by Gregg Pearlman
Saturday, October 30, 1999
The postseason ended recently, which is how you know there's been no Giants news to speak of for a while. The closest, I guess, is the revelation that the Giants have chosen not to pick up the option on Julian Tavarez, though they still retain contractual control -- made marginally more interesting by the first part of this news item having been reported on KNBR by Bruce Macgowan, who referred to Tavarez as "flaky." I thought that was strangely risky, since Tavarez might still be back next year.
All of this points out how sad the 1999 season was, though, if this is the best I can do for Giants items. This doesn't mean, however, that there has been no baseball news in particular. Why, the Yankees swept the Braves -- their second straight World Series sweep -- but the attention was drawn away by a couple of idiotic minutes between the All-Century Team dedication ceremony and Game Two.
But first, the Series. About this and other things, we'll be hearing from Tim I., Carlos, JVV, Sherman, Rob, Ben F., Otis, Mr. Bomb, Brian, Anson, Steven R., Andy W., Jonathan, Jeff S., Greg L., Richard, Jim J., Brad, and Gordon.
I would agree, except that this particular World Series is within two of the key World Series Guidelines," says JVV: 1) No wild-card teams; 2) No Subway Series. (And, while we're at it, no Freeway Series. Bay Bridge Series? Okay.)
"It's a lukewarm thing right now to me," says Carlos. "I don't care, but I have a mild interest. It's a World Series of the 'haves,' as usual, but there is something at stake, I guess."
JVV says, "Here's ESPN.com's spin: The winner of this Series will be called 'Team of the '90s.'"
Which is appalling to me, by the way. The Yankees only started playing championship ball in 1995. Because of 1993, it pains me to say this, but the Braves have had two years in the 1990s in which they were not the first-place team in their division. Can losing four out of five World Series in this decade really rob them of the title, "Team of the '90s"? No. The Braves, much as they annoy me, came out on top after 162 games -- more or less -- from 1991 through '93 and '95 through '99. This is the team of the 1990s. The Yankees have been terrific, but for about half that time.
"I'm sick of both," says Sherman, "but while I admire the Yanks somewhat (Steinbrenner notwithstanding), I flat-out despise the Braves. Why?
[Actually, I think this whole paragraph is completely unfair. It's just plain wrong to judge people by their looks, especially if you're going to leave John Rocker off the list. -- GP]
These guys have nothing to do with anything, but they always annoyed the living [self-censored bad word] out of me. So call it residual hate.
Like me, JVV thought this list was unfair. "You forgot to rip the TBS announcers," he says.
"I am sick to death of both teams," says Rob. "Please give us a break, Lords of the Realm. Having said that, I'll watch the Series though, I always do, and anyway, both of those teams play an interesting, entertaining brand of ball if you like National League style pitching, defense, and inside offense, and I do.
"By the way, is it just me, or is Steinbrenner really starting to look like an angry old woman to anyone else? I keep waiting for him to show up on screen with a Mastiff or maybe a donkey."
What struck me about Steinbrenner is that this was the first time I could remember seeing him actually wearing Yankees paraphernalia. His comment during the ALCS about Jimy Williams -- "inciting the crowd," or whatever -- was uncalled for and completely Steinbrenneresque. Really, the smart thing for him to do would be to behave like the Steinbrenner character on Seinfeld. At least he'd be entertaining.
The main question, though, is the one about Pete Rose. Is this guy one of the top nine outfielders of the century? I say no. Lots of people say no. Not enough of these people -- baseball fans -- voted, however.
Longevity counts, certainly -- without it, you don't get 3,000 hits, let alone 4,000 hits, let alone break Ty Cobb's eon-long record. And the man won himself three batting championships in six years, and batted .300 or better 15 times in 17 years. This is impressive. However: 1) he hung on forever, trying to break Cobb's record; 2) he hit 160 home runs -- no more than 16 in a season; 3) he was an outfielder for eight years out of 24; 4) He did lead the league in doubles five times, but he had a lifetime slugging percentage of .409, to go with a .303 lifetime batting average; 5) He did walk a fair amount, though only topped 100 once -- in other words, he wasn't exactly an OBP machine.
