'Yes' to Shoeless Joe; Pete Rose is a firm 'no' | A Baseball Post
When put into context, the sins don't stack up the same.
Ick recognizes ick. And right now, people of influence are normalizing it; double ick.
There is not much more needed to react to the how and why of the Big Announcement that sets the table, theoretically, for Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson to be considered for the National Baseball Hall of Fame. It is gross. Major League Baseball caved to a pressure campaign fronted by the convicted-felon adjudicated-rapist figurehead president of the MAGA-Project 2025 maladministration on behalf of Rose, who was also convicted felon and a statutory rapist, allegedly. Jackson and the others are throw-ins to the rotten, craven deal.
Appeasement never works.
If there is any corner of sports media for this space, it’s in being a casual esotericist. The person who enjoys the games for what they are but doesn’t see them in a self-contained universe. It is not a healthy lifestyle to get caught up on contracts and roster decisions for teams that play bloated schedules such as the 82 games plus playoffs of the NBA and NHL, or 162 game skedi in MLB. Just watch and be happy, and fill yer boots with knowing a game’s place in the broader social history; okay, end rant. I can at least deliver facts about stuff that might come up around the breakroom.
It so happens that in 2024, the last year of the SportsLit podcast, included books about both Jackson and Rose. That seems pertinent for anyone who wants to know a little more, and I’ll tee those up since that content was intended to be evergreen. And then one can discuss why Joseph Jefferson Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, and why Peter Edward Rose Sr. should not.
Jacob Pomrenke from the Society for American Baseball Research appeared to discuss, Joe Jackson vs. Chicago American League Baseball Club: Never Before Seen Trial Transcript. This is, just as it sounds, a recovery of the court documents when Jackson took the Chicago White Sox to court over his contract, following his ban from organized baseball.
And, in April of ’24, Keith O’Brien went deep on Charlie Hustle: The Rise and Fall of Pete Rose, and the Last Glory Days of Baseball. O’Brien had extensive access to Rose for interviews, and the biography made The New York Times best-seller list.
So why Jackson and why not Rose? Why contextualize one corruption and not the other?
The case for Shoeless Joe, briefly
As a wise friend noted, there is a legitimate question of Jackson’s guilt or innocence.
The gist of the generally accepted story is that he was given money as part of the conspiracy among eight White Sox players to try to lose games on purpose against the Cincinnati Reds in the 1919 World Series. He was not a ringleader. But the scheme required his participation. How he acted on it, while on-boarding .394 and slugging .563 in those games,1 is debated ad nauseam by the baseball historians.
And, you could add that his stats have held up remarkably well. Jackson had a 170 career OPS+, and even though he played in the notorious low-offence Dead Ball Era, he still ranks in the top-20 in on-base percentage and top-75 in slugging percentage.
The case sort of against Pete Rose, briefly
Anyone present for this Zombie Debate knows MLB Rule 21 clearly states that people in baseball may not gamble on baseball.
Gambling use disorder was first included in the DSM in 1980. It is fact that Rose crossed the Rubicon around 1986 when he was a player-manager for his hometown Reds. I cannot dictate terms of how much latitude one should give to knowing this was affected by his untreated gambling use disorder, or as contemporary Johnny Bench said at the time of Rose’s death, “(a) sickness, this addiction (that) was too much for him to overcome.”2 It seems naïve, given the symbiosis between baseball people and ‘blowing off steam at the racetrack,’ to expect that someone with an untreated addiction would toe the hard line on Rule 21. A gambler does not get picky about what they wager on.
And, yes, while he was never charged with a sex crime, there is way too much to be squeamish about on that file.
The Charlie Hustle bio by Keith O’Brien verifies that the public in Cincinnati knew about Rose’s gambling in the 1970s. Security officials from MLB first met with him about it in 1978. They were prompted by fear of him having his legs broken over his debts, not that he might bet on his own team’s games.
And, unlike Jackson, the playing record of Rose has not aged quite as well. That total of 4,256 hits has a whiff of Compiler! about it. The stat categories that he focused on — batting average and hits — have been severely re-appraised in the last 40 years. He faced deeper, more diverse, more global competition than Jackson did a half-century earlier, but had only three seasons where he finished in the top 10 in the wins above replacement (WAR) stat.
That is fewer than my childhood favorite player Tim Raines, who barely earned induction in his 10th and final year on the BBWAA ballot. And Raines, who battled injuries, had a much shorter run as an everyday player.
There is no getting around that Rose did break an ironclad rule.
The only reason this posthumous second chance is coming is due to bad-faith arguments from a radical, corrupt body who are getting off on breaking rules, while being all “rules for thee, but not for me.”
Given that context, it has to be a firm no.
Friendly reminder about resistance
I post about current affairs in Notes and on Bluesky (n8sager). Hopefully, this is enough for now. Please stay safe, and be kind.
May 14-15, 2025
Hamilton, Ont. : on the traditional territories of the Erie, Neutral, Huron-Wendat, Haudenosaunee, and Mississaugas.
Batting average does not exist here. On-base percentage is calling “onboarding.” Make it catch on at school.
Bench appearance on The Dan Patrick Show, Oct. 1, 2024.