Power of Caring
  presented by CIGNA

Users sound off

On Rose in the Hall and Cone's perfect game

Click here for more on this story

Posted: Wednesday August 04, 1999 02:27 PM

Some user comments on One thorny question, July 14, 1999, and Not so perfect, July 19, 1999.

You asked the question whether one man (Selig) should render the final decision on the reinstatement of Pete Rose. I would have no problem with the Commissioner of Baseball making that decision -- if we had a Commissioner, that is. Selig, who engineered the coup of a legitimate commissioner, reminds one more of Macbeth than Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

Rose may or may not have bet on baseball. Commissioner Giamatti obviously thought so, and I respect that. What I have major problems accepting is Macbeth Selig's false piety when he invokes Giamatti's name. Perhaps you would like to address the question of who has done more damage to baseball -- Rose or Selig? Betting by a compulsive gambler who everyone knows is way too competitive to ever throw a game does not hold a candle to the palace coup, cancellation of a World Series and the financial blackmail of small markets led by a calculating usurper who cloaks himself in the mantle of Landis and Kuhn.
-- Gregory Hayes

It's too bad that "The Hall Of Shame" has room for thieves, wife beaters, girlfriend beaters, junkies and other assorted hot heads, but has no room for one of it's greatest player.
-- Hector Santos

The evidence that Pete Rose bet on baseball is not strong, not strong at all. The evidence consists almost entirely of the John Dowd Report. For all I know, ALL the evidence against Rose is in the Dowd Report. I read in one of Bill James' baseball books an analysis of the Dowd report. I don't know if you've seen it. I agree with James' assessment that the Dowd report is biased against Rose to an almost bizarre extent and further, it makes a very poor case against Pete Rose. If Bud Selig is citing the Dowd report as the reason for keeping Rose out of the Hall of Fame then that's wrong.
-- Clay Landon, Los Angeles

I grew up following the Reds in the 70s and had all of Rose's exploits memorized. I think what upsets me most about all this is that the baseball community feels that they are above what Pete has allegedly done. But if you recall, several members of the Hall are not above moral approach. There are womanizers, alcoholics, drug users, tax evaders, assaulters ...

The problem is baseball doesn't get it. Put an end to it. Let him and Shoeless Joe in. Baseball is not the supreme judge of morals, only baseball, on-the-field feats. The moral judge will meet up with Pete and others on their judgment day. Until then, while on earth, let's let the baseball higher ups stick to judging on-the-field records. Get the ones who broke the records in the Hall where they belong.
-- Eric Drake

I completely agree with your article about whether one man should be able to decide if Pete Rose should get in the Hall. Pete Rose was one of the few players that fathers told their sons that they should try to emulate -- try hard (give 100 percent, 100 percent of the time) and be a leader (by leading by example).

As for whether his on-field achievements are worthy of the Hall, I don't see where there can be much debate. Also, you may remember that until Rose was suspended, there was no rule against those that had been banded for life from being elected. Thus, I call it "The Pete Rose Clause."

Now I recognize that gambling is something that all major sports have to distance themselves from or risk losing the trust of their fans. But, the lengths that Bud Selig and the rest of Major League Baseball have gone to distance themselves from Rose looks childish. It's as if they are trying to pretend that Rose never existed. If Selig is that worried about losing the trust of the fans, why can he not just let the fans decide if Rose should be reinstated?

With an owner for a commissioner, Rose will never stand a chance.
-- Jeff Burns

It makes me sick to think that Darryl Strawberry can be allowed to re-enter the game. It makes me even sicker to think that Baseball wants us to believe that he hasn't tarnished the reputation of the game and that Rose has. Both have addictions, both need help.

I feel that Bud Selig sucker-punched Rose. At the time that he was made commissioner (he says he didn't want it, but who believes him), he fielded every reinstatement question with a no comment stating that he couldn't make a statement until Rose applied and he had a chance to look over the situation. Then, the day that Rose applies, Selig immediately turns him down.
-- Jason Kunkel

Your article had one glaring error ... Rose and Rose alone was the one man that put up the barricade. He signed the agreement, not Selig.
-- David McIntyre

While he may never have admitted it, Bart Giamatti, right after signing the agreement with Pete Rose, said that he had found that Rose bet on baseball. That was a clear violation of the agreement, but St. Bart couldn't be bothered with niceties like that.