It is true, however, that he played on seven division winners and in six World Series. This is impressive -- just ask Johnny Bench, Joe Morgan, Davey Concepcion, and any number of his teammates from those days. Rose was never really considered the top player on his team, as far as I know -- even during the All-Century Team ceremony, Bench was referred to as the "backbone" of the Big Red Machine, and Morgan was the guy about whom everybody said, "Winners follow him around."
I'm not saying Rose didn't contribute -- of course he did -- but no way is he one of the top nine outfielders of the 20th century. Sorry, Pete.
And let's not talk about the real reason he doesn't belong: that little "lifetime ban" thing. Let's pay no attention to that at all.
But the ceremony was still fun to watch. I'm a sucker for that kind of thing, and I'm only disappointed that I had to miss the goings on that took place before the All-Star Game. One amazing moment last week was seeing Willie Mays and Ken Griffey Junior flanking Ted Williams, helping him to his seat. I don't know why, exactly, but... wow!
So the Giants newsgroup and I would like to thank NBC reporter Jim Gray, who interviewed Rose immediately after the ceremony, for screwing the whole thing up.
"I am not a Rose fan," says Ben F., "but I thought the questioning by Gray was totally inappropriate. He said something like 'Nice ovation for you Pete, are you ready to admit you gambled on baseball?' Rose said 'I will not admit to something I did not do.' Gray answered back, 'We have proof your lying to the public and it is time to come clean.' Of course, Rose was surprised, and got upset. Jim Gray just about pulled him off to the side as he was walking off the podium to ask him these questions. I thought it was the wrong time to ask them. Anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?"
Well, Ben opened up a huge can of worms. Actually, it's hardly Ben's fault: Seemingly hundreds of people on the Giants newsgroup and the baseball newsgroup had something to say about the Gray-Rose incident, and the discussion is far from over.
"Maybe it was the wrong time, but he's gotta know he's a target for this stuff, so what should he expect?" says Carlos. "He was talking to the radio announcers in the bottom of the second inning, and he totally skirted the question by saying that he 'had an agreement' with baseball that the issue was already settled once and for all -- [that is], he didn't have to answer the question. That sounds like lawyerly gobbledygook, so I am not going to give him slack. If he asks for mercy then that's one thing, but if he plays the Fifth Amendment stuff to keep from 'besmirching his name,' then I think he makes himself vulnerable to these attacks.
"The announcers were nicer to him on the radio and they asked what he wanted. He said he wanted a private conference with Bud Selig in order to give his side of the story."
"It made me somewhat uncomfortable to watch," says Otis. "I think we all know that Rose is not going to admit to anything. The timing of the interview seemed like kind of an ambush. I mean, you have Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, et al., there, and you grill Pete Rose about betting on baseball?"
"I was shocked by the interview too," says Anson. "I was thinking maybe someone wasn't too happy that he made the All-Century Team and wanted to embarrass him."
"I think Pete set himself back five years in his effort to get back in," says Mr. Bomb. "He just responded like such a jerk. Everybody knows he did it, yet he continues to vociferously deny any and all wrongdoing."
"My guess is he's spending all his time looking for the real killer, I mean the real guy who bet on baseball using his name," says Brian P.
Maybe the real killer, too....
Mr. Bomb says, "I like Rose, and I want him back in, but I think he wasted a huge audience and opportunity to win support with his attitude and comments."
"Maybe so," says Tim. "I don't think any of my disappointment has anything to do with pro-Pete or anti-Pete. I consider Rose's denials and Gray's ambush as two different incidents in the 'two wrongs don't make a right' department.
