Pete Rose Denied Induction Into Hall of Fame For Final Time

Pete Rose, the all-time hits king at 4256, was denied eligibility for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame for likely the final time. Many applauded the decision handed down by the Baseball Hall of Fame’s Board of Directors. In their mind, Rose accepted, and must abide by, a lifetime ban he received in 1989. Others say it’s too stringent. With Pete Rose denied induction into the Hall of Fame for likely the final time, baseball fans will surely become more divided over the issue.

Then-commissioner Bart Giamatti banned Rose in 1989 for placing betts on baseballPete Rose Denied Induction games. Rose denied any involvement in gambling for many years before finally admitting it in 2004. Despite his confession, which he thought would exonerate him, the path to Hall of Fame induction only narrowed. In fact, it’s Rule 3(E) that continues to block Rose’s path to Cooperstown. The Baseball Writers Association of America election rules state that anyone who is permanently ineligible by Major League Baseball may not be considered for election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is the rule the Board of Directors cited in their decision to shut the door forever on Rose’s induction.

But is the Board of Directors being too stingy? Yup!

It’s Hypocritical To Deny Rose Induction

There’s no denying Rose gambled on baseball. It’s a crappy thing to do. Some say it’s no big deal but keep something in mind. You’re profiting off the hard work of your teammates. Then there’s the whole being illegal thing. But if the writers inducted Rose into the Hall of Fame then he would be in good company. Legendary New York Giants manager John McGraw allegedly threw games after the Giants were eliminated from the playoffs. Rumors about Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker’s connections to gamblers continue to this day.

Then there’s Hall of Famer John Clarkson. Clarkson won 50 games in 1885 (Yes, you read right) for the Chicago White Stockings. He’s in the Hall of Fame despite the fact that he murdered his wife with a razor. Let’s not forget Cap Anson and Kenesaw Mountain Landis, two more inductees who are directly responsible for introducing, and maintaining, respectively, segregation in baseball. So we can let other gamblers in, along with murderers and bigots, but not Pete Rose? That’s definitely a double standard.

Pete Rose Denied Induction For Final Time

Seeing Pete Rose denied induction is disappointing. It’s also somewhat hypocritical. Of course, Rose is no saint. But there are very few in the Hall of Fame whose character can’t questioned (Brooks Robinson comes to mind). This isn’t to dismiss what Rose did. But 25 years is enough.

Let Rose into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

ESPN Wrong to Omit Schilling Footage

I can’t say I was heartbroken when I heard ESPN fired Curt Schilling for controversial remarks he made about transgender people. His remarks were void of any substantial and intelligent insight into the transgender community, and only incites anti-trans rhetoric. Furthermore, political comments he’s made in recent years have made me wonder if he thinks he works for Fox News instead of ESPN. However, I do think ESPN made a terrible mistake in their recent decision to cut Schilling footage of his “bloody sock” game from their “Four Days in October” documentary about the 2004 World Series.

In Game 6 of the 2004 American League Championship Series against the New York Yankees,Cut Schilling Footage Curt Schilling pitched a masterful game against the Bronx Bombers even though he was in intense pain from a torn tendon sheath. Despite the injury bleeding through his sock, Schilling pitched seven innings and gave up only one run (the sock sold for $92,613 to an anonymous bidder in a 2013 auction). Schilling’s performance that night made it all the easier for the Red Sox to advance to the World Series, where they beat the St. Louis Cardinals in four games.

Schilling’s callous remarks not only offend the LGBTQ community, but embarrassed ESPN. As I stated in an earlier article, Schilling has every right to his opinion, and I would defend his right to express his opinion. But as a private company, ESPN has a right to protect its interests, and they felt letting Schilling go was a way to protect themselves. Despite his views, I’m having a hard time understanding why ESPN had to cut Schilling footage from their documentary about the Red Sox historic 2004 season. Schilling’s brilliant pitching was a key factor in the Red Sox success that season, and he’s already been punished once. So with that said, I don’t see why cutting footage from the documentary is necessary?

To cut the Schilling footage from the ESPN documentary because it depicts a ballplayer prone to controversy is a very slippery slope. What’s next? Do we take out all references to Tris Speaker at Fenway Park? You know the Hall of Famer was once a proud member of the KKK in Texas (though he changed his ways later in life when he mentored Larry Doby, the American League’s first black player). Maybe ESPN did it because Schilling’s words are still fresh in people’s minds, but where does one draw the line between continual punishment and moving on?

Schilling’s footage should be restored to the ESPN documentary because his political views had nothing to do with his success on the mound.