Did Pete Rsoe bet on baseball? I don't know, but the Dowd Report certainly does not prove it. There are holes in the evidence and evidence that Dowd twisted to fir a predetermined conclusion that Rose did indeed bet on baseball. It is that shoddy piece of work on which Bud Lite now relies to keep Pete Rose banned from baseball? Can't damage the sacred memory of St. Bart, you know.

What baseball should do is reopen the case and conduct a new investigation with a new investigator. If Dowd's conclusions are right, let a second investigator reaffirm them. If they are wrong, a one- or two-year suspension for consorting with gamblers and druggies and betting on football, basketball and other sports should have been enough. Baseball's vendetta against the Hit King is unseemly. But I forgot. To reopen the investigation would be to diminish the memory of St. Bart.
-- Tim Phares

Since when has baseball become so self-righteous? Players receive multiple bans for cocaine related reasons- i.e. Steve Howe and Daryl Strawberry. The last time I checked cocaine is illegal in all states. Pete Rose has been banned for something that is legal in some parts of the country. He did exercise terrible judgement in his actions, but wouldn't we all be banned if terrible judgment was against the law?
-- Joe Thompson

If druggies are allowed three, four or nine chances, Pete Rose, one of the best players ever to play the game, should be given a second chance.
-- Jerry Perrotta

I don't know if you were merely playing devil's advocate, or whether you believe that it would be good for baseball to let Pete Rose back into the game. I feel that his place in the record books is all the glory he needs, and that being kept out of the hall of fame is a very minor punishment for his crimes.

Baseball has to be kept free of the taint brought by gambling, and the notion that any game might be fixed. Rose's banishment should be for life, and much longer. When MLB closes up shop, and no more games will ever be played, then it will be safe to allow Rose into the Hall of Fame.
-- Jay Cross

You were partially right. One man does hold the key to the reinstatement of Pete Rose. Pete Rose.

You portray Pete Rose portrayed as a victim of the commissioner's office. Pete Rose is a victim of Pete Rose. Pete Rose was fully aware of the ramifications when he bet on baseball. (Do you think he would have signed this agreement if he weren't guilty?) Pete Rose was fully aware of the ramifications when he signed the agreement. Pete Rose is the person who, to this date, refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. (A word of advice for Pete: Lose the arrogance, try to act like you are genuinely sorry for your actions. You will get farther.)

No movement on the status of Pete Rose should ever be made until he accepts responsibility for his actions. If Pete Rose goes to his grave refusing to accept responsibility, any shot of reinstatement should go to the grave with him.
-- Bill Ewing

I believe the only person who can help Pete is Pete. Even in late middle/early old age every time I see or hear of him in the news he is doing something tacky, gaudy and adolescent. Some not so generous might say he's a self-possessed sleaze bag. Grow up Pete, show some character and humility. You must have lots in storage, since you have used so little.
-- Larry Leitch

Pete Rose thank you for all those great years, but you knew it was wrong to bet on baseball, so be a man and learn to live with your mistake. No one player is bigger then the game, and commissioner Bud Selig is thinking about the game.
-- Tony Cabrera

The decision should not rest in the hands of one individual -- Bud Selig's or anyone else's. If we denied admittance to the Hall of Fame based on a player's personality, you'd have to kick out half the players already there. We keep hearing the phrase "it's the fans game." Well, if that's true, then why not let the fans vote on who gets elected to the Hall of Fame? It's our game, right? And Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame no matter what.
-- D. Jaymes

This is really two issues. If Pete had been inducted into the HOF prior to the findings of the investigation, he would still be a baseball pariah, but he would be an enshrined pariah. The off-field/on-field argument is specious: His off-field activities, as you call them, are directly tied to his on-field activities as a manager. As for there being only one judge, what would you propose? Pete negotiated an agreement to keep the findings from the public, which would allow us to be even remotely qualified to judge. I have no problem with the commissioner having this authority.

It is unfortunate for him that he got caught (I know, there has been no finding of fact, but I believe there's some fire with this smoke) before enshrinement, but that's the risk he knowingly took.
-- Ken Flint, Sylvania, Ohio

On Not so perfect.

You probably have gotten about 8 million responses to this stupid argument. But let me jump on the wagon. You are putting a blemish on a "marvelous game" to instigate a discussion on the payroll disparities in baseball. Yes, Montreal can't compete salary-wise. So why don't other big market teams like the Indians, the Braves or the Dodgers pitch perfect games on a regular basis against teams like the Expos or Brewers?