"I don't think of Rose as a martyr. His denials, despite his own past agreements, give me little reason to think he's not guilty of betting on baseball. (Still, the comparisons to the Black Sox aren't fair, as there seems to be zero evidence that Rose ever tampered with the outcome of a game, let alone a championship.) However, the point remains that Gray's refusal to drop the subject soured an otherwise magical occasion for many baseball fans."
"I've always thought Gray the best of the best of sports reporters," says Mr. Bomb. "Even in this case, he got the exact person you'd want to hear from, the man of the moment, Rose. His line of questioning did leave a little to be desired, it seems."
"I'm not going to judge what Gray has done before this, or whether or not he's a good 'investigative' sports journalist," says Tim. "I just thought that Gray's tactics and badgering were so far out of line in this time and place that it was sickening.
"In another time and place, yes, Gray's persistence may have been called for. At this occasion, no; I like what another person said about Gray's actions -- that he 'took a dump on the Field of Dreams.'"
Steven R. points out that "Rose did not ask to be put on the team, but he showed up only for this lovefest for the fans, while kissing off the earlier news conference, to sell his autograph at a casino. In other words, he avoided the situation where he might be asked questions, but welcomed the chance to soak in adulation from fans. He clearly assumed that the latter would be a place where he could look good without having to answer any uncomfortable questions. Where, then, was Gray or anyone else supposed to ask these questions, if not when they were offered? (And no, the answer shouldn't be 'nowhere.')
"As I was watching," says Andy W., "I couldn't help thinking what was going through Gray's head at the moment. The look on his face to me showed that he thought it was a fabulous interview, and he was really 'getting his man.'"
"Did he seem to think that the viewers wanted to see a prosecutorial inquisition at that time?" says Tim. "For a baseball fan, it was as close to fairy-taleish as reality can come; most of the very best living ballplayers on the planet were on one stage, together. Mays. Williams. Musial. Spahn. Koufax. Schmidt. (And DiMaggio almost made it.)
"Do you think the typical baseball fan, who has been bombarded with negativity about player strikes, umpire fiascoes and small/large market inequities, wants anything to spoil that moment, one of the few really precious moments in baseball history?
"Does Jim Gray give a damn?"
"I wonder what he thinks after he had a chance to see it on tape," says Andy. "I also wonder what his colleagues said to him when he walked off the field? I can't believe that a professional journalist would say that was an appropriate or good interview."
"I hope he thinks he was an ass," Tim says. "At the very least, I wish he'd apologize for the timing of the questioning if not the questioning itself. The persistent questioning may have been appropriate in another place and time. Not there.
"There may have been a way to broach that topic without the ambush, but Gray sure missed it," Andy says.
"Surely they could have found a way to address it at another time, one which doesn't turn Cinderella's coach into a pumpkin before the ball even started at the castle," says Tim.
"Does Rose's decision to skip the earlier press conference (in order to sign stuff at a casino) change your opinion at all?" says Jonathan.
"My opinion of what?" Tim says. "Of Gray, not really. I don't think he needed to press the issue nearly as much as he did. Whether I think Rose belonged there isn't relevant, at least to me. I view the Rose inclusion and the Gray ambush as two separate events in which two wrongs don't make a right. I believe Rose should continue to be disenfranchised in his current state of denial...but that doesn't lessen my distaste for Gray's 'journalism' one iota."
And this is the point that folks seem to have trouble understanding: Whether or not Rose should be in the Hall-of-Fame, or on the All-Century team, has nothing to do with the appropriateness of Gray's questions -- given the timing.
Murray Chass of the New York Times is quoted as saying, "I thought it was the best TV interview I've ever seen. It was appropriate. It was not overdone. Rose has put himself in position to be pressed like that."
True enough -- but not then.
"See, this has been my point from the beginning," Tim says. "Not that Rose deserves to be tossed softballs, not that the 'tough questions' shouldn't be asked of him, but just this wasn't the time for it. It really is that simple, at least to me, and my opinion of Rose has nothing to do with it one way or the other.
