Quantcast

George Steinbrenner, Peter Rose and Shoeless Joe

Related Topics: Constitution, Ronald Reagan, Elected, Marriage


George Steinbrenner, Peter Rose and Shoeless Joe







The late George Steinbrenner was one of the most dynamic owners in the
history of baseball. In the long run he will rank with Branch Rickey,
Bill Veeck and others who changed the game. He was the first modern
owner who actually took his role seriously. Like any CEO watching the
bottom line, "The Boss" believed his team should be successful. He
understood that the "bottom line" for a baseball team was in wins and
losses and World Series rings. Winning for him was the most important
thing. He was willing to invest in the team -- investing huge amounts
of money to win. But, he also understood that winning wasn't the only
thing.



Profits did matter and so he brought his very considerable
entrepreneurial skills to the business of baseball. The result was a
fabulous marriage of winning, innovation (such as his YES network), and
profits. Even those who hated George Steinbrenner -- starting with
frustrated Boston Red Sox fans and owners -- will in the end miss him.
The owner of the Red Sox called the Yankees under Steinbrenner the
"Evil Empire'," But without the formidable "Boss" as Darth Vader, the
Red Sox would have just been another losing team, instead of ther
heroic (in the minds of Red Sox fans) underdogs. Even for those who
hated him, Steinbrenner made the game more exciting, more interesting,
and more profitable for everyone. Indeed, he forced the other teams to
compete to the point that in 2004 even the once pathetic Red Sox
finally won a World Series by out Steinbrennering The Boss himself.



By all rights George Steinbrenner should be elected to the Hall of
Fame the first time he is eligible. I hope he gets in, and with him
they induct Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson. They are not in the
Hall of Fame. Instead, they are banned from baseball. Why, because they
broke some baseball's rules about gambline and embarrassed the game.
They consorted with gamblers, and because Rose actually bet on his own
team. Baseball is harsh to those who break the rules.



Right.



Except George Steinbrenner was a convicted felon. In 1974 in an
elaborate plea bargain the owner of the New York Yankees pled guilty to
one felony count and one misdemeanor for his role in the Watergate
Conspiracy. Yes, George Steinbrenner the ultimate American patriot and
baseball leader, tried to undermine the American democracy by illegally
giving contributions to Richard Nixon's reelection campaign.
Steinbrenner also pressured his own employees to lie to government
agents and to the grand jury about his illegal activities.



George Steinbrenner was also guilty of consorting with gamblers --
kind of like Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose. In 1990 he admitted to paying
a gambler he had hired to dig up dirt about one of his own star
players, Dave Winfield. Why? Because Steinbrenner did not want to pay
$300,000 to Winfield's charitable foundation, as required by Winfield's
contract. Winfield had to sue for the money and that led Steinbrenner
to become involved with a gambler, who was himself involved with
organized crime.



So, how did baseball treat its most famous owner after his felony
conviction and later his admission of consorting with known gamblers.
For the felony -- a felony that was directed at the people of the
United States, the Constitution, and our system of government --
baseball suspended Steinbrenner for two years, and this was later
reduced to one year and three months. Steinbrenner was then back in
baseball, running his show. For the gambler who was an owner, the
suspension lasted three years; for the players like Jackson and Rose
the suspension is forever.



Apparently being a felon, trying to undermined the government of
the United States, and consorting with gamblers did not embarrass the
game sufficently to keep Steinbrenner away.



Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for life (and remains
banned from the Hall of Fame even though he is dead) after he allegedly
accepted a bribe to throw the World Series. He had one home run, six
RBIs and hit .375 in the Series. It is hard to imagine he was throwing
the game. A jury did not think so, since he was acquitted in a court of
law. But baseball has its own law and Shoeless Joe was banned forever
from the game he loved. He is still not in the Hall of Fame although
everyone knows he should be. So, of course, should Pete Rose. He was
one of the greatest hitters in the game and one of the most exciting
players to watch. He stupidly bet on his own team. It made him more
competitive since he had even a greater stake in winning. But, he is
still banned from baseball and not in the Hall of Fame.



