ASG2015/9

Shortly after Rob Manfred became the 10th Commissioner of Major League Baseball in January of 2015, I was deluged with questions from all around the globe [note; this is a minor exaggeration] about whether the Hit King Peter Edward Rose at long last would be re-admitted into baseball.  After all, the new Commissioner was quoted as saying he was open to a full and fair hearing of the Rose case.  With Cincinnati being that season's host of the 86th Midsummer Classic, speculation was running rampant.  It was therefore only natural that so many would seek my brand of always inciteful analysis on this subject [see; Heavy Artillery's sub-heading].  

I knew, of course, there was zero chance of Pete being re-admitted this or any other year in which he is among the living.  Full and fair hearing, or not.

The Pete Rose matter has overshadowed MLB's spotlight events in modern baseball history with a persistency like perhaps no other.  When the story first was a breaking news item in the summer of 1989, Johnny Bench's own induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame was cast out of the spotlight as the conversation around and the questions put to JB were primarily about Pete and not JB's own accomplishments.  This was not the cause of strained relations between the two Reds legends, merely the last straw and the final nail (to mix metaphors).  At the 1999 World Series in which baseball paid homage to its All-Century Team, the brilliant glow of the spectacle was dimmed when a sports reporter hack who shall never be named here ambushed Pete on the field about Rose's gambling.  Later that October, sympathetic players stiffed that sports journalist jerk on field, live on camera for how Pete - and the fans - had been mistreated in that special All-Century Team moment.  With all this as prelude, there was no way in Hades MLB would permit a potential reinstatement of Peter Edward to overshadow the 2015 All-Star Game.  Not one chance in a million, a gambler might say.

If ever Pete is to be absolved of his transgressive sins against Major League Baseball it will be not until after he has departed these earthly bounds.  In all likelihood the Hit King will not live to see the next Commissioner.

Yet for any knowledgeable, observant student of the history of baseball, the key to the Rose/Hall of Fame matter was on full display at Major League Baseball's FanFest event held downtown at Cincinnati's convention center.  I saw it.  I photographed it for later address [here, now].  I wonder how many others at FanFest knew what I knew.

Long-time readers of Heavy Artillery will recall with deep fondness its predecessor the lamented ol' web page.  These same fortunate souls will remember there were four ol' web pages running concurrently and that one - frozen in time and never edited after its creation - was dedicated to the issue of Pete Rose and all the reasons why his eligibility for re-admittance into baseball should be granted and why induction into the National Baseball Hall of Fame at Cooperstown, New York should be placed before some body of qualified voters.  I cited, in every example with linked source references, these few following facts (among so may others): 

1. That both Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays had once been banished from the game, their names added to MLB's so-called Permanently Ineligible list, for working in casinos and consorting with known gamblers after their playing careers ended.  Both were later re-instated, thus rendering MLB's "Permanently Ineligible" list as something distinctly less so. 
2. That then-owner of the Milwaukee Brewers Bud Selig, himself later to serve as Commissioner and making his own rulings against Peter Edward, made a substantial personal loan to a fellow team owner (of the Minnesota Twins) in strict violation of MLB's terms of ownership.  No penalty was applied to Selig for his direct financial involvement with a divisional competitor.
3. That concurrent with the Rose investigation, MLB investigated and found guilty three then-working umpires for consorting with known gamblers.  These three umpires had fines levied against them by MLB and were permitted to continue employment as big league umpires.

I really, really could go on.

The central argument that my ol' web page presented on behalf of Pete Rose came in the form of a verbatim transcription of what Bill James wrote about the Hit King in his landmark book The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, available for purchase here.  In it, Bill James laid out the case for Pete Rose in so far as anyone could logically go at the time of its publication in 2001.  This was published at a time when there was, hard as it may seem to some today and certainly to the Rose detractors, plausible deniability for Rose.  The investigative brief authored by attorney John Dowd for MLB Commissioners Peter Ueberroth and A. Bartlett Giamatti was full of just enough holes to perpetuate the decades of debate that followed.  Much of what Bill James wrote in defense of Pete then, and which so many of us wanted to believe, has been proven untenable by more recent events (and admissions).  The fact that some portion of what Bill James wrote about Rose we now understand to be factually without merit, this does not render the whole piece without merit.  Perhaps the most lasting point, one which many baseball fans find to be significant, was the hierarchy of misdeeds postulated by Bill James and how these misdeeds might (or should) be considered when evaluating punishment for said actions.  You can read it for yourself by clicking here (page 787).

In short, what the Chicago Black Sox of Shoeless Joe Jackson infamy did in throwing the 1919 World Series is the single most egregious violation of baseball's rules; consorting with known gamblers, accepting payment from same for fixing the outcome of baseball's championship series and, of course, going through with the fix.  But who would equate fixing a single game in Mid-April with fixing the World Series?  And isn't the active role in fixing/throwing a game worse than betting against one's own team.  A wager does not necessarily affect the outcome of a game, whereas a fix necessarily must.  A bet isn't the same as a fix.  Despite the best/worst efforts of John Dowd, there is no such evidence that Pete Rose bet against his own team.  Isn't betting against one's own team worse than betting to win on one's own team?  This is where we find Pete Rose - perhaps committing something worse than mere association with known gamblers (see; Mantle & Mays) yet not as serious as betting against his team, fixing any game (or games) nor fixing a World Series.  