"I understand what you're saying," Jonathan says. "It seems to me, though, that Gray might have 'ambushed' him at the press conference before the ceremony, if Rose had been there."
"Perhaps," Tim says. "And he probably should have been. But again, that would have created a side-show atmosphere. The spotlight would be on Rose even more than it was on Sunday night. Seems to me that's the last thing people should want if they want Pete to suffer."
Jonathan says, "This is analogous to presidential new conferences, in my opinion. Presidents who refuse to hold regular news conferences deserve to have embarrassing questions asked whenever reporters get within earshot; presidents who do hold regular press conferences should be treated with greater respect at other times (so that embarrassing questions should not, for example, be asked during a joint appearance with a foreign leader).
"Rose's decision to avoid a more appropriate forum for (perfectly reasonable) questions makes it more understandable that Gray and NBC did what they did."
"It may be understandable, but still not right," says Tim. "It was still execrably bad judgment to push the way he did at that time."
Jeff S. (whose fault it is, incidentally, that anyone has ever seen an EEEEEE! swimsuit picture) points out, "Mr. Rose was not at the press conference because he was still signing autographs at a show in Jersey. The other members of the 3,000-hit club in attendance left early, but Pete stayed, just to make baseball shift in the wind. This is just like the antics he pulls in Cooperstown annually, doing an autograph show in town on induction weekend.
"I believe he should be in the Hall for his on-field accomplishments; but after listening to his whining over the past 10 years and his horrible radio show, I feel little compassion for this man who has admitted to being a criminal (just because most of do it on a small scale, gambling on sports outside Vegas is a crime).
"Hey Pete, one question: Why did you agree to the original terms in writing? You had to have lawyers -- and don't give us the 'Bart told me... dead men tell no tales.'"
"Rose is under no obligation to ever give another interview in his life," says Greg L. "Right of the press does not mean right to interview. They can print any non-libelous, non-slander stuff they want, but they do not have the right to interview whomever they want, however they want. Not the president, and certainly not Pete Rose. If Pete Rose doesn't want to answer his questions, he is not obligated to. Period. End of discussion.
"Whatever you think of Pete Rose, Gray's interview was purely to advance two agendas, his own and NBC's. Not for pursuit of the truth, which by virtue of the deal Rose struck with MLB, he is not obligated to tell us.
"I have since read that Selig will not consider reinstating Rose until he admits he bet on baseball. That seems a bit haughty of him to me. That basically says, 'Okay, Pete, if you want to be in the Hall of Fame, you have to admit to something that your signed agreement with baseball says you don't have to admit to, and then I'll consider reinstating you. Just like I searched for a commissioner for several years, before reluctantly settling on myself.'
"I don't think much of Pete Rose as a person and don't frankly care whether he gets in the Hall of Fame or not, despite the fact that by virtue of his accomplishments, he deserves to be there. But Selig rates at best no better in my book than Rose and I wouldn't trust him to seriously consider reinstating Rose if Rose did admit to betting on baseball (which he almost assuredly did)."
JVV says, "[Former commissioner] Fay Vincent said he wouldn't have invited Rose to the ceremony but didn't want to be too critical of Selig."
Why not?
"Because once he got started, he might not stop for several weeks," guesses Richard, probably correctly.
"I just think Rose being there was at least partly political," says Anson. "The voters can't be that stupid to think he's really the ninth-best outfielder of all time, right? I wonder where the Giants would be with Rose in left field instead of Bonds."
"I agree, no doubt," says Tim. "Whither Bonds? Henderson? Speaker? [Oscar] Charleston?"
"I'm also a little surprised that Griffey was there but not Bonds," Anson says. "Is Bonds the only 'Player of the Decade' not on the All-Century Team?"
"Again -- politics," says Tim. "Griffey is 'popular'; Bonds isn't. End of story."
Bonds is probably the only "Player of the Decade" whom the fans hate.
But getting back to the ambush of Rose, Steven says, "Boo hoo, is my feeling. I don't have sympathy for Rose."