In 1989, just as he was leaving office, Ronald Reagan pardoned
George Steinbrenner for his felony conviction for his role in
Watergate. That was just before he consorted with a known gambler with
connections to organized crime in his unconscionable effort to defame
Dave Winfield. No one pardoned him for that, but he was back in
baseball three years later.



As we mourn George "the Convict" Steinbrenner (and I do mourn him)
isn't it time for baseball to pardon Jackson and Rose? Or, will Major
League Baseball continue to have its great double standard, that allows
convicted felons and those who admit they have consorted with gamblers
to be in upper management, but punishes a few hapless players,
including those who like Jackson, who have been acquitted of any wrong
doing?

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-finkelman/georg...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Heptarch 2010/07/16 13:23:43
    Heptarch
    +3
    Joe Jackson never bet on his team. His ban is wrong.

    Rose did bet on his team. He undermined the integrity of the game. His ban should stand.

    Steinbrenner's felony didn't have anything to do with the game on the field. He shouldn't be banned for it. And while I hate the man for what he did to the game I love, he shouldn't be left out of the Hall. He's the modern era's most influential owner.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Min Carter 2010/07/17 18:31:34
    Min Carter
    +1
    SG, your argument is rational and eloquent!
    Perhaps Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis wanted to establish himself as the 'man-in-charge' and therefore, decided to ban Joe, etc. to prove a point. Joe Jackson's ban from the Hall of Fame is an injustice.
    Meanwhile, the media has been expounding on Steinbrenner's largess to athletes.
    I guess time will tell!!
  • StarrGa... Min Carter 2010/07/17 21:40:41
    StarrGazerr
    +1
    I can understand why Landis took the action he did at the time. Baseball was in danger of collapsing after the Black Sox scandal, and they needed to PROVE to the public that there would not be any more fixed games or gambling influence, so strong action was needed. But after a few years, and especially since Babe Ruth was becoming an "American hero" in the early 1920s and baseball's reputation was restored by the end of that decade, I can't see why they couldn't have lifted the ban on Shoeless Joe - especially once he was too old to play.

    As far as Steinbrenner's "largesse" - let's ask Dave Winfield about that one :)
  • wolf sloan 2010/07/16 21:12:13
    wolf sloan
    +1
    We have Orlando Cepeda and Ferguson Jenkins who were charged with drug smuggling. I heard (but not yet confirmed) the Reggie Jackson was too. Yet both are in. Don't get me started on Bowie Kuhn...grrr And why isn't Gil Hodges in?
  • Min Carter 2010/07/16 21:05:48
    Min Carter
    +1
    Excellent post, SG. Excellent discussion!
    I believe that Steinbrenner deserves to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
    I also believe that Pete Rose and my absolute favorite ballplayer, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
    Thanks, SG.
  • StarrGa... Min Carter 2010/07/17 01:13:18 (edited)
    StarrGazerr
    +1
    Thank YOU :)

    I think Shoeless Joe Jackson's ban is probably the greatest injustice in sports history, especially considering that he was acquitted of any wrongdoing by a jury. Both Rose and Steinbrenner were actually convicted of crimes, and while I'm not suggesting that ANY conviction automatically means ineligibility, I think the fact that Jackson was clearly innocent of everything he was accused of DEMANDS that he be exonerated, even if it is decades after his death.

    I can't say I agree that Steinbrenner deserves the Hall of Fame. I think right now everyone is trying to remember the positive things about his life, but in a year or so when it's not so "fresh" in our minds, the negatives will once again outweigh the positives. As I said somewhere else on this thread, if anyone in America is annoyed at the fact that the average family of four can no longer even afford to go to a baseball game, I hold Steinbrenner largely responsible for it (along with Marvin Miller and Charlie Finley). When the WORST player in the major leagues has a starting salary that's more than the President of the United States, there's something wrong, and that too is in my opinion Steinbrenner's fault. When I was growing up the members of my team (the Mets, of course!!) were almost like family. I l...