If fixing the World Series is baseball's death penalty, where rests the punishment for these other transgressions?

Clearly, one precedent has been set; consorting with known gamblers does not merit permanent banishment.  Willie and Mickey weren't ever proven to have done anything more than serve as a public face for casino operations (of course, the level of investigative scrutiny then did not match that of the latter investigation into Pete Rose).  The three blind mice umpires investigated for consorting with known gamblers did not have their services terminated even after the charges proved to be true.

Next-up on the Bill James hierarchy of violations, but multiple levels below that of throwing a World Series, is betting on one's own team to win - the sin of our sainted Peter Edward.  Are we therefore to assume that the barrier of finality one must never cross is the simple act of wagering on a baseball game.  It is, after all, the one rule we're all led to believe that is announced in every clubhouse.

If you subscribe in principle to this hierarchy, then is the preceding actually true?

Could one or more players conspire to fix a game, wager on the same game, have evidence of the fix/wager submitted for review by both a League President and the Office of the Commissioner, have that evidence found to be credible and true and... here's the crux... could those players who organized and carried out the fix/wager be permitted to remain in the game of baseball and ultimately to receive enshrinement in the Hall of Fame?

On display in the Hall Of Fame exhibit at the 2015 All-Star Game FanFest was this uniform jersey:

Since we're discussing gambling here, I would hazard to wager that maybe a handful of baseball fans among the tens of thousands who viewed this exhibit understood its full context... a context not remotely addressed by its placard:

How many fans know that Ty Cobb's 24-year playing career included 22 seasons with the Detroit Tigers and two seasons - his final two - with the Philadelphia A's?  Wasn't Cobb always a Tiger? some multitude of fans must have asked themselves or aloud at FanFest.  DiMaggio was always a Yankee.  Williams always a Red Sox.  Bench always a Red.  Surely, Cobb.....?

FanFest also featured an auction of fine and rare baseball memorabilia.  Among the items up for bid were two signed letters of correspondence from 1927.   One letter signed by Hall of Famer Ty Cobb and the other by Hall of Famer Tris Speaker:

"Wish to thank you for your letter expressing confidence and faith in me, and to assure you that every step will be taken to vindicate me.  Yours very sincerely, Tris Speaker."

"Your letter was received.  I want you to know I appreciated deeply your thoughts and sentiments.  It was very consoling to know the attitude of my friends during the unfair and unfortunate proceedings.  Sincerely, Ty Cobb."

Vindication?  "Unfair and unfortunate proceedings?"  Did any fan perusing the auction catalog or examining the auction items on display wonder just what all that strong verbiage was all about?  If any fan looked into why, they would have learned of something which has come to be known as "The Dutch Leonard Affair."

Following the conclusion of the 1926 season, a pitcher named Dutch Leonard presented to American League president (and founder) Ban Johnson evidence that Cobb and Speaker conspired to fix a regular season game in which their respective teams were playing against one another.  The proffered evidence also alleged that Cobb & Speaker placed wagers on said game with known gamblers.  Ban Johnson then launched his own investigation into the claims and found the cumulative evidence against Cobb & Speaker to be credible and true.

An internet search will turn up myriad explanations, examinations and speculative theoretics on the subject.  Yet "The Dutch Leonard Affair" has not been subject to the multitude of investigations, books and films as has the infamous Black Sox scandal of 1919.  Much which pertained to "The Dutch Leonard Affair" undoubtedly has been lost to the ages and, so, a certain level of speculation is usually employed as a means to fill in the historical gaps to make logical the events from nearly 100 years ago.

This much is not in dispute;  Ban Johnson, armed with evidence, met with both Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker following the 1926 season to address the allegations.  Cobb, at the time, was player-manager of the Detroit Tigers (and had been since the 1921 season) just as Speaker was player-manager for the Cleveland Indians (and had been since the 1920 season).  After meeting with the American League president, both Cobb and Speaker resigned as managers and retired as players.

Cobb in particular - legendary for brawling with teammates and fighting with opposing players and physically attacking umpires and assaulting fans and quarreling with team ownership - suddenly quits his livelihood without a fight?  

What might one infer from this surprising capitulation?

One might therefore deduce that Cobb himself found the evidence against him to be damning.

This much is also without dispute;  Shortly afterward, Major League Baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis re-instated Cobb and Speaker... but with conditions.  The conditions being that neither Cobb nor Speaker could manage again and both future Hall of Famers were forced to play with new and different teams for the 1927 season (and beyond).

What might one infer from a reinstatement with conditions?

