The Rose that Doesn't Bloom

Yesterday, in discussing the morality of the Baseball Hall of Fame voters, and why I would vote to admit the two presumed PED users, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, I wrote the following:

"I rather imagine that a Hall of Fame without Bonds and Clemens is essentially denying their existence as top-five or top-ten greatest players ever."

I always take time to read, re-read and edit the heck out of these pieces before publishing them, and during that process, the thought kept coming to me: How do you write that sentence and not mention Pete Rose?

And that, friends, is why we have columns on baseball on consecutive days.

Rose, of course, is the former player who holds the Major League record for most base hits all-time, played for a very long time, including on several championship teams, was nicknamed "Charlie Hustle" for his aggressive play and approach.  He is also the guy who, as a manager, was suspended from baseball (and thus made ineligible for the Hall of Fame) for betting on games in which his own team played -- betting on them to win, it can be noted.

In the Rose v. Clemens/Bonds debate, there is less of an ethical quandary here than may appear on the surface.  The BBWAA has no choice in the matter for a couple reasons.  First, Rose was suspended (and therefore ineligible to be inducted) for the 15 years the rules at the time allowed for the voters to vote for him.  So the BBWAA couldn't elect him and cannot now take up his case anyway. 

Second, the Veterans' Committee, which in fact could take up the Rose case after the 15 years have expired and some other period has come and gone, can't induct him either, because of his suspension from the game.  So ethics aside, it is the rules that keep Rose out (as long as he is suspended), while Bonds and Clemens could be voted in at any time until their eligibility, which by rule is now ten total years, ends.

OK, that allows me to write yesterday's column and not mention Rose -- he's not eligible until and unless the Commissioner unsuspends him, and then would still have to be taken up by the Veterans' Committee because he is past the eligibility time to be voted on by the BBWAA.

That's when ethics come back in -- do you vote for a guy who was suspended from baseball for however-many years for gambling on his own team?  In fact, should he be unsuspended in the first place?

Yes and yes.  The first one is easier.  Rose was a Hall of Fame-caliber player for pretty much all of the playing reasons one could choose to provide; Rookie of the Year, one MVP and five top-5 MVP seasons, 17-time All-Star; all these suggest that he was thought to be of Hall quality in his playing time.  Clearly his career, in and of itself, demands the vote.  The character clause certainly compromises it, though, and were a voter to decide not to vote for that reason, well, a few decades under suspension might be interpreted as presenting enough of a character argument that I wouldn't argue the point -- except to trot out the same "denying history" argument I made for Bonds and Clemens yesterday.

The second question is waaaaay harder -- i.e., should the new Commissioner, Rob Manfred, lift the suspension, and thus reinstate his eligibility to be voted on?  That one is so much harder.  It takes into account some very conflicting points of history and ethical shavings:

(1) He bet on his own team to win (as opposed to throwing games, like the eight Black Sox in 1919)
(2) Betting was a known no-no at the highest level of offense, and drew known, lifetime suspensions
(3) Rose was far from up-front about what he did and did not do as far as gambling, for years
(4) Rose has been suspended for 25 years.  Given (1), and the fact that at 74 he has no more role in baseball other than a ceremonial one, it could be considered "long enough".

I do think a 25-year suspension satisfies our appetite for punishment and revenge, separate from Rose's eligibility for the Hall of Fame, which is a separate matter.  Manfred holds the cards as far as the suspension, the Veterans' Committee holds the cards as to his enshrinement in the Hall, and they can't even talk about acting until the suspension is lifted.

Bonds and Clemens, who could be enshrined in the Hall of Fame any January the voters choose, are about one set of arguments.  Rose, who by rule cannot, is a completely different set of arguments.

You have to love how baseball, of all things, gives us ethical points to debate that are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but help us plumb the depths of our own morality.

Copyright 2015 by Robert Sutton