    Thank YOU :)

    I think Shoeless Joe Jackson's ban is probably the greatest injustice in sports history, especially considering that he was acquitted of any wrongdoing by a jury. Both Rose and Steinbrenner were actually convicted of crimes, and while I'm not suggesting that ANY conviction automatically means ineligibility, I think the fact that Jackson was clearly innocent of everything he was accused of DEMANDS that he be exonerated, even if it is decades after his death.

    I can't say I agree that Steinbrenner deserves the Hall of Fame. I think right now everyone is trying to remember the positive things about his life, but in a year or so when it's not so "fresh" in our minds, the negatives will once again outweigh the positives. As I said somewhere else on this thread, if anyone in America is annoyed at the fact that the average family of four can no longer even afford to go to a baseball game, I hold Steinbrenner largely responsible for it (along with Marvin Miller and Charlie Finley). When the WORST player in the major leagues has a starting salary that's more than the President of the United States, there's something wrong, and that too is in my opinion Steinbrenner's fault. When I was growing up the members of my team (the Mets, of course!!) were almost like family. I looked forward to seeing Ed Kranepool every Spring, and I actually shed a tear or two when Tom Seaver was traded. Nowadays, every Spring I have to spend a week just figuring out who's on my team, and the very concept of "team loyalty" is pretty much nonexistent, with VERY rare exceptions. And that, too, I blame on George Steinbrenner.

    And when you add a felony conviction and two separate bans from baseball, I can't see how Steinbrenner should even be considered for the Hall of Fame.

    steinbrenner add felony conviction separate bans baseball steinbrenner hall fame
    (more)
  • wolf sloan 2010/07/16 15:20:50
    wolf sloan
    +2
    One thing I find ironic about the Black Sox scandal. Players like Shoeless Joe and Buck Weaver get banned from baseball. While the REAL architect of the scandal, Chas. Comiskey, gets inducted into the Hall of Fame.
  • StarrGa... wolf sloan 2010/07/16 15:34:53
    StarrGazerr
    +2
    Agreed. Then, as now, corporate criminals go unpunished while the players who ARE baseball suffer.
  • wolf sloan StarrGa... 2010/07/16 15:37:18
    wolf sloan
    +1
    The small fish are easier to catch than the big fish, or so it seems
  • Min Carter wolf sloan 2010/07/16 21:06:30
    Min Carter
    +1
    Amen. wolf sloan! I totally agree with you!
  • Heptarch 2010/07/16 13:23:43
    Heptarch
    +3
    Joe Jackson never bet on his team. His ban is wrong.

    Rose did bet on his team. He undermined the integrity of the game. His ban should stand.

    Steinbrenner's felony didn't have anything to do with the game on the field. He shouldn't be banned for it. And while I hate the man for what he did to the game I love, he shouldn't be left out of the Hall. He's the modern era's most influential owner.
  • StarrGa... Heptarch 2010/07/16 13:38:14
    StarrGazerr
    +1
    I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. [I do completely agree about Shoeless Joe, but not the other two.] While it is true that Rose bet on his team, there is no evidence that he ever did anything either as a player or as a manager to affect the outcome of a single game. If anything, betting on his own team made him play harder. Plus, any perceived "detriment" to the game is more than outweighed by everything he contributed to the game with his hustle, his attitude on the field and his ability. There are numerous records Rose broke that may never be broken again, and to deny him recognition for all of those accomplishments is, to me, unfair. The fact that he has been banned from baseball for the past 20 years is more than sufficient punishment. I would have no problem with his ban from participating in baseball as a manager or an executive being permanent, but I think that denying him a place in the Hall of Fame is pure spite.

    You also have to remember the circumstances of his ban in the first place. Although it was a "lifetime ban", it's fairly certain that he and Commissioner Giamatti both understood that the ban would be "reviewed" in a few years so long as Rose didn't get into any new trouble. Then Giamatti died, and Fay Vincent wouldn't uphold the "understanding".

