The Consensus Grows: Pete Rose Deserves His Shot at Cooperstown

---

---

When he was playing baseball, Pete Rose knew only one speed. He went all out, every day. He wanted to win.

I guess that tenacious drive to win — which was so admired by baseball fans — was what got him in trouble 25 years ago. On this day in 1989, Commissioner Bart Giamatti accepted what was called Rose's "voluntary ineligibility" from baseball for violating its prohibition on gambling.

What that meant, in simple language, was a lifetime ban from major–league baseball.

And a lifetime ban from baseball is exactly what it sounds like, too. It's for someone's lifetime — and then some. Nearly all the time, he has been prohibited from even being in a major–league ballpark. In one of the rare exceptions that comes to my mind was in the summer of 1999, he was part of the All–Century squad that was honored prior to the All–Star game at Fenway Park.

Rose was given a standing ovation from the fans that evening, by the way.

Why is gambling such a serious matter? Well, it has to do with the integrity of the game, the sport's assurance to its fans that the games are on the level. And the penalty isn't as severe if the player or coach bets on a game involving two other teams, but if a bet involves the team for whom the player plays or the coach coaches, it is much worse because such individuals are in a position to influence the outcome.

Rose was alleged to have made bets on games involving his own team, a charge he denied for 15 years — but finally admitted in 2004.

There's been considerable debate over the years over whether Shoeless Joe Jackson participated in the conspiracy to throw the 1919 World Series; if he did, his performance in the Series didn't show it (at the plate, he had 12 base hits and the only home run for either team; in the field, he committed no errors). Yet his ban remains in effect, nearly 100 years later — and more than 60 years after his death.

Shoeless Joe went to his grave insisting that he wasn't involved in the conspiracy — but you won't see his bust at Cooperstown.

Rose, now 73, knows there is virtually no chance that he will be reinstated, that even though he is still the all–time hits leader (and likely to remain so — his closest active competition is 40–year–old Derek Jeter, who is retiring at the end of this season and should still be at least 750 hits behind Rose when he does), he will never be enshrined in baseball's Hall of Fame.

And he appears to be at peace with that.

"I'm the one that screwed up," he told Keith Olbermann during last year's World Series. "I'm not mad at anybody. I'm not mad at [present Commissioner] Bud [Selig] or Bart [Giamatti]. I haven't given up on Bud giving me a second chance. I know he's retiring after [the current season], but I'll continue to be a great ambassador for the game of baseball and try to keep selling the game of baseball because I love the game."

Giamatti died a week to the day after Rose's ban went into effect.

ESPN recently reported that Rose still hasn't given up on being reinstated. At least, he says he hasn't.

My thoughts on Pete Rose have changed over the years. When the ban was put into effect, I was fully in favor of it. I remember saying to a friend, "When Shoeless Joe Jackson is allowed into the Hall of Fame, we can talk about Pete Rose."

I guess I still feel that way — to a certain extent. I don't think it would be right for Rose to be eligible to be enshrined at Cooperstown and Shoeless Joe not to be. I wanted Rose to admit what he had done, and I was angry that he did not when all the evidence pointed to his guilt. But he has since admitted betting on his team, and I'm willing to accept the last decade as his penalty for that.

I was primarily opposed to enshrining Rose, not continuing to ban Jackson, and my position today is that both should be enshrined — or, at least, they should be eligible for it. Whether they are or not should depend upon their body of work as baseball players; on that, I think we can all agree that they not only meet but exceed requirements. Their contributions to the game should be recognized, not denied because of a mistake that one made and unsupported allegations against the other.

Enough is enough.

I don't know how everyone in the sports media feels about Shoeless Joe, but I can report that there is a growing consensus that Rose should be eligible for a spot in Cooperstown.

Briana Altergott of the Atlanta Journal–Constitution takes no sides but summarizes what has been written recently in the sports press. The headline on Altergott's piece asked the question many in sports media are asking: "Does Pete Rose deserve a second chance?"

"If Selig wanted Rose's banishment to serve as a deterrent for those inside the game who were thinking about betting on it," writes John Erardi of USA Today, "Selig got it — a quarter of a century's worth."

Kevin Sherrington of the Dallas Morning News writes, "Rose has admitted mistakes and served his time. Twenty–five years. Time to make him eligible for the Hall of Fame. Leave it up to the process to determine if he's worthy.

"Frankly, I think he's deserving, just as I did 35 years ago and 25 years ago and last week. For better or worse, there's never been another player like him."

I'll go along with that. I saw him play in person once when I was a kid. He was electrifying to watch, whether you were pulling for him or against him. He wants to be part of baseball again. I believe he has learned from his years in the wilderness. "The last thing in the world I'd do now is bet on baseball," he told ESPN. "I would be the cleanest guy in the world when it comes to that because of the scrutiny I would go through. You may think I'm crazy, but I think baseball is in a better place if I'm in it."

I agree.

Pete Rose has paid his debt to baseball for gambling. Baseball has a chance to be generous and forgiving now.

Everything Old Is New Again

---

---

One hundred years ago today, Wrigley Field (known then as Weeghman Park) hosted its first baseball game. It was the home of the Chicago Whales of the Federal League.

In the first half of the 1920s, it was known as Cubs Park, and it was the home of the National League's Chicago Cubs — as it still is today. In November 1926, it was renamed Wrigley Field after chewing gum bigwig William Wrigley Jr., who owned the Cubs at the time.

