Former Cincinnati Reds player and manager Pete Rose poses while taping a segment for Miami Television News on the campus of Miami University, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015, in Oxford, Ohio. (AP Photo/Gary Landers)
AP Photo/Gary Landers

Pete Rose suggests Josh Donaldson should have stayed in Game 1 despite head injury


Blue Jays third baseman Josh Donaldson was forced to exit Game 1 of the ALDS against the Rangers on Thursday after he took a knee to the head on a takeout slide at second base. The Blue Jays announced after the game that Donaldson passed concussion tests, but he’ll be reevaluated on Friday.

After the game, the Fox Sports 1 panel consisting of Kevin Burkhardt, Pete Rose, Frank Thomas, and Raul Ibanez discussed the high-profile injuries from Game 1. This led Rose to suggesting that Donaldson should have stayed in the game despite his head injury. Seriously.

Courtesy of Big League Stew, here’s the quote from Rose:

His comments created some awkwardness, but the other panelists gently tried to remind him that things have changed for the better and nobody takes any chances with a head injury. In fact, Donaldson wouldn’t be the first player to pass a concussion test one day before feeling symptoms later. It’s remarkable that nonsense like this could be said on a major sports broadcast in 2015, but here we are.

MLB to decide on Pete Rose’s fate by the end of the year

Pete Rose

Pete Rose’s case for reinstatement is now fully in Rob Manfred’s hands. The statement just released by the league:

“On Thursday, September 24th, Commissioner Rob Manfred met with Pete Rose and his representatives at Major League Baseball’s New York office regarding Mr. Rose’s application for reinstatement.  Commissioner Manfred informed Mr. Rose that he will make a decision on his application by the end of the calendar year.  Both parties have agreed to refrain from further comment.”

Earlier this year Manfred refused to reinstate Shoeless Joe Jackson, which suggests that forgiveness for the sake of forgiveness may not be high on his list. But unlike Jackson, Rose is still living and could theoretically still do some good in the game if he was asked to and willing. Hard to say what he’d do or whether it’s even worth it, but it may be a consideration on the part of the league.

Pete Rose gets a one minute, twenty-four second ovation as one of the Reds’ “Franchise Four”

Pete Rose

CINCINNATI — Before tonight’s game, the “Franchise Four” of each team was announced, as determined by a fan vote. All of the Franchise Fours were announced on the video board, save one: the hometown Reds.

When the Reds were announced, Johnny Bench came out first. Then Barry Larkin. Third up, Joe Morgan. Giving us the best catcher ever, a Hall of Fame shortstop and likely the best second baseman of all times.

Then came the Hit King.

When Pete Rose’s picture appeared on the board the ovation started. Then I started the stopwatch. The time until the ovation died down and Thom Brennaman, the P.A. announcer spoke again: 1:24. Not too shabby.

Still, not as loud and as enthusiastic as Todd Frazier craziness last night, even if lasted longer.

They love Pete Rose here. But they seem more enthused by Todd Frazier. As always, baseball wins out over hype.


Pete Rose: still cagey and defiant about the Ray Fosse collision after 45 years

Rose Fosse

It happened 45 years ago but Pete Rose and Ray Fosse still get asked about their famous collision at home plate in the 1970 All-Star Game. The one that shook Rose up a bit — he’d miss some games afterward — and which ended up having a major impact on Ray Fosse’s health and career.

Yes, Fosse played right after the All-Star Game. But he wasn’t the same and, eventually, it was determined that he had a fractured and separated shoulder. By the time they figured that out, however, it had already healed improperly. As he told Scott Miller of CBS Sports two years ago, he still feels stabbing pain there and can’t really lift his arm over his head.

The stories of the Rose-Fosse collision are well known by now. Rose says he was pals with Fosse and it was just about playing hard. Fosse says he is not bitter about the play itself, but has noted with some agitation over the years that Rose has gone out of his way to play up the friendship between he and Fosse, whereas Fosse told Miller back in 2013 they really didn’t really know each other. They just had dinner the night before and Fosse was back at the hotel with his wife at 1AM. Rose tells people they were out until 4AM, palling around. That’s really the only part that bigs Fosse.

I’ve always thought that to be somewhat telling. There’s this whole sense to it where Rose is trying to create his own history about the entire thing. It was a play that, for the time, wasn’t terribly remarkable, even if it skewed a tad hard-nosed for the All-Star Game. People have criticized Rose for it, but they haven’t damned him. And as I said, Fosse isn’t bitter about it. But Rose has to go that extra mile to convince people that it wasn’t just defensible or merely notable. He was righteous and just and, man, when you think about it HE was the wronged party!

Just look at this from today’s conference call with Rose and reporters, related to the upcoming All-Star Game:

It’s so Pete Rose. After 45 years, you’d think the response would be more about Fosse’s health or at the very least some sort of perspective about how the things you thought and did when you were young were somewhat regrettable, even if done righteously at the time. Just a little, I dunno, humanity about the dang thing. Or humility.