I can't say I do either -- I just thought this display didn't have to happen.
"My opinion of Jim Gray is irrelevant. People want this kind of event to be a kissy-kissy nostalgia fest, full of memories and absent anything that might spoil the mood."
Well, I'm not sure what's wrong with that. That's what it was about.
"Pete Rose, whose public persona, at least, is as offensive as anyone's in baseball I can think of, figures he can get away with a little self-promotion in his endless battle to get into the Hall of Fame via this event, where he can soak up the adulation from the fans to use as evidence of the correctness of his quest. He is manipulating the media and the fans when he does this, but no one calls him on it. Jim Gray asks the questions that any real journalist would, and gets ripped because it's inappropriate to bring up real stuff in such a nostalgic setting. Well, it ain't Jim Gray who ruined the mood, it's Pete Rose. Who didn't belong on the damn team in the first place, not that it matters."
Well, it does matter, but it's also a done deal. Sadly. I agree with this: "Ninth-best outfielder" indeed. Even though I think I'd heard he was going to be there, I was still surprised to see him, because I didn't think the ban would allow his presence. I was a little disappointed by the fact that he got, like, a half-hour standing O, while Willie Mays rated polite hand-clapping. But still, after the game, or even during the game, the Gray "interview" would've been less inappropriate, simply because the pregame stuff was about nostalgia and good feelings and all that stuff.
"I believe that Rose deserves his ban, and I hope he never is reinstated," says Andy. "However, Gray's interview was the worst, and most inappropriate interview I have ever seen. The worst part was the very end, when Gray just had to get the last word in as Pete was trying to bring it to an end. Out of line, sad, and horrible journalism. I also believe that this will perhaps make some people more sympathetic toward Pete and help him in his cause to be reinstated. Horrible."
Actually, I'm kind of ambivalent about Rose, probably because I've never cared for him much -- which has zero to do with the issue at hand. I do figure that he did these things he's denied doing; I think he probably even bet on the Reds (though I question him actually having bet against them). It's kind of interesting that Rose has been out of the game 10 years (and perhaps forever) over stuff he maintains he didn't do, while Marge Schott -- sorry: bigotry's worse than gambling -- was back after a few months of "sensitivity training."
I kind of enjoyed, in an uncomfortable sort of way, the way Rose bit back. I mean, Gray made a fool of himself with the very first question, but Rose's responses just helped him dig himself a deeper hole, I thought. I mean, obviously public sentiment -- in the form of thousands of applauding fans only -- is with Rose, so there couldn't have been a worse time to blindside him.
In any case, he certainly does not walk away from this odor-free. To mildly defend him, he had to react to questions he had no reason to expect. He wasn't particularly well prepared for that. It's kind of the same disadvantage a cornerback has, compared to a wide receiver.
"I have a thought -- rambling, borderline incoherent, but a thought nonetheless," says Jim J., who's never rambling or incoherent: "The bulk of the criticism directed at Gray seems to be that his questioning was inappropriate given the occasion, that had he spoken with Rose at a press conference the scrutiny would be fine, but in the afterglow of the All-Century ceremony he should have been more circumspect. My question is, why?"
It's kind of like going up to Monica Lewinsky on her wedding day, just after she's tossed the bouquet, and asking her, on national TV, about her "relationship with the president." I mean, she did it, she said she did it, she doesn't exactly come off smelling like a rose... but it still has no place there.
"I enjoyed the ceremony as much as did anyone, I cast my online ballot (voted for Barry and Willie Mac, thanks) and applauded from my couch not just for Say Hey but for Christy Mathewson as well, who not only never played in the Bay Area but has been dead long enough that my little gesture was probably lost on him."
No, he mentioned specifically how much he appreciated it. Via Ouija board.