It's called capitalism, buddy. Should Donald Trump drive a Yugo? Should a homeless person have a Ferrari?

First of all, let's face it, a perfect game is a freak anyway. Do perfect games come against great teams? Should sandy Koufax's perfect game against the Cubs in 1965 be dismissed? Consider that the Cubs finished the year at 72-90 (.439). The 1968 Minnesota Twins were 79-83 .488 the year Catfish Hunter threw one against them. Did all perfect games come against pathetic teams? No. If any cities can't support baseball, they should spend more time improving their economies than complaining about unfair salaries.
-- Nino Lupetin, Bronx, N.Y. (not a place known for its financial wealth)

You must be some kind of idiot to think that a perfect game is any easier to throw against a low-paid team. Look at the numbers. Only 14 such games this century. Disparities between rich and poor ball clubs have existed since the beginning of baseball. Makes you wonder why the Yankees don't have 100 perfect games. Come on. Use your brain. I appreciate your point, but there has got to be a better way to illustrate it.
-- Michael Kotch

David Cone deserves better than to have his astounding accomplishment belittled because some teams are just poorly run businesses that should put up or shut up.
-- John Romano, Brooklyn, NY

First of all, I don't think that the fact that Cone's perfect game came against Montreal takes ANYTHING away from the feat that he accomplished. A perfect game is the toughest thing to do in baseball. Just because it came against a bad team doesn't make it any easier to do. A perfect game is a perfect game.
-- Mike Bohn

Don't try to tarnish an accomplishment so rare. Don't rob me of the memories I have of the game by demeaning the feat. You have plenty of opportunity to take shots at the baseball establishment. The powers in baseball screw up a lot -- take your venom out on them. Leave the fans alone. There's a lot to fix in baseball. They should start by fixing the hall of fame process. Begin with putting Pete Rose & Joe Jackson in and take some of the sports writers out. The hypocrisy of baseball is immense. Please leave it out of CNNSI.
-- Doug Hayes

It is too bad that you see the perfect game as something that is not truly what it is, magical. Yes, the Expos are at the bottom of the barrel. Yes, the Yankees have chock full o' stars. But the simple fact is that David Cone pitched a "perfect" game against another professional Major League Team. It really does not matter that they are not the '27 Yankees, or the '98 Yankees. I would like to see what you write if someone pitches a perfect game against this year's Dodgers. What would you say then, that they are an overrated team that can't work together? Again I think it is too bad that you do not appreciate the accomplishment that he did.
-- Kevin M. Schultz

The haves/have-nots inequities of the game are as old as organized baseball. Think of Connie Mack's A's going from champs to chumps and back up and down again for no other reason that the old man was brilliant but cheap. Consider the St. Louis Browns entire history ... or the KC A's ransoming their best talent (Lopez, Maris, Blanchard, etc. etc.) to the Yanks year-in, year-out during the Stengel era. Then there was Charlie O (the A's figure in this pattern rather much, don't they?) and the Griffith's mismanagement of the Twins. Even the Red Sox ignominious sale of the Babe was a reflection of the same pattern. Decry the inequity of rich and poor; but don't inadvertently romanticize the past when doing so -- baseball's so-called golden eras were afflicted with exactly the same problem.
-- Roger Cohen

By choosing Cone's perfect game as the vehicle for your insightful comments on the economic inequities of the teams playing ball, you missed the really important point: the game. No matter how much a person is paid to play, and no matter the quality of the place the game is played in, baseball is still a game of inches, of skill and of luck. Inches, skill and luck are showcased in a perfect game. Any Expo could have foiled that perfect game; Cone himself could have walked a batter. Perfection cannot be bought. The fact that the Expos beat the Yankees the following night ... further proves the point. If they really were a KMart-quality team, the Yanks should have demolished them in all three games.

I heartily agree with you that the baseball must find a way for small market teams to compete for quality players and provide modern stadiums for the games. But I wish you hadn't hung that argument on Cone's (and Wells') perfect game. It's just the wrong time; it sounds a lot like sour grapes; it's too important a point, and it's lost in the afterglow of perfection.
--Laura Woodworth

The point is that dominant Teams have always existed in sports and they are good for sports. Money and market do not always mean a champion. Look at the Twins of the late 80's, the Reds of 1990 and even the Reds of today. The Yankees always had the money but where were they during the 80's? There are numerous critics out there that state that the salary cap has made the NFL a "mediocre" league. The fact of the matter is that if your city or market is too small to compete (Montreal), then get out of the league. There is no God-given mandate that states "All cities shalt have professional sports". I think there was some guy, I think Darwin was his name, he put forth a simple formula for animals in nature: Survival of the Fittest is what he called it. Lastly, your criticism of Cone's perfect game was nothing but hurtful to Mr. Cone. I guess you think that some player named Koufax should also be criticized for throwing a no-hitter against arguably one of the worst Mets teams of all times.