    ...
    I'm not sure I agree with you on this one. [I do completely agree about Shoeless Joe, but not the other two.] While it is true that Rose bet on his team, there is no evidence that he ever did anything either as a player or as a manager to affect the outcome of a single game. If anything, betting on his own team made him play harder. Plus, any perceived "detriment" to the game is more than outweighed by everything he contributed to the game with his hustle, his attitude on the field and his ability. There are numerous records Rose broke that may never be broken again, and to deny him recognition for all of those accomplishments is, to me, unfair. The fact that he has been banned from baseball for the past 20 years is more than sufficient punishment. I would have no problem with his ban from participating in baseball as a manager or an executive being permanent, but I think that denying him a place in the Hall of Fame is pure spite.

    You also have to remember the circumstances of his ban in the first place. Although it was a "lifetime ban", it's fairly certain that he and Commissioner Giamatti both understood that the ban would be "reviewed" in a few years so long as Rose didn't get into any new trouble. Then Giamatti died, and Fay Vincent wouldn't uphold the "understanding".

    As for Steinbrenner, it is true that his felony didn't have anything to do with the game on the field. But to that I'd have to say, so what. The man committed crimes against the United States of America, and to me that's a little more serious than a "crime against baseball." It isn't that he was a disgrace to baseball so much as he was a disgrace PERIOD. Being "influential" is not necessarily a good thing. Steinbrenner was primarily responsible for the fact that the average family can no longer even afford to go to a game. He is the reason why the minimum salary in baseball is higher than any rational maximum salary ought to be. He turned a pleasant game that enriched the lives of millions of kids into little more than an excuse to sell t-shirts and hats. Even were he not a felon, I would never consider him "hall-worthy". Given the felony conviction, I don't even think its worth debating.
    (more)
  • Heptarch StarrGa... 2010/07/16 14:03:05 (edited)
    Heptarch
    +2
    "While it is true that Rose bet on his team, there is no evidence that he ever did anything either as a player or as a manager to affect the outcome of a single game."

    But that's not really the point, SG. The point is that baseball is a game based, at its core, upon it's rich history. That history manifests as statistics that can be compared from era to era. The integrity of those statistics must be beyond reproach for that model to work.

    Whether Rose affected those statistics personally or not is immaterial. By betting on his team he COULD have had a hand in them. It's more about the perception of integrity than the act itself. Because even if Rose didn't affect the stats, can you guarantee that the next person like him to bet on games will not? HAS not? It may very well be true that the league made an example of Pete Rose. I'm fine with that. It NEEDED to make an example of him to protect the future of the game.

    Does he deserve to be in the Hall based solely upon his numbers? First ballot, 100% all the way. Does he deserve to represent baseball as a Hall of Famer? Not a chance. He defamed the game.

    I suppose you may be right about Steinbrenner, however. The more I think on it, if you deny people the Hall based on whether you consider them to be representative of the game's integrity, maybe he shouldn't be there.
  • StarrGa... Heptarch 2010/07/16 14:18:06
    StarrGazerr
    +2
    I think we have hit on a larger issue - what DOES being a "Hall of Famer" mean? Does it mean that the person played the game (or managed, or umpired, or whatever) better than most or all of his peers? Does it mean that the person accomplished something in the game that no one else ever did? Or does it mean that the person is a good and admirable human being who happened to play baseball, too?

    I'm not sure I know the answer to that. Certainly Ty Cobb did little off the field to enhance baseball's reputation and integrity. He was a drunken brawler in and out of various jails, admittedly never for anything like murder, but still, hardly a role model. Denny McLain, baseball's last 30 game winner, went to jail for tax fraud, yet he's still eligible for the Hall. I'm sure we can each come up with other examples of Hall of Famers whose character is nothing to be proud of. Hell, OJ is still in the NFL Hall of Fame and he murdered two people.