"However, this was a commercial, folks. A credit card company wants your business and paid baseball credit-card dollars (earned from the types of bloodsucking interest rates that, I'd suggest, are responsible for far more human misery than any sin committed by Rose or Gray) for the chance to solicit it. If there's a difference between the 1999 Mastercard World Series and the 2000 Nokia Sugar Bowl (save that neither team is nicknamed 'Hokies') I've yet to find it. Rose was allowed on the field because the advertiser wanted him on the field, credit-card dollars gave Pete Rose his 55-second standing ovation as surely as did his 'Damn, Pete always ran out them walks!' fans.
"So, I'm uninterested in thoughts that this was a holy event."
Oh, it wasn't. It was schmaltzy BS, but fun schmaltzy BS, and thoroughly enjoyable schmaltzy BS. "Rose is engaged in a running controversy, and actively campaigning to win public support for his position that his ban should be lifted. Questions about the activities leading to that ban are newsworthy. If Jim Gray's a reporter, asking newsworthy questions strikes me as definitionally appropriate."
Oh, the questions themselves are fine. The timing, less so.
"This wasn't a funeral Gray staked out, he wasn't stopping Rose outside a church after Sunday service, this was a credit card commercial which traded, in part, exactly on the notoriety Rose has earned because of this ban (don't you think people voted/watched because of Pete Rose? Meaning, didn't this Mastercard ad campaign reach more people precisely because Rose is banned from baseball? Is there a serious argument to be made that Rose's actions weren't germane to the evening... when it's entirely possible the only reason he was voted on the team is because he is alleged to have committed the actions which were the subjects of Jim Gray's questions?)
"Hell, I don't know. Fundamentally I enjoyed the interview for the same reason I think people didn't like it.... because it wasn't what we normally get. What we normally get from our sports reporters are a million different variations of 'How do you feel?' I don't care how Pete Rose feels, I don't care how most people feel.
"I understand why Rose would expect to be asked how he felt; hell, I saw O.J. Simpson on ESPN's Up Close a year ago trying to talk about football. That's the way the cookie bounces. I think people reacted so viscerally to this interview because they are conditioned to accept that television coverage of sports is not 'news'... that television coverage of sports should put the product over as pure, and good, and entertaining. Real life? Save it for the front page, I'm watching the game."
But what's wrong with that? That's precisely why "sport" succeeds.
"There's no reason it has to be that way. There's nothing about a baseball field that renders one immune from real life. It's not a sanctuary, it's an office. It's a TV studio. It's the freaking Home Shopping Network.
"Grow up."
Never!
"You can despise the man for what you think he did to baseball," says Tim. "Fine. I'm not happy about his actions or his denials, either. But that doesn't invalidate an opinion that the timing of the inquisition left a lot to be desired. And for what it's worth, despite the denials, I consider Rose's remarks to be far more tactful and -- yes -- graceful than the repeated pit-bull attack of Gray.
"That doesn't make Rose a martyr. It merely means that the idyllic picture many viewers had came crashing down. I've heard a lot of sentimental tears turning to anger in minutes -- count two out of two people in my household, as well.
"Don't mistake harsh criticism of Gray for support of Rose."
"Don't mistake harsh criticism of Rose for support of Gray," says Steven. "I'm no big fan of his, either.
"The main thing is this business of Gray choosing an inappropriate time to raise his questions. People are pissed off because they think those couple of minutes tarnished what was otherwise a beautiful event. Beyond the question of whether or not Rose's presence in itself tarnished the event, I myself am pissed at Rose because it is clear that he knew in advance what people are saying now: that an event like that 'should' be a safe place for him to appear without being questioned. He plays on the nostalgic desire of baseball fans for priceless moments; he uses us. If it's a news conference to introduce the living all-timers, well, let's go sign some balls at a casino. If it's a lovefest, well, Pete Rose has to be there... after all, he's the best ambassador the game has today.
"I see no reason why Rose should get away with this. Yes, I agree, the interview cast a shadow on the event. But I blame Rose for this, not Jim Gray. Gray had two options: ask questions that deserve to be asked, even in an 'inappropriate' venue, pissing off fans in the process but asking the questions anyway because they are worth asking; or accepting that Rose has pulled off a canny media coup and asking the usual feel-good kissyface questions people here seem to have wanted."
