Baseball history entered a new chapter this week. Baseball’s late controversial all-time hit king Pete Rose has been taken off the permanently ineligible list by Commissioner Rob Manfred. Rose died last year continuing his decades-long campaign for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, after being banned for life for betting on baseball while managing the Reds.
The change opens the door for that possibility, and it also means the 1919 Chicago Black Sox, led by Shoeless Joe Jackson, will have the same opportunity. For its part, the Hall of Fame says a veterans committee will be able to consider the possibility in December 2027. To help us put this whirlwind development into perspective, we spoke with longtime ESPN announcer and anchor Karl Ravech.
I don't know if I thought this day was ever coming. Are you surprised by this news?
I was surprised by the news. I did not think that this day was coming, and I was quite OK with the day not coming. I think now we've opened up another Pandora's box and have kind of shoved this onto the plate of different committees to decide whether Pete Rose is a Hall of Famer or not. I know that former commissioners prior to Rob Manfred were adamantly against such, whether that's couched in ‘Well, that was when he was alive.’ I don't know the answer to that. You really have to bring the commissioner on to ask why he made the decision. But I was surprised, to answer your question, yes.
So why do you think this is happening now? We know that there was a meeting with Rose's daughter and the commissioner. We also know the president has weighed in and said he wanted to see Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame. Do you think that played a role?
Hard to say. And again, that's a question for him, and there have been a numerous personal appeals and lawyer appeals to get Rose off of these lists that he was put on by Major League Baseball. Again, if the President of the United States wants to see Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, he could go to the Hall of Fame and see Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame. His bats are there. The records are there. The only thing missing, which is clearly the distinction, is having himself a plaque in the Hall of Fame. And that's what I think the president would like to see, along with a legion of Pete Rose supporters over the years.
Where I struggle with it is, to your point, why now? And what does permanently ineligible mean, and what does it have to do with whether someone is alive or dead? And I know that Rob, in his letter, made the distinction between, well, if somebody is dead, they could no longer bring harm or cause damage to the integrity of the game. I would always fall back on, well, what's done is done. The integrity of the game was sacrificed when Pete Rose gambled on it, when the 1919 Black Sox decided to take money to throw baseball games. So I don't understand the distinction that Rob Manfred was drawing there between somebody who's dead and somebody who's alive.
And again, your question is a fair one: what's in it for Major League Baseball? What's in it for Rob Manfred with regards to if there's some influence that he thinks having the President of the United States on his side or agree with, and Rob will easily tell you ‘I didn't say he should be in the Hall of Fame. All I did was take him off of a permanently ineligible list, and now it's up to somebody else to decide.’
And I will say, Ian, along those lines, I don't think that this is a slam dunk, that Pete Rose will get into the Hall of Fame the way that the president, I believe, would like to see, and many of his fans would like to see, because the former players that have been on these committees have made it quite clear that anybody that brings into question the integrity of the game, whether it's gambling or performance enhancing drugs, they have a very, very low threshold for tolerance for that type of behavior.
And you know, it's not going to be a voting ballot from the baseball writers, where he would have to have received a certain threshold. This is going to be a much smaller committee, so fewer people to convince.
16 people, 12 votes needed. So 75% and again, ex-players are on that, and that becomes a challenge because of what they have done historically last year, I think the folks that have been involved with steroids for receiving four votes, there's a very nuanced, a lot of gray to this conversation. It does speak to the power still that the sport has over the country. It is diving into individuals’ tolerance, individuals’ patience, individuals’ wishes that people are given second chances. There seems to be, and I would agree with this, an acknowledgement here that the door should be open for a committee to decide. Again, I just struggle with what the difference is between now and four days ago, four years ago, he was on a permanently ineligible list. I've always found permanent to be just that: something that can't be taken away, it can't be erased, it can't be changed. And I don't know necessarily why today is any different.
You know, what's interesting to me, because this has been my entire life as a baseball fan — knowing that Pete Rose had paid this price for gambling. And we're obviously at a different time with sports gambling now being legal in so many places, and the leagues are doing business with the sportsbooks in a way that used to be unthinkable, but gambling still poses a threat to sports. I mean, we saw Shohei Ohtani’s close advisor getting into all kinds of trouble, and there's still, I think, creeping concern about how gambling may influence what happens on the field. So it's not like the original sin with Pete Rose has gone away.
No, your point is well made and certainly well taken. The common thread between Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson or the modern day player, is that they are and were human beings. And human beings oftentimes are led down the road of temptation and can't change it, because they're human beings. They're not robots. It's not AI making these decisions where there's a clear line between what is ethical and what is not ethical, what is right and what is wrong. There is no question that the association between gambling and all major sports, including the company I work for, ESPN, and having our own ESPN Bet platform that you can wager on, invites all sorts of scrutiny and opens the door for a million problems. And it's not just necessarily, you know, a player betting, but certainly players can be influenced, the same way the Black Sox were, and it may not be necessarily direct.
You call the agent of a pitcher and say, hey, I can get this guy a million dollars if he has no control tonight, and there's not direct contact with the player, but somehow the player gets wind of it through a third party, and that happens, and because players are humans, yhese things are not to be ruled out. So you're 100% correct about that, but that also is a different conversation for today, and if Major League Baseball has a rule that if you gamble on baseball as a player, coach, manager, you would then be put on a permanently ineligible list. Well, that eliminates the gray and you can't do it and you're going to be on a permanently ineligible list. You tell me, Ian, if you now know that ‘permanently ineligible’ may only mean until you die, will that change your behavior?