One might deduce that Landis, too, found the evidence to be credible but perhaps not rising to the level of permanent banishment.

For a more in-depth examination into "The Dutch Leonard Affair" click here to read a column on the subject written by Joe Posnanski.  Posnanski is perhaps best known to my own expansive readership as the author of a book about the 1975 Big Red Machine titled The Machine.  The Machine was published at just about that same time as was another book about the 1975 Big Red Machine, this one titled Game Six and penned by Mark Frost.  Game Six is much better.  In the linked column, Posnanski engages in some speculation and draws conclusions that differ from other examinations into the matter found elsewhere but I think his effort presents the best and most detailed explanation.  Plus, Posnanski draws a conclusion which, I think, is critical to the point of this post when he asserts, "The clear and generally undisputed fact that they intended to lay down a large sum of money on the game, however, was high level baseball corruption, worse than anything that has even been proven about Pete Rose."

Whereas Pete bet on baseball, he didn't fix any games.  Cobb and Speaker, in the view of Landis and considering the conditions applied to their reinstatement, either wagered on a game, fixed a game or both.

If all three players - Cobb, Speaker and Rose - bet on baseball and received punishment for their actions, why were two readmitted but not the third?  Or, conversely, did Landis disbelieve the wagering allegations against Cobb and Speaker but, rather, believe they fixed a game?  This could explain, one might argue, the differentiation in punishment.

And so, this raises the next issue; Is betting on a game worse than fixing a game? [Setting aside the fairly ridiculous assumption that one or more players would conspire to fix a game but not for the financial benefit of collecting a winning wager on a fix.]

I know that for many observers, because I've heard the argument countless times, all that matters is that the rule against betting on baseball games is written on every clubhouse wall and that is that, as the saying goes.

Should it be?

Have we not had worse, more deleterious things happen in baseball?  Where is the clubhouse signage warning against fixing a World Series?  Where is clubhouse proscription barring the fixing of any games?

Has the legitimacy of the record books and the integrity of games not been wrecked by the scourge of performance enhancing substances?  Where is signage in the clubhouse regarding this on-going problem?

Do we not live in an age where gambling of all type and manner has become more than just morally acceptable but in many respects encouraged (office NCAA pools), and commonplace (college and professional football wagering online and elsewhere, casinos springing up in states across the Republic)?

Does not MLB accept in-stadium advertising from casinos today?  Are casino operators "known gamblers?"  They certainly were in the cases against Mantle and Mays.

Has not MLB partnered with an on-line gambling site that pays out winnings to its users based solely upon the daily performance of MLB players?  The answer to this rhetorical question is "yes."  In fact, this gambling partner had a prominent display immediately inside the doors at FanFest:

As I understand, a user pays (daily) for the privilege to select a lineup of players and the user whose players perform the best, cumulatively, receives a payout (daily).  Much like wagering ("selecting") a horse in a horse race and receiving a payout when your selection wins.  This is gambling.  Much of a user's result necessarily hinges on actually having the players selected in the lineup each day/night.  Users cannot control this aspect.  But a Major League manager could.  Under an assumed identity.  If one is worried about a manager Pete Rose making bets with mob-connected bookies and how Pete might then alter his lineup, couldn't a manger do just that with Draft Kings under an invented user name?  Or have his clubhouse manager, or neighbor, or nephew set up and use the account on behalf of the manager with inside information from the manager?  All in partnership with MLB.

And whereas the Chicago Black Sox (and most players from their era or before) were paid so little that they had off-season jobs in warehouses and factories and on farms that a modest bribe from gamblers could provide significant sway, even today's managers earn more money than any mafioso could attempt to ply them with let alone players earning more in salary than the equivalent GDP of a few dozen countries.

Aren't we living in an ever-more permissive society where, far beyond the widespread acceptance of gambling, recreational drug use and physical acts between consenting adults which once received sanction as being morally corrupt - the kinds of things that until recently could have gotten one (or more) thrown into jail - are protected de jure?

Isn't this because we consider our modern selves to be enlightened, evolved, tolerant, and accepting?  Do we not have the ability to understand the nuanced degrees of difference between throwing the World Series, fixing a game in Mid-April, betting on the outcome of a game and/or consorting with known gamblers?  

Yes we do!  

And so does Major League Baseball.  Because they have already.  Mantle and Mays consorted with known gamblers.  After an evolution of understanding, both were re-admitted.  Cobb and Speaker conspired to fix and wager on a game.  Both continued their playing careers and their association in good standing with MLB.

Yet due only to stubbornness and discordant thinking, MLB adheres to a decades-old wrongful, unjust ruling against Pete Rose that runs counter to a variety of precedents set by its own Office of the Commissioner.  This is the real case to be made for Pete Rose; permitting Pete Rose full admittance back into the game of baseball aligns MLB's position with regard to the Hit King to those of others who have committed varieties of gambling- and fixing-related offenses yet themselves received far less severe sanction.

Roll the credits!