"That's fair, but this is a 'two wrongs don't make a right' thing," Tim says. "If you think Rose damaged it by being there, I can respect that... but I don't see how such pit-bull 'journalism' could have helped matters.
"I've seen what some Rose-backers are saying, and I'm, incredulous. Some of them believe he is innocent of all charges and that he is honestly one of the nine best outfielders in the century. Yeesh.
"There is a third option [for Gray], which would have been the most prudent: Ask Rose about it once, and maybe twice as a followup question. If Pete still is in denial, and you don't want to interview him about anything else, then end the interview early. Or better yet, don't interview Rose at all and grant the interviews for the players who are more deserving of the accolades."
Steven says, "Now, baseball fans deserve to feel good. But in this context, Pete Rose does not deserve to feel good. So Gray was right to ask the questions."
"In other words," Tim says, "as long as you rain on Rose's parade, it doesn't matter how many fans you alienate or how many people felt the night was ruined by the inquisition? The feeling the fans get from the event is secondary to making one man uncomfortable?
"That's where we part ways, I guess. I don't feel as if peeing in Pete's Cheerios was so important that it justifies additionally tainting the corn flakes of millions of viewers, or that it is so important that it justifies turning the rest of the event into a sideshow. Rose's presence, in my opinion, didn't do that -- until Gray chose to interview him and give him the third degree.
"I don't feel sorry for Rose one bit. But I do think the moment was ruined for a lot of people, and that Gray's bad judgment relegated the real proceedings -- you know, guys like Mays, Williams, Musial, Spahn, Aaron and Koufax among others -- to a side-show event that was forgotten when compared to the events which followed it.
"No, there is no pity for Pete here -- just a general disgust that I feel when I think about having a reason to feel good about baseball... cut so short by bringing up some of what ails it. What's wrong with being an idealist in fairyland for just one night?"
One upshot of all this, by the way, was that the Yankees chose not to speak with Gray two nights later. When Chad Curtis homered to win Game 3, Gray attempted to ask him about the at-bat, and Curtis refused to talk "because of the thing with Pete," or whatever he said. Of course, he trashed his own credibility later by admitting that he doesn't really know what the deal is with Rose, anyway.
Former Reds pitcher Rob Dibble, now of ESPN, says, "It was not the time or the place to expect Pete to give that type of statement. I don't think Jim Gray is the conscience of America. I don't think him asking Pete on national TV was what NBC wanted him to do."
And here I'd always thought that Dibble was whacko.
Yankees manager Joe Torre was quoted as saying, "For some reason, we've lost sight of the word 'respect.' We deal too much in shock value."
Joe Morgan said, "I was cringing and hoping that Pete would have the right answers. I was just hoping the interview would be over the next second."
Gray himself has been quoted thus: "I tried very hard to be very fair to Pete last night and I think I was very fair. The fact that he doesn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't fair."
Tragically, that's not the issue. It's the timing. It's about all that feel-good crap that both Steven and Jim decry above (and these are two people I agree with most of the time). It's about the fans, not Rose. Not Gray.
"The fact that Gray thinks he was in the right doesn't make it fair either," says Greg L. "But I doubt very strongly that Gray tried to be fair.
"For what it's worth, I think Rose probably did bet on baseball and if he admitted it, it would probably be better for all parties. The reason he doesn't is probably because MLB won't reinstate him if he does admit it, which means no Hall of Fame. So inasmuch as he may not want to admit it because of pride, MLB has probably forced him to take that stance if he ever wants to be reinstated."
"Now this is an interesting point of view," says Carlos. "Rose may feel he has no choice, because if he ever admits it in a public forum, then his official baseball legacy will be nada, and he'll have to hang out with Shoeless Joe. Maybe he wants a private interview with Bud Selig to get assurances that if he admits it, it won't lock him out forever. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."
