Journal 2

Michael Arnott

Exploratory Journal #2

            In the second article I could find, the author, Alec Rogers, responds to Kennedy Kostya’s Pete Rose: An American Dilemma, which is what my first source is an excerpt from.  He claims that Kostya did not make a big enough deal about the dilemma and that he did not make his own claim, but rather brought readers up to date on the issue.  In it, he challenges what Kostya says while also brining important facts about Rose into the argument.  He asks the question of “Why was Pete Rose glorified among all other star players on the Reds?”  He brings up an interesting point that John Thorn, a historian of baseball, makes—gambling is what made baseball interesting on such a giant scale. Rogers brings up that the case of the Black Sox in 1919 who threw the World Series for gamblers is not the same as Rose’s who bet on his team to win.  He also says that the Hall of Fame changed its ruling to ban the election of all players who were indefinitely suspended one year after Rose became a member of that group.  He praises Kennedy for bringing the reader up to speed with current arguments and topics, but he calls him out for not claiming a stance on the issue, which Rogers would argue that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.

            Rogers’ article is a direct response to Kennedy’s book from which my first source is an excerpt.  Kennedy brings up that gambling in baseball can effect the decisions of the manager and can effect the outcome of the game, but Rogers points out the fact that the 1919 Chicago White Sox gambling scandal, also known as the Black Sox Scandal, is a much more serious case where they intentionally lost the World Series, than Rose being a manager betting on his team to win, a goal he would already want to achieve since that is his job.  Rogers would argue that Rose is deserving of a spot in the Hall while Kennedy only brings up both sides of the argument: steroids are worse but Rose still broke the rules.

            While reading this article, I began to wonder what Pete Rose meant to the game of baseball.  It is known that Pete Rose is the all-time leader in hits and games played which means he has been the most consistently good player throughout all the years of his career, not just for a golden few.  That is such a rarity in a sport where many careers can be plagued by mental blocks or injuries.  Rogers also brings up Rose’s nickname, “Charlie Hustle” which he earned through his continuous hard play and hustle, a trait that seems to be lost among most players these days.  His performance for so many years will be hard to match for anyone in the coming years, and may never be matched again.  Does his punishment fit the crime?  I don’t think his impulsive personality which Rogers pointed out included women, gambling, and fast cars, should get in the way of him getting an election for his sheer skill.

            Rogers brings up a tidbit of information that I thought was interesting and that I would like to look further into: the Hall of Fame changed its rules about eligibility for indefinitely suspended players, ruling them out one year after Rose was suspended.  I was unaware of this information and I wonder if it had specifically to do with that situation of whether or not there were other reasons for the change.  I would also like to possibly look more into the origins of baseball after reading John Thorn’s theory of gambling being the driving force for baseball’s popular growth and find out why a game rooted in gambling would have such strong rules against it.  Did Rose’s betting even matter? He bet on them to win every time which seems like the main objective of the game anyways, so would his decisions really have been altered?