"Most of what we know of Wrigley Field came to be in 1937," writes Tim Newcomb for Sports Illustrated, "when then–owner P.K. Wrigley urged Cubs general manager Bill Veeck to spruce up the stadium, which had already been renovated in 1921 and 1926. ... The owner wanted a park–like setting, similar to what he'd seen in trips to ballparks in California. That vision gave us the park we know today, complete with ivy, a brick outfield wall and a scoreboard."

When a sports venue has existed for a century, it is to be expected that it has hosted its share of luminaries, but Wrigley may have had more than its share in that time. Many stadiums have doubled as homes for baseball and football. Wrigley has truly been an all–purpose facility.

"Wrigley has also hosted professional boxing, professional soccer, college football (Northwestern and DePaul have both called it home) and even a ski jump competition from the upper deck in 1943," Newcomb writes. "All those events, not to mention a visit from every National League team since 1916 (and Michael Jordan once during his baseball days, the only big–league stadium he played in), have brought a who's who of visitors through the locker room."

Only Fenway Park, which observed its centennial a couple of years ago, is older, but Fenway is home to an American League club. In the National League, no stadium is as old as Wrigley Field. Not even close.

In a season that has already saluted the 40th anniversary of Hank Aaron's record–setting home run, baseball has another milestone in Chicago today — and lots of folks will be on hand to celebrate.

The game will match the Cubs and the Arizona Diamondbacks. This may be the brightest the spotlight will shine on these teams all year. After last Sunday's games, both teams were already eight games behind their divisions' leaders.

The teams are unimportant. A game must be played, and Commissioner Bud Selig will be there to see it, as will several noteworthy Cubs, such as Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, Andre Dawson, Fergie Jenkins.

"The first 30,000 fans will receive a replica 1914 Chicago Federals jersey," reports MLB.com, "and the first 10,000 fans will get a birthday cupcake."

WGN will be on hand to provide coverage of the big event — which, appropriately, will take place during the day. Until 1988, all the games that were played in Wrigley Field were played in the day. But lights finally were installed in 1988, and the ballpark joined the rest of the baseball world and began scheduling night games.

Day games are still played at Wrigley Field, and today's game will be played in chilly but sunny conditions, according to the forecasters.

It's funny, but I never realized before that Wrigley Field and Harry Caray, the longtime announcer for Cubs games, were born less than two months apart. Caray was born in March 1914.

It does seem appropriate, though.

Fenway's Centennial

---

---

I've been to Boston a few times in my life, and I've seen the historic sights that there are to see there, but I've never been to Fenway Park, the home of the Red Sox.

It's long been a fantasy of mine to go there — and to some of the other classic ballparks in America. A friend of mine and I used to talk about going on such a road trip — the way guys often do — and, to a certain extent, I think we were both serious about it.

But, on a more realistic level, I think we both realized it was just a fantasy, nothing more. Certainly nothing that we were ever likely to do.

The prospect became more remote as many of those historic, classic ballparks — Tiger Stadium, Yankee Stadium, Comiskey Park — disappeared. (I went to the old Busch Stadium in St. Louis several times when I was younger, but it has been replaced in recent years, and I went to the Astrodome in Houston when I was about 10 years old — but the 'Dome hardly qualifies as a classic ballpark.)

Fenway is the oldest active major league ballpark, and today is the 100th anniversary of its opening.

It's hard to imagine a Red Sox great who never played in Fenway. Babe Ruth pitched there. Tris Speaker roamed its outfield, as did Ted Williams and Carl Yastrzemski.

After I had graduated from college and went to work on sports copy desks for daily newspapers, Wade Boggs was a regular at third base for the Sox, and Roger Clemens set all kinds of records on the mound.

Talk about a field of dreams.

I, for one, will never forget watching Carlton Fisk wave his game–winning homer into fair territory against Cincinnati in the 1975 World Series.

(Not that the folks who put together the postseason highlight reels would ever let me forget it.)

The "Green Monster" is a fixture in left field, one of many quirks in an old ballpark where, apparently, amenities have always been rather sparse for spectators.

"It's not easy to find in the labyrinth Boston calls a city plan," writes Stephen Cannella in Sports Illustrated. "If you manage to get there by car, it's nearly impossible to park."

And that's just outside the ballpark.

I gather it's always been a kind of Joe–Friday–just–the–facts–ma'am sort of place.

"The Red Sox didn't even hold an opening ceremony ... until May 17," writes Cannella. "The implicit message from the new Fenway to its fans: This is a baseball park. You are here to watch baseball."

They still come to Fenway to watch baseball — which isn't such a bad thing at a time when so many entertainment venues seek to be all things to all people simultaneously — and they'll be celebrating this centennial in Boston all year.

For the rest of 2012, the ballpark and the ball club will have to share the billing.

But today, everyone's attention is, as it should be, on Fenway and its connection to the history of the city and the sport.

There is a game being played at Fenway this afternoon, and it's appropriate that Boston's longtime rivals, the New York Yankees, are in town this weekend.

I have no evidence to support this, but I have to think the scheduling was by design.

Even if it wasn't, even if the opponent had been scheduled completely at random and the Sox were playing the most unexciting, nondescript franchise in the league (and, based on the 2011 standings, I suppose that would be the Twins or the Mariners — or, if the schedule makers wanted to keep it in Boston's division, the Orioles), this would still be a special day in Boston.

But the fact that the foe at Fenway today will be New York makes it that much more special.

Happy birthday, Fenway — and many, many more.