I know that the main reason you wrote this article is to bring out some response from people who would normally never think of responding to a sportswriter's article. In this one area alone you have been successful.
-- Charles S. Firestone

I think you are right. I'm a diehard Yankee fan but the first thing that came to mind was that it was the hapless Expos. What is the solution here? Can't the owners resolve this amongst themselves? This is why I think it is great when teams like L.A. and Baltimore are horrible after spending all that money. It serves them right!

PS. Cone is still the Man.
-- Lance Risi

Each year, the gap between the haves and the have-nots widens in baseball. The Yankees get richer, and clubs like the Expos, Twins and Royals fear extinction. The inequality within the league cries out for a solution. Will we get there? There's always hope, but not much.

What will it take for a change? What will have to happen before the leveling of the playing field? And who can we blame for this mess? Who are the culprits? Is it the greedy owners who don't want to share? Is it the players who demand outrageous salaries? Is it the agents who rip off the players? Is it the TV market, only concerned with ratings and commercial dollars? Is it the fans, who continue to pay ever-escalating ticket prices?

Maybe the blame lies in all those places, as baseball changes over time to reflect the sad, money-driven world we live in. Does anyone remember playing and watching sports for the fun of it?
-- Greg Lincoln

The simple fact remains that he still threw a perfect game, and it only took him 88 pitches. If someone is at fault it should be MLB. Why don't they just add a couple of more expansion teams and water down the talent pool a little more.
-- Derrick Gauvin

Read your article on Cone's perfecto.....very fitting indeed that he threw it against the Expos.... when are people going to realize that there HAS to be some sort of revenue sharing for baseball to continue...here in KC, even if we drew another 1.5 million that would only add 15 million or so to their payroll possibilities....so it's not the fact that you have to spend money to put a winner on the field in order to draw fans in order to be able to afford to spend money to put a winner on the field..etc....that's just not it....and not enough people realize that.....it's all about the TV money....whoever gets the most....wins....and it's killing the game I love.
-- Harold Brown

What are you smoking? I don't care what team you throw a perfect game on. A perfect game is a perfect game, do you even realize what Cone accomplished? No hits, no WALKS. To have the control and the command that David Cone possessed that night was remarkable. I don't care if the Expos hadn't won a game this year, it would still be a great accomplishment. It's not like the Expos don't have good calibre players either. Its not like the Expos didn't try to hit the ball. They couldn't because Cone was just too good.

I can't believe you have even attempted to diminish David Cone's great accomplishment. Throwing a perfect game is the hardest accomplishment in baseball and David Cone has vaulted himself into being one of the best. Especially doing the feat under the pressure of Yankee Stadium filled with former greats of the past. Pitching a perfect game is more rare than writing a masterpiece of literature, and your story sir was far from a masterpiece. So what does that tell you about how good you are at your job?
-- Jeff Hinchliffe, Burlington, Ontario

Someone needs to turn the focus away from the haves to the have nots. Baseball, in my opinion is on the way to ruin, until they can come up with a revenue sharing plan that will enable baseball's poorer markets to close the gap on the richer teams. It's not by mistake that the NFL is the most popular sport in America. When a team like the Atlanta Falcons can go from bottom feeders to Super Bowl contenders, it is a wonderful thing. It's just unfortunate that the Royals or Expos will never be able to say the same. Salary cap or revenue sharing ... one or the other! It has to happen!
-- Don West

You hit the nail right on the head with what is happening in baseball. The haves against the have nots and alas, there seems to be no cure in sight. As long as the almighty dollar is used to lure athletes to the big spotlight, the also rans will forever remain just that -- also rans -- until they are finally wasted away into oblivion. The thing that gets me most is no one gives a damn. From the owners right down to the vendors who sell the hot dogs and popcorn, the only important thing is their team and to heck with the rest. They idolize their home stars, no matter what the cost or how long they stick around. Loyalty is a long gone virtue.

