Should one's character be a qualifier for judging one's professional accomplishments? Should we award a Nobel Prize in Anything to a philanderer? The Philosopher is in.
Sue: The bigger question I'm really asking is about separation of recognition of professional accomplishment from personal failures. In a discussion I came across, someone went right to the extreme: Before he was the a genocidal dictator, Adolph Hitler tried his hand as an artist. What if he had been really, really good at this and had a studio of paintings that were art museum worthy? Should they have been exhibited--with the signage that not only described the art but his subsequent awfulness? Or a potential Nobel laureate whose contribution leads directly to a remedy for Alzheimer's, but who also was convicted of sexual assault against several research assistants over the years?
I listen to Wagner's music. I wrote my senior college history thesis on Nietzsche as a social critic. But in agreement with Sue, I would not enshrine Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.
In 1921 Baseball Commissioner Landis banned eight players from the infamous Chicago “Black Sox.” It seems likely that two of them, Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver, were not playing to lose. Landis cited unreported knowledge of wrongdoing as being equally disqualifying as the wrongdoing itself.
Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked ballplayers and gamblers, where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.
(emphasis mine)
Landis set a new standard from that point forward. Gambling represented an existential threat to the integrity and survival of Organized Baseball. Any involvement with gambling was cause for banishment. The question of character was not addressed. But gambling was. Pete Rose violated what may be the game’s clearest rule.
Gordon Cline
FYI - I am a volunteer docent at the Shoeless Joe Jackson Museum in Greenville, SC.
Gordon--I appreciate your informed comment. I agree Rose's permanent (more than lifetime) banishment from baseball was appropriate and necessary, for the reasons your describe. My question remains: should that behavior and ban apply to recognition for the achievement that the Hall was created to honor? I'm guessing that you agree with some others who have commented that it should remain fatal to his Hall recognition.
I understand the "character integrity" stipulation in the BBWAA's rules. But given the inductees of dubious character who have been admitted, even after the character clause was added, why not Rose? Or should any substantial character blemish be applied retroactively as well as into the future?
Ben, I think there is a distinction to be made between general issues of character and issues involving the character of baseball itself. It is the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Character Hall of Fame. I think flawed persons could be admitted to the Hall of Fame.
I also agree with Bill James, but I don't agree with your interpretation of his premise. How can you conclude that what Rose did was not related to his job? As the manager of the Reds, his actions violated a fundamental rule designed to protect the integrity of baseball. To ignore these actions and enshrine him in the Hall of Fame would mean that rules don't matter. However, I would be OK if Rose was inducted into the "Hall of InFame" along with McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens.
As best we know, Rose was not betting on baseball during the time he was accruing his Hall of Fame-worthy statistics. And, as I've mentioned, I agree that his punishment of being made persona non grata in baseball was appropriate. However,, if there is going to be a character component to Hall electability, there should be a standard. Apparently Perry, Cepeda, Snider, etc. passed some undocumented test. Where's the line?
I don't see the value in glorifying his accomplishments when it requires purposely ignoring his transgressions. That's not a good look for the Hall of Fame. Consider the whole person and proceed accordingly. Not sure if this rule applies to the Nobel ...
Yes he was a great player but he knew what he was doing was wrong. He’s dead Get over it and drop it.
Sue: The bigger question I'm really asking is about separation of recognition of professional accomplishment from personal failures. In a discussion I came across, someone went right to the extreme: Before he was the a genocidal dictator, Adolph Hitler tried his hand as an artist. What if he had been really, really good at this and had a studio of paintings that were art museum worthy? Should they have been exhibited--with the signage that not only described the art but his subsequent awfulness? Or a potential Nobel laureate whose contribution leads directly to a remedy for Alzheimer's, but who also was convicted of sexual assault against several research assistants over the years?
I listen to Wagner's music. I wrote my senior college history thesis on Nietzsche as a social critic. But in agreement with Sue, I would not enshrine Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame.
Hello Ben,
Should character be a qualifier?
In 1921 Baseball Commissioner Landis banned eight players from the infamous Chicago “Black Sox.” It seems likely that two of them, Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver, were not playing to lose. Landis cited unreported knowledge of wrongdoing as being equally disqualifying as the wrongdoing itself.
Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked ballplayers and gamblers, where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.
(emphasis mine)
Landis set a new standard from that point forward. Gambling represented an existential threat to the integrity and survival of Organized Baseball. Any involvement with gambling was cause for banishment. The question of character was not addressed. But gambling was. Pete Rose violated what may be the game’s clearest rule.
Gordon Cline
FYI - I am a volunteer docent at the Shoeless Joe Jackson Museum in Greenville, SC.
Gordon--I appreciate your informed comment. I agree Rose's permanent (more than lifetime) banishment from baseball was appropriate and necessary, for the reasons your describe. My question remains: should that behavior and ban apply to recognition for the achievement that the Hall was created to honor? I'm guessing that you agree with some others who have commented that it should remain fatal to his Hall recognition.
I understand the "character integrity" stipulation in the BBWAA's rules. But given the inductees of dubious character who have been admitted, even after the character clause was added, why not Rose? Or should any substantial character blemish be applied retroactively as well as into the future?
Ben, I think there is a distinction to be made between general issues of character and issues involving the character of baseball itself. It is the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Character Hall of Fame. I think flawed persons could be admitted to the Hall of Fame.
I also agree with Bill James, but I don't agree with your interpretation of his premise. How can you conclude that what Rose did was not related to his job? As the manager of the Reds, his actions violated a fundamental rule designed to protect the integrity of baseball. To ignore these actions and enshrine him in the Hall of Fame would mean that rules don't matter. However, I would be OK if Rose was inducted into the "Hall of InFame" along with McGuire, Sosa, Bonds, and Clemens.
Looks like I'm standing alone on this.
As best we know, Rose was not betting on baseball during the time he was accruing his Hall of Fame-worthy statistics. And, as I've mentioned, I agree that his punishment of being made persona non grata in baseball was appropriate. However,, if there is going to be a character component to Hall electability, there should be a standard. Apparently Perry, Cepeda, Snider, etc. passed some undocumented test. Where's the line?
I don't see the value in glorifying his accomplishments when it requires purposely ignoring his transgressions. That's not a good look for the Hall of Fame. Consider the whole person and proceed accordingly. Not sure if this rule applies to the Nobel ...