MLB made the right call in reinstating Pete Rose, but it should have done so earlier
He was a deeply flawed man and his baseball sin serious, but he was entitled to grace.
By Frederic J. Frommer
As someone who grew up watching Pete Rose play baseball with his hair on fire in the 1970s and ‘80s, I can cop to being biased in arguing that Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred made the right call in reinstating him and other dead players from the sport’s permanently ineligible list, making Rose eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2027.
I just wish it had come earlier, when baseball’s all-time hits leader was still alive.
Rose’s sin was serious. When he was managing the Cincinnati Reds, he bet on baseball games, which not only clearly violated an MLB rule so fundamental it is posted above the entrance to every clubhouse, but also undercut the integrity of the game. So the sport was right to investigate him, and Rose agreed to a permanent ban in 1989. But, at some point, Rose was entitled to some grace, a chance at forgiveness.
Yes, Rose had an ugly side—not just betting on baseball but also pleading guilty to tax evasion in 1990, leading to five months in prison. (He was also accused of statutory rape, which was never adjudicated.) But there was much more to this complicated figure. Rose had good qualities for which millions of fans admired him—especially his willingness to give maximum effort at all times. And his track record is undeniably Hall-worthy: an MLB-best 4,256 hits, a lifetime .303 batting average, and, for the more modern, analytically minded, an outstanding .375 career on-base percentage.
Rose’s “Charlie Hustle” nickname was given to him derisively by Yankees stars Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford after watching Rose go all out in a meaningless spring training exhibition game in his 1963 rookie season. He carried the mocking moniker as a proud description of how he played the game.
In contrast to players who jog down to first base on grounders, Rose was always in fifth gear. There’s a reason that Philadelphia Phillies superstar Bryce Harper as a 15-year-old baseball prodigy was already modeling his game on Rose. “I'm going to play against you the way Pete Rose did,” Harper told Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci in 2009. "I'm going to try to rip your head off.”
Fans could relate to the scrappy, hard-nosed Rose because he didn’t have the talent of most of the game’s superstars. One early scouting report wrote him off this way: “Can’t run, hit, throw or field. All Rose can do is hustle.”
Rose didn’t just play hard; he sacrificed for the team. Rose had won a pair of Gold Glove Awards as an outfielder, but a month into the 1975 season, with the Big Red Machine sputtering around .500, manager Sparky Anderson asked him if he’d be willing to switch to third base to make room for slugger George Foster in the outfield. Rose started at third the next night. With Foster slugging .518 that year and Rose leading the league in doubles and runs scored, the Reds cruised to a 108-54 record and won the first of two consecutive World Series titles.
He had a joy for the game, too. In that year’s World Series against the Boston Red Sox, which many people consider the best in history, Rose came up to bat in Game 6, which went 12 innings. He looked back at Boston catcher Carlton Fisk and said, “Man, isn’t this the most exciting game you’ve ever played in?” He hit .370 in that World Series and was named MVP.
Rose’s iconic headfirst slide, looking like Superman flying through the air, is etched in the memories of countless Gen X kids like me who were inspired to emulate his intensity in sports.
After leaving the Reds to sign as a free agent with the Phillies, Rose helped them win a World Series title in 1980—the first in franchise history. In that year’s World Series victory over the Kansas City Royals, Rose caught a foul ball that ricocheted off catcher Bob Boone’s glove, a play that epitomized his constant motor. The Phillies won the series one batter later.
As Thomas Boswell wrote in a Washington Post column last year, “That additional ring won in Philadelphia helped Rose move from an MLB star to a national icon.”
For years, Rose, who died last year at 83, denied he had bet on baseball, which obviously hurt his chances at reinstatement. In a 2004 autobiography, “My Prison Without Bars,” he finally came clean, writing that he was a gambling addict and bet on games as the Reds manager. He would cash in on the notoriety by selling baseballs with the inscription: “Sorry I Bet On Baseball.”
In a letter to Rose family attorney Jeffrey Lenkov, Manfred wrote that when a person dies, the purpose of the rule banning gambling has been served. “Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game,” he added. “Moreover, it is hard to conceive of a penalty that has more deterrent effect than one that lasts a lifetime with no reprieve.”
But reinstating Rose when he was still alive wouldn’t have posed a threat to the game’s integrity either. Having served a ban for decades, it’s too bad that an aging Rose didn’t get the opportunity to witness the enshrinement that he and so many fans would have loved to experience.
Frederic J. Frommer, a writer and sports and politics historian, has written for the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Atlantic, History.com and other national publications. A former Associated Press reporter, Frommer is the author of several books, including “You Gotta Have Heart: Washington Baseball from Walter Johnson to the 2019 World Series Champion Nationals." Follow him on X.
This is a dreadfully poor take on Pete Rose. Rose repeatedly violated the one sacred rule of baseball, that no one in the game could bet on baseball. In all of his years in MLB, Rose walked past a poster with this rule in the clubhouse, and at some point, decided that the rules didn't apply to him (kind of like another person who is written about here on The Contrarian). Once he was caught gambling on baseball and betting on games involving his team, he never apologized (writing on baseballs that he sold to people that he was "Sorry I bet on baseball" isn't a genuine apology, it is just another way to cash in on his infamy), never asked for forgiveness, never seemed to acknowledge his guilt in this whole affair. There is a reason he was put on the permanently banned list (not a lifetime ban), since he serves as a cautionary tale of how baseball stood up for integrity and its rules at one point. At that time, MLB and the commissioner's office were willing to ban one of the most popular players when he broke baseball's biggest rule. Rose earned his permanent ban from the game and has done nothing to earn any reinstatement to the game.
Also, Mr. Frommer too quickly dismisses the ugly side of Pete Rose. While the Hall of Fame has its share of problematic players, the well-documented allegations of multiple victims of statutory rape against Rose need to be addressed. Rose's dismissive attitude towards these allegations again demonstrates his belief that he is above the law.
In the end, I hope the Hall of Fame rejects giving Rose the highest honor in baseball, a plaque in Cooperstown. If we believe in the rule of law and that people need to be truly remorseful to earn forgiveness for their harmful actions, Rose should not be in the Hall.
If Rose had been the first to have been penalized so severely under baseball's no gambling rule I might have agreed with your argument. The impact to the game might have seemed lesser and the severity of the punishment might have been considered extreme.
But the Black Sox scandal, where a World Series was thrown by players, at the instigation of a gambling syndicate, and which required the appointment of a baseball commissioner independent of the owners in order to restore the integrity of "America's pass-time", had left such a scar on the game that baseball was forced to come down drastically against any activity that might indicate that games might be fixed or thrown. And Rose knew all of that history and exactly what the consequences might be.
He willfully gambled on the games he was playing or managing and thus threw into doubt the integrity of his sport. And all those players who weren't gamblers, played within the rules, and cared about its integrity could have been tarred by Rose's actions, just like the guys that didn't take steroids during that era might have their accomplishments questioned.
So as far as I'm concerned he should still be banned.