As long as this me me me attitude continues, I'm afraid the Montreal Expos will never contend (sigh ... can we have the '94 season back?).
-- Randy Skaggs, Calgary, Canada

As a long-time Expos fan it pains me to witness what people like George Steinbrenner have done to the game. Sure the Yankees are a good team. They are the best team money can buy, but is anybody concerned with the big picture? Sports are supposed to be about competition among equals. Perhaps instead of having the American and National League, baseball should be realigned in such a way that we have the "haves" and the "have-nots". It's just a very sad state of affairs.
-- Susan Porteous

As the gap grows and baseball alienates more and more fans from small (and even mid-) market cities, I'm sure we'll have more and more "perfect" games from baseball's first estate.

I live in Minnesota now and it is just crushing to observe the once-proud Twins having to deal with the current financial climate in baseball. The baseball climate in the city is apathetic, but it's not like there was anything to cheer about, even during spring training. It almost seems like a parallel universe, thinking back to '94 when the Expos had the best record in baseball, and the Twins won two championships. Was that a dream? Did someone click their shoes three times when I wasn't looking? Thanks for saying what needed to be said.
-- Alan DeNiro

Your article really gets down to the true facts in baseball: Winning teams come with money. I am a Brewers fan, and people tell me that they suck, but they do not have the money. I may love David Cone, but your article proves an important point in baseball: Money IS everything!
-- Amanda Losinski

I find if irresponsible of you to pick a perfect game, a great person, and a good person to use as your platform to bore us with the money situation in baseball. If throwing a perfect game is such an easy thing to do against a horrible team such as Montreal, then why isn't it done more often?
-- Eric Myers

I'm from Montreal (and French speaking, so please forgive my poor English). I'm a Expos, Habs and Steelers fan. The Expos were so great to watch in the 80's: Ron LeFlore, Rodney Scott, Al Oliver, Kid Carter, on and on. Exciting teams. So many close calls: Second to the Stargell's Pirates, to Schmidt's Phils, to Monday's Dodgers. Now, we have AAA ball. Look at all the players we've lost in the past few years. Unreal! Why should I waste my money when the players don't care for Montreal? They say the game is now a business. They don't pay to come see me work, why should I?

It is so pathetic ... I'd like to say that I don't care (because I don't go to games anymore and I don't watch, except on a very few occasions), but I can't. It was so much a part of me growing up. It is so sad, it's nothing short of a tragedy. Money has taken the game away from those who really care...

Cone's perfect game against the Expos. What a joke. If he had done it against: T.Raines, R.Scott, A.Dawson, G.Carter, A.Oliver, T.Wallach, W.Cromarti and C.Spieir, I would've been impressed.
-- Anne Marie Dessureault

I seems that it is the nature of sportswriters to downplay magnificent achievements, like Jordan's six titles ("the NBA was weakened by expansion"), McGwire's 70 HR ("but pitching is so terrible and new stadiums are bandboxes"), and now David Cone's perfect game. While the Expos are truly a terrible team, full of players who owe their jobs to expansion over the last two decades, no perfect game deserves to be downplayed. As bad as they are, the Expos, from a purely statistical standpoint, are not much less likely to be totally shut down than a solid hitting team such as Colorado or Seattle. A perfect game is such a rarity that the quality of the opponent is almost irrelevant. Sure, the sad state of the Expos partly contributed to Cone's brilliance, but it's hardly worth mentioning. More striking is the fact that Cone, at 36 years of age, having recently recovered from a career-threatening aneurysm, is still capable of such a performance.
-- Alec A. Miller

When it comes to a PERFECT game, it doesn't matter who is facing whom. Have you stopped to think about how many things could go wrong for a batter to get to first base? It seems to me you are jumping on the Yankee-bashing bandwagon and the all-too-boring "best talent money can buy" whining. Open your eyes, enjoy the drama, and loosen-up!
-- Jorge Rodríguez , a South Carolina Yankee fan

Sure Cone pitched against the poorest team in baseball. Sure the Expos had only one person who has faced Cone in a game. But the Expos are a professional team. They may not have the talent that a lot of other teams have, but they are professionals. In pro sports these days, every team has a chance to beat any other team on a given day. You still have to be a true athlete to be able to make a pro sports team these days. Please don't take anything away from Cone's accomplishment. He accomplished a GREAT feat. Even though it was against the Expos, it was still against PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES!!!!! Give the man a break.
-- Jerry Hunter, Indianapolis, Indiana

 

Related information
Multimedia
Click here for the latest audio and video
Search our site	Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day
	Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call your cable operator or DirecTV.