But that’s not Pete Rose. And that’s why he has become the figure he has become in the past 25 years.

Q&A: What does the new Pete Rose news mean?

pete rose tall getty

The news that Pete Rose bet on baseball as a player, not just as a manager, has people talking. Of course any Pete Rose does that, so I suppose it’s not that different than anything else. But after chatting with a lot of folks about this I feel it’s worth hashing out exactly what it all means, practically speaking.

To do this, let’s play Q&A!

Q: Is it really news that Pete Rose bet as a player? 

A: Not exactly. The news is that ESPN has copies of the actual documents proving it, not that we’re hearing it for the first time. John Dowd, baseball’s investigator in the original Pete Rose case heard testimony from a bookie back in 1989 saying Rose bet on baseball when he played. They just had no documentation of it.

Q: So, does the documentation change Rose’s punishment?

A: Nope! Betting on baseball is betting on baseball. It doesn’t matter if you did it as a player or a manager. He’s still permanently banned. He can not be more permanently banned.

Q: OK, then, so what is the significance does this new documentation?

A: Data point 1,356 that Rose is a liar who moves the goal posts whenever he’s caught. For years he said he never bet on baseball, then he admitted it. After that he said he only bet as a manager, now that’s shown not to be true. He currently claims that he never bet against his own teams — and no evidence currently exists showing that he did — but if we’ve learned anything in the past 25 years it’s that Rose’s word is worthless.

Q: Would it matter if we found out he bet against his own team? 

A: It would certainly shock a lot of people, as many believe it to be a fundamentally different sort of transgression to bet against one’s team than on one’s team. But, in reality, Major League Baseball makes no distinction along these lines. Nor should they. Sure, it’s easier to make a case that someone is throwing a game if they bet against themselves, and throwing games is the problem baseball’s rules are designed to prevent.

But what happens if someone bets on oneself 15 times in a row and then on day 16 doesn’t bet at all? Could that not be evidence that they’re going to throw game 16? What if one is a manager and he bets on his team to win on Monday and he pulls out all the stops, has guys steal bases like crazy and burns the bullpen out as if it were Game 7 of the World Series? Does that not negatively impact a team’s chance to win on Tuesday?

Baseball’s view here is that gambling is insidious when it comes to the game, and it doesn’t matter if you gamble on yourself or against yourself, it’s equally bad and equally punishable.

Q: OK, so he’s still a liar. Does that even matter?

A: Not in terms of judging him personally, if you’re so inclined. We’ve always known Rose is a liar. But he does have a fresh, new appeal pending against Major League Baseball. If he has made any statements, either himself or through counsel, about the nature of his gambling and he turns out to have lied, you’d have to think baseball won’t like it and will look on his appeal unfavorably. And even if he hasn’t made any statements, as we said above, Pete Rose news is always big news and this generally makes Rose look bad. Major League Baseball is no different than any other business or sports league and bad press isn’t gonna make them happy.

My view — and the view of most people, I imagine — is that Rose has been punished a long time and is pretty much incapacitated from ever affecting the outcome of a game, thereby rendering his reinstatement pretty harmless. Businesses which have P.R. people on staff may not think the same way.

Q: Does this affect his Hall of Fame case? Should it? 

A: He has no Hall of Fame case now, because people who are banned are not allowed to be on the ballot. If and when he is reinstated, he will be subject to the same sort of scrutiny any player is when considered for the Hall. Part of that scrutiny is the so-called character clause. As it was, some voters were probably going to hold Rose’s gambling history against him and make his Hall case, if he ever gets one, tougher than it should be. With new evidence that Rose’s lying didn’t end years ago when he finally copped to betting on baseball, it may turn a few more minds against him.

Personally speaking, I think the character clause is dumb and I’d put Rose in the Hall immediately. There are a lot of liars and cheats in there. None of them is the all-time hits leader.

Q: Got anything else, smart guy?

A: Just one observation: Pete Rose politics are dumb. There is no reason why people who think he should be back in the game or in the Hall of Fame have to believe he’s a great guy or that he’s a truth-teller. Those are not mutually-exclusive categories. Yet for years, including the past ten minutes, I have heard people believe that it is. That if you think Rose is a liar, you MUST be against him for all purposes, or that if you think Rose should be reinstated and enshrined in Cooperstown that you MUST believe everyone is out to get him and that he’s a choir boy.

That’s silly, of course. Rose is a liar. That’s pretty clear. He got a punishment he richly deserved and, because of the nature of that punishment (i.e. it’s permanent) — Major League Baseball is doing him a gigantic favor by even reviewing his case again. If they told him to pound sand, there wouldn’t be a great argument for him or any of his partisans to lodge in his favor. But you can also, like I do, think that Rose is a liar who should be in the Hall of Fame. And one that, at this point in his life, could be reinstated without much harm happening. It would make a lot of people happy to boot.

This new news — or this new corroboration of old news and the bad P.R. that attends it — could be bad for that reinstatement case. There’s no getting around that unless and until MLB says it doesn’t care.