    It seems to me that if OJ Simpson is a hall of famer, and if Ty Cobb is a hall of famer, it's kind of hypocritical to keep Rose out. As I said, I'd have no problem with continuing to ban him from participating in the game now or making appearances on behalf of baseball, but I do think that his accomplishments as a player deserve to be recognized.
  • Heptarch StarrGa... 2010/07/16 14:38:24
    Heptarch
    +2
    "Or does it mean that the person is a good and admirable human being who happened to play baseball, too?"

    I think that's too simplistic. I think it most has to do with how well they played the game (or contributed to it in their sphere), yes. But I think that if you take too much away from the game in how you conduct yourself, or undermine the integrity of the game itself, then your stats mean nothing. That's why I think McGwire, Sosa, Bonds et al should never be inducted.
  • StarrGa... Heptarch 2010/07/16 14:46:30
    StarrGazerr
    +2
    I agree with you about the steroid users, though I would also include Roger Clemens on the list. (At least McGwire refused to answer Congress' questions; Clemens, on the other hand, committed perjury.) But I think that goes directly to the "effect on the game" aspect. These players cheated, plain and simple. Their actions not only had a significant effect on the outcome of numerous games, but they were INTENDED to do so. The argument could be made that OJ should stay in the NFL hall of fame because his crimes came long after he left the game. (I don't agree with that argument, but it's not totally frivolous.) I agree that Rose's actions harmed the image and the integrity of the sport as a whole, but I still don't see where there's a single statistic anywhere that's called into question because of Rose's off-field activities. I can't possibly say that about Barry Bonds.
  • Heptarch StarrGa... 2010/07/16 15:07:22
    Heptarch
    +1
    "I agree with you about the steroid users, though I would also include Roger Clemens on the list."

    Agreed. That's why I said "et al". hehehe

    "These players cheated, plain and simple."

    So did Rose, in his way. Betting on the game IS cheating, just in a different context.

    "but I still don't see where there's a single statistic anywhere that's called into question because of Rose's off-field activities."

    The point isn't whether you can say that about Rose, but whether you could say that of any other player tempted to bet on games in the future. If you pardon Rose, you set a TERRIBLE precedent.
  • StarrGa... Heptarch 2010/07/16 15:38:04
    StarrGazerr
    +1
    I'm not even suggesting a "pardon". I'm suggesting that his "sentence" be commuted to time served. He will always carry the black mark of his deeds. He will never be able to pretend to be something other than an imperfect man who made some very bad (and stupid) choices. He will not get to participate in the "glory" of the game going forward. But he would at least be able to get the recognition for the contributions he did make to baseball.
  • Heptarch StarrGa... 2010/07/16 15:55:49
    Heptarch
    +2
    And what of the next person tempted to bet on their games, SG? Will they be moreso because there are no permanent repercussions to their acts?
  • StarrGa... Heptarch 2010/07/16 16:27:04
    StarrGazerr
    +1
    Well, knowing that your career will be permanently over is something of a deterrent, but you're right it isn't THAT much of a deterrent, especially for the 90%+ of players who have no chance of ever making the Hall of Fame or becoming a manager anyway. Still, there is the concept of "paying your debt to society" in this country, and I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to baseball, too. I agree Rose deserved to be punished. I just don't think that a life sentence is appropriate. He's already "served" 20 years, and I just think that's enough.

    Also - I suspect that if someone is determined to break the rules, the fact that Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame is probably not going to stop them.
  • Heptarch StarrGa... 2010/07/16 17:06:16
    Heptarch
    +2
    "Also - I suspect that if someone is determined to break the rules, the fact that Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame is probably not going to stop them."

    Likely. But it doesn't mean MLB needs to sanction the rulebreakers by allowing them in the Hall.

    I think you and I will simply agree to disagree on this one. ;)

About Me

StarrGazerr

StarrGazerr

United States

2008/04/15 19:19:22

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals

The Latest From SodaHead

News

Politics