough at the sport, the rules don't apply to you. Do what you want and the hall of fame still awaits you." I can't support that.

Answer 2

It really is not about a forgiving heart as it is about the integrity of the game. The Black Sox scandal almost ruined the game forever until Babe Ruth came along and saved the day. Baseball has to have integrity or the game could not exist and no one player, Rose or anyone else, is bigger than the game. Rose will have to pay a huge price for a very bad error in judgment, and that is the way it has to be.

Answer 3

You proceed from an incorrect assumption. The ineligible status for Jackson and Rose (and, to be certain, the individual basis for each's ineligibility are totally unrelated) is not "lifetime". It is "permanent". This must be understood; that Rose is still drawing breath is a nice personal bonus for him, but matters not to MLB.

Here is the relevant, exact wording from the agreement that Rose willingly signed in 1989:
"Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."

Permanent. Nothing about "lifetime" or "for life" in there. Jackson's is similar. And this is what MLB Rule 21 prescribes, permanent ineligibility. The wagering rule is THAT IMPORTANT (they violated different sub-rules).

If new evidence were to surface, that could change things. But Rose is still alive and hasn't bothered producing anything, and neither has the legion of Jackson supporters (and it must be difficult going, finding something that contradicts his personal, sworn testimony that he knew what was going on; his complicity in the throw is not in doubt -- he knew about it).

Is baseball "big enough" to reinstate them? Of course it COULD. But to what end? If MLB takes Rule 21 seriously -- and it does -- then it must stand fast against reinstating Rose or Jackson or any other violator (barring exoneratory evidence, of which, so far, there is none).

Now, that's where they stand with MLB.

The Hall is a different matter. I consider the Hall's ineligibility policy to be weak, as it relies completely upon the decisions of an independent organization, MLB, and its definition and applications of ineligibility. But, there it is.

Jackson was never officially ineligible until the Hall's policy was codified in 1991 (which, yes, blatantly targetted Rose). He and the other seven -- Cicotte, Williams, Felsch, Gandil, Weaver, Risberg, and McMullin -- were never specifically excluded from Hall consideration when the Hall was founded. Many of those early BBWAA voters were men who witnessed the 1919 World Series first-hand and saw Jackson's gameplay on the field. They brought that original knowledge with them when they got their ballots.

Jackson got four votes, total, over seven elections.

History -- first-hand history -- has already dismissed Jackson as unworthy; DECISIVELY unworthy. I can see no grounds today for overturning that judgement at this far remove.

Bad decisions can come with bad consequences. Jackson and his teammates, and later Rose in his own way, made very bad decisions.

The Hall is not suffering without them.

Answer 4

I look at the two cases being very different and it has to deal with the financial aspect.

Jackson, for all accounts, may have been an unwilling participant. That notwithstanding, Jackson and the Black Sox didn't do what they did for extra cars or houses. These guys had to take jobs in the off season. They did well, but weren't rich like atheletes are today.

Jackson didn't really do it out of excessive greed (in my opinion).

Pete Rose, knew going in, it was illegal. He knew it was against Baseball rules and he didn't NEED the money. Sure, he didn't make the money they do today evern, but he had many cars, homes, his spending may have been out of control, but that was his own fault and his own ability to stop.

For those that didn't think Pete Rose did much wrong, betting for or against your own team puts your teams health in jeopardy because you want to win a particular game.

Even though most people think it's important to win all the games you can, it's still about risk. You aren't going to risk blowing out someone's arm to win in April.

Jackson in. Rose out (FOREVER)

Ps, Rose wasn't even a 'great' hitter. He was .303 for his career and though he had some fine years, none were GREAT. Yes he hustled, but that hustle turned him from a fringe guy to a good hitter.

Answer 5

Q: " Does baseball have a big enough heart to forgive after punishing? "
A: Yes, it does. The HOF has forgiven many ballplayer's bad deeds AFTER they turned their lives around. And that's really the key to being forgivable isn't it?

They have NOT however forgiven those that have attempted to corrupt the legitimacy of the sport. Nor should they.

Rose *wants* to be in the hall but isn't willing to stop doing the behavior that got him into trouble in the first place. Pete doesn't want to be forgiven, he just wants in. Sadly, he's earned his lifetime ban.

Answer 6

I don't think "heart" has anything to do with it.

Baseball has an image to uphold. Sports figures should be role models. ( I know there are dozens of hall of famers that might not make the list of "best role model in the world" but someone who has blatantly broken the rule of baseball and broken the law would really cheapen the value of being a hall of famer. )

I work with kids; I am always sickened when " heroes" fall. I tend to set sports heroes to a higher standard because the children tend to emulate these guys and gals.

Answer 7

What they did to Pete Rose was exceptionally cruel, and enough for me to take everything in Baseball now with a grain of salt... For all I care, I wish the Black Sox Scandal" had ruined the game professionally, and that maybe Babe Ruth would have settled down to a more fulfilling life, rather than getting rejected for a manager's job for not keeping a good public image...

Answer 8

yes it does mean eternity unless new evidence was found or something. poor pete rose is trying to get back in baseball now because of the money but baseball won't let him.

Answer 9

It sounds like a wonderful idea but if you do aren't you stating to future players its okay to bet on baseball we will forgive you later? The whole reason for the ban is to deter players from betting on baseball.

Answer 10

The commissioner's office has NOTHING to do with the HOF. It is the writer's and HOF committee that does the voting and decides who is eligible. The commissioner's office can lift the ban, but the HOF committee has ALL the power and can do it without the commissioner.