Mike Schmidt is wrong: 20 years is not enough for Pete Rose

Leave a comment

The best third baseman of all time is given an Associated Press column to make his case for Charlie Hustle.  The upshot (apart from merely making Rose’s case on its own merits): Bart Giamatti was a wise and compassionate man who would have eventually given Rose the benefit of the doubt: 

An interesting question was posed to me in a recent interview: Do you think things would have been different if Mr. Giamatti was still alive? . . . No one, however, anticipated the untimely passing of commissioner Giamatti, especially Pete. Before Pete could ever meet with him, appeal to him, come clean and apply for reinstatement, Mr. Giamatti passed away from a heart attack. Baseball lost a great ambassador for sure, and as unimportant as it was at the time, Pete’s fate now was in the hands of his successor, Fay Vincent.

The problem with this, however, is that it wasn’t as if Rose was going to come clean but, dadgummit, Giamatti died and he never got the chance.  It was 15 years — 15 years during which Rose, for P.R. purposes, constantly misrepresented the deal he struck with Giamatti and constantly complained about how wronged he was — until he finally admitted that he had been lying all along.  And even then it was only so he could sell some books. Schmidt glosses over that, probably because he was given a word limit by the AP and was more interested in conserving space to make an irrelevant comparison to steroids:

Pete bet on his team to win and has been banished from baseball for life. Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez et al, bet that they would get bigger, stronger and have a distinct advantage over everyone and that they wouldn’t get caught. Which is worse? Does the penalty fit the crime?

Pete’s banned for life, he sells his autograph to pay bills. Ramirez and his cronies apologize, are forgiven and get $20 million a year. They giggle all the way to the bank and could end up in the Hall of Fame. Is this the way Bart Giamatti would have wanted it 20 years later?

Actually, it’s not at all clear that Rose only bet on his team to win. We only have Rose’s word for that, so we’ll have to wait at least 15 more years, I’d wager, until we know if his story is going to change on that too.

But that’s not the point. The point is that Rose agreed to a lifetime ban, and now he and his defenders are complaining about the “lifetime” part of it.  We can debate all day about whether gambling or steroids are worse for baseball, but one thing certainly is clear: the rules Rose broke and punishment Rose received for it had been in place for nearly 70 years at the time he was banned.  Ramirez and A-Rod and the other steroids guys are likewise subject to the rules and punishments of their day too.  We don’t let burglars out of jail early simply because we think the sentence for drug possession is too light.

Look, no one denies Rose’s talent as a ballplayer. Indeed, if I had my way I’d decouple Hall-of-Fame eligibility from eligibility to work in the game and allow Rose to get the plaque he deserves for his on-the-field accomplishments. Likewise, Mike Schmidt was Rose’s teammate and friend so I don’t begrudge him for making Rose’s case. I’d probably do the same for my friend.

But let’s be clear: it’s no crime or injustice that Pete Rose is still banned from baseball. A ban he agreed to, by the way, voluntarily and with full knowledge that it was intended to be for life. A ban at which he constantly thumbed his nose while lying to both those who had his potential reinstatement in their hands and the fans who were played for idiots after Rose finally, and calculatedly, decided to come clean in 2004.

The headline to Schmidt’s piece asks if 20 years is enough.  My answer: no, not really.

The Nats are sniffing around for relief pitching help

Getty Images
1 Comment

The Nationals began the year with Blake Treinen as their closer. That didn’t last long, and now Koda Glover seems to be Dusty Baker’s man in the ninth inning. He earned a save for the second consecutive game yesterday. Glover has been pretty darn good in the early going, posting a 2.35 ERA and striking out six batters and walking only one in seven and two-thirds. That obviously a small sample size, and anything can happen. If it does, Baker has Shawn Kelley as an option.

Not many household names there, which is probably why the Nationals are reported to be interested in the White Sox’ David Robertson and Alex Colome of the Rays. That report comes from Jim Bowden of ESPN, who also notes that the A’s have a number of guys with closing experience on staff and are likely to be sellers too. The David Robertson thing may have more legs, though, given that Mike Rizzo and Rick Hahn pulled off a pretty major trade in the offseason. If you know a guy well, you call that guy first, right?

As far as problems go this isn’t a huge one. The Nats sit at 13-5 and, as expected by most prognosticators, are in first place in the National League East. The Cubs had some questions in the pen this time last year too. They had the luxury of trying to figure it out before making a massive trade for a closer. The Nats do too, and likely will. But expect them to be a part of any trade rumor conversation for the next couple of months.

 

The big flaw in modern ballparks

Getty Images
8 Comments

Travis Sawchik writes about the post-Camden Yards generation of ballparks over at FanGraphs. The ones everyone loves because they’re nice and clean and friendly and are full of amenities. And that’s true! They are nice! But they all have a huge flaw: unless you’re in expensive seats, you’re too far away from the action.

Sawchik uses cross sections of ballparks — available at Andrew Clem’s website — to show that fans sitting in the upper decks of ballparks are way higher and way farther back than they used to be at many old ballparks such as Cleveland’s Municipal Stadium, Old Comiskey, Tiger Stadium and Ebbets Field.

A lot of this has to do with an admirable impulse: to eliminate the beams which obstructed the view of many seats in those old parks. If you want to move that upper deck closer to the field, you have to have the beams because one can only achieve so much via cantilever effect. But that’s not the only impulse and probably not the primary one. More expansive lower bowls — which feature more expensive tickets — push the upper deck back and up. As do the luxury suites and club level amenities in between the lower and upper decks. Exacerbating this is the fact that most newer parks are built on vast tracts of land with few architectural constraints. If you can sprawl, you will, which leaves the most affordable seats in the land of binoculars.

I don’t agree with everything Sawchik writes here. He spends a lot of time talking about how much better neighborhood parks like Wrigley Field are and how it’d be better if newer parks were built in neighborhoods. I agree, neighborhood parks are ideal, but the fact is, most places don’t have mass transit like Chicago does. In most cities you have to have a place for 40,000 people to park.

That’s a quibble, though. Mostly, it’s a good look at an important thing most folks overlook when they praise the new parks. Important because, if you don’t have an enjoyable experience at the ballpark, you’re not likely to come back. And if you’re not fortunate enough to be able to buy expensive tickets, you may not have a great experience at the ballpark.