There are many a major league player who faces this question, or did when it came to performance enhancing drugs: Do I risk a Hall of Fame career for a massive contract? Do I care about a Hall of Fame career meaning getting into the Hall of Fame, or do I care about financial security for me and every generation that follows me. And now that this door has been opened, does that even matter? Will I eventually get into the Hall of Fame if I've already decided that's not critical, I want to make a lot of money. I'm going to use performance enhancing drugs, Hall of Fame be damned, but my goodness, all of a sudden, Pete Rose is now eligible. Does this mean someday I'll be more likely to get in then I was in the past? So yes, your question is absolutely appropriate. And I think everyone involved in sports knows that the waters are not crystal clear, like a swimming pool. They're more much more muddy, like a river.
When it comes to the Hall of Fame, where do you come down on that question of the character clause? Because obviously, you know, the name that gets thrown around among others is Cap Anson, who was effectively a segregationist, and he's in the Hall of Fame.
Or Ty Cobb, of course.
But you've also got voters who are told to weigh the character of the people they're voting for, which goes to what you were talking about with the steroid era. So it seems to me there's going to be a whole batch of people now who, as you say, if Pete Rose is in, could be looked at in a totally different light.
I think that's true. And I think the reason that this is such a gray area, the same way that there's temptations for players, owners, referees, to do things they shouldn't do, is because they're humans. The voters are humans. These people on these committees are human. They see things through different lenses. I know I sit with Eduardo Perez, the son of Tony Perez, in our ESPN Sunday night booth. I know how important, how significant Pete Rose was to their life, both on the field and off the field. Imagine an uncle of yours, who you love dearly, who taught you so many things as you were impressionable as a 10-year-old and a 12-year-old and a 20-year-old and was literally a family member to you getting the news that now that he's gone, the commissioner has afforded the opportunity for him to be considered to get into the Hall of Fame, and the joy that they feel and the joy that players who played alongside Rose recognized.
He was uniquely talented in his ability to put a bat on a baseball and subsequently end up on first, second, third, or hit a home run. Very few people in the world have ever done it to the level or degree or with success that Rose had. Players’ lenses are different. Those that are fans of the game look at it through a different lens. Was he a Hall of Fame player? Yes. Was there a massive conflict with his character? He knew never to bet on baseball. He bet on baseball. He knew what the punishment was. He was willing to take that risk if caught, to deal with the consequences.
He, late, late, late in life, begged for mercy. So all of these perspectives afford these discussions. The character clause has many times, because everybody has, I think, a different threshold of what they're willing to excuse, what they're willing to die on a hill for, what they're willing to say ‘time has been served.’ All of those things come into this conversation for the people that will make the ultimate choice, and in 2028 or whenever Rose is allowed to be voted on, the people that are on that committee would likely have a very different view than people in 2040 or 2010. It's because these people are people, their opinions vary greatly, and if the card that he is dealt when he gets on has favorable hands, he will eventually have a plaque in Cooperstown. But it's not an easy conversation, and clauses are inherently risky, because they are literally addendums. They are clauses that were added. It's not black and white. There's not a number of hits that if you achieve, you're automatically in. There's no rubber stamp of approval because he has near 5,000 hits. It doesn't exist. If it did, it would be simple. And that's partly the beauty of this, and certainly the curse of all of these conversations.
So just one more thing while I have you. You know, we're almost to Memorial Day, and that's the traditional benchmark for figuring out who's good and who's in trouble in Major League Baseball. So what teams and storylines are standing out to you at this point in time?
Well, Ian, I appreciate the transition. You have to look at what the Dodgers have amassed as a talent pool, and we know that they are likely to improve if necessary come trade deadline. The Dodgers are a separate story because of their payroll, because of the decisions by a youngster like Roki Sasaki to go join Shohei Otani, Yoshinobu Yamamoto to join the Dodgers. It's a very easy team to look at and say to yourself, my gosh, I don't see them ever losing. And yet, as you know, as a lifelong baseball fan, Ian, once you get into the postseason, all of that stuff goes away. And so the Dodgers are on a separate street. But that doesn't mean that they can't be beaten.
We have just broadcast the Philadelphia Phillies on a Sunday night with Zackh Wheeler pitching. That's a team when they pitch well with their starters, and they have as good a starting rotation as any in baseball and can beat the Los Angeles Dodgers. The San Diego Padres can beat the Los Angeles Dodgers in a series. So the fact that the Dodgers may win 115 games, give or take a few either way, doesn't mean that when you get into the postseason, they win those two teams I just mentioned are certainly competitive. I'm not certain currently as constructed there's a team in the American League that could beat the Dodgers or the Phillies or the Padres when they are playing well and healthy. All that being said, I think teams like the Yankees, I think teams like the Mariners this year, I think teams like the Guardians, if they were willing to perhaps spend on somebody or make a deal at the deadline, when they get Shane Bieber back, will be a lot better. The Red Sox are an intriguing team, but this season, as we go through it, you'll see the seesaw certainly has a lot heavier teams in the National League weighing it down relative to the American League. But the beauty of this sport is, when you get into the postseason, anything can happen. And in spite of the payroll and the talent and the depth of the Dodgers, I would take the field before I would take the Dodgers if I were — bringing it back to Pete Rose and others — a betting man. But I'm not.
You know, it's been 25 years since anybody's repeated as World series Champion, so it's very hard to do.
Very hard.
