Why Pete Rose Apologists Annoy Me

Awesome DudeCorrespondent IAugust 24, 2009

LAS VEGAS - NOVEMBER 12:  Major League Baseball legend Pete Rose attends the 'Beacher's Madhouse' show at the Joint inside the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino November 12, 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.  (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

It's the 20th anniversary of Pete Rose's banishment from Major League Baseball. Predictably, this site has become inundated with articles clamoring for his reinstatement to the game. And even more predictably, a lot of people on this site have very little clue what they're talking about when it comes to the Rose situation. I'd like to clarify a number of things, in the hope that stupid people on this site stop making themselves look stupid by demonstrating their stupidity.


1. No credible person has ever made the case that Pete Rose was not a Hall of Fame ballplayer on the field.

This is probably the most annoying misconception I repeatedly run into. People constantly feel as if they have to make the case for Pete the ballplayer. Most hits, most AB's, yada yada yada.

Has anyone ever disputed that he was a Hall of Fame performer on the field? No! Then why do you always feel the need to make this point? Stop that. Anyone who feels that Pete wasn't a good enough ballplayer to merit a Hall of Fame plaque doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Therefore, stop reciting his achievements. It's a waste of time and it makes you look dumb.


2. What part of "permanent" do you not understand?

Baseball's Rule 21 states that anyone with a gambling interest on the game earns a permanent banishment from the game. Yet how many times do you think I've read the nausea-inducing argument that "20 years is enough" or that "Pete has paid enough of a price"?

Permanent means permanent! If you want to get into semantics, permanent is even longer than a lifetime banishment! In other words, Rose should not even be posthumously reinstated to the game. Last I checked, Shoeless Joe is still banned. Wouldn't he "deserve" reinstatement before Rose since he was banned first?

3. Major League Baseball is not barring Rose from the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is barring Rose from the Hall of Fame.

MLB and the Hall of Fame are two separate entities. MLB has a "permanently ineligible list." The Hall of Fame took it upon themselves to exclude all players included on this list from induction. Hypothetically, Pete could be a Hall of Famer next year if the museum took a vote and changed their rules. Stop blaming Bud Selig or the MLB for "keeping Pete Rose from his rightful home."


4. Pete Rose agreed to banishment from baseball. He signed an agreement!

Must I even elaborate? A deal's a deal.


5. Stupid rationalizations: "He only bet as a manager, never as a player" and "He only bet on his team to win, never to lose!"

These are unquestionably the favorite rationalizations of you sorry Pete apologists. There are two obvious problems with these stupid rationalizations. First of all, he lied to your face for 15-plus years about gambling on the game. Why would you give the benefit of the doubt to a proven liar?

Second of all, he is a degenerate gambler. You people don't know the first thing about compulsive gamblers if you think Rose wouldn't throw a game if he were desperate enough to. I have no reason to believe he ever threw a game, but if it were ever revealed that he did throw a game....well, I'd probably put it right around #2,338,229 on the list of "shocking baseball revelations in my lifetime."

It be sandwiched in between "Barry Bonds admitting steroid use" and "Cincinnati Reds waste money on stupid contract".

I look forward to all of your stupid comments.