Rob Neyer of ESPN.com says, "... while I -- sitting on my couch Sunday night -- did not join in the applause for Pete Rose, neither did I begrudge him his moment in the spotlight. And when Jim Gray badgered and pestered and tortured Rose on national television, I was sickened and repulsed and disgusted.
"Gray turned what had been, just a few moments before, a joyous occasion, into something that made most of us want to turn off the TV and run to the nearest toilet, porthole or airsickness bag. It is easy, and right, to blame Gray for this disgrace. But there's plenty more blame to go around. Gray is an attack dog with a microphone, true, but he's also a well-trained attack dog. His masters tell him who to bite, and then once he gets the victim's neck in his mouth, he clamps down with the incisors, just like he's supposed to."
Later he says, "First of all, many commentators argue that if only Rose would admit that he did bet on the Reds, then eventually all will be forgiven. Uh, did I miss something? Major League Rule 21, posted in the clubhouse of every major-league team, is very clear on this:
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year."Permanently ineligible.Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.
"Now, I know a lot of you are wondering, 'What's wrong with betting on your own team?' Plenty. If you've bet on your own team, you might leave that relief pitcher in the game for an extra inning, even though that might leave him with a sore arm for the next week. If you've bet on your own team, you might play the veterans instead of the prospects. If you've bet on your own team... well, you get the point. There are many insidious ways that gambling can affect the integrity of the game, and that's exactly why Rule 21(d) exists.
"So it seems to me that if Rose did bet on the Reds, his Hall of Fame case should be closed."
That's really the bottom line for me.
There is evidence -- how conclusive it is, I don't know -- that Rose bet on the Reds several times. The rule says he should be banned from baseball forever. Ergo he's banned forever. There's the argument, "He should be in the Hall of Fame based on his on-field accomplishments," and I suppose he should. After all, O.J.'s still in the Football Hall of Fame, right? (Of course, there are some differences: one is that any compelling reason to kick him out of the Hall has to do with stuff that took place after his induction, so how do you "uninduct" somebody? And another is that it was a law he almost certainly broke, not a Football Rule. A third is that, well, he was acquitted in a court of law, so officially, he didn't even break the law.) But evidence suggests strongly that Rose broke a Baseball Rule, and if so, Baseball can do whatever the hell it likes with him. They say he's out permanently? He's out. Permanently. And let's not forget that he agreed to this ban. It's pretty damn open and shut, really.
But that's not the issue here. The issue is that Jim Gray's line of questioning, while appropriate in general, was simply wrong under the circumstances.
25. Cookie Lavagetto beats Bill BevensLike many of us, especially us Giants fans, Jonathan feels that the Gibson home run was "An okay moment, but far overrated."
24. Dave Henderson's Home Run
23. Owen and the Dropped Third Strike
22. George Brett's Home Run
21. Chris Chambliss' Home Run
20. Pete Rose gets hit No. 4,192
19. Haddix's Perfect Loss
18. Brooklyn wins the World Series
17. Cal Ripken breaks Gehrig's Streak
16. Joe Carter's Home Run
15. Roger Maris hits No. 61
14. Bucky Dent's Home Run
13. Willie McCovey Lines Out
12. Reggie Jackson's Three Homers
11. The Luckiest Man Alive Speech
10. Enos Slaughter's Mad Dash
9. Willie Mays' Catch
8. E-3 on Bill Buckner
7. Mark McGwire Hits No. 62
6. Kirk Gibson's Home Run
5. Hank Aaron's 715th Home Run
4. Carlton Fisk Waves It Fair
3. Don Larsen's Perfect Game
2. Bill Mazeroski's Home Run
1. The Shot Heard 'Round the World
I think this is a great call. Yes, the Dodgers came all the way back after a Jose Canseco grand slam -- this and Gibson's homer being the only moments I saw of the entire series -- and yes, they rolled on to a resounding victory in five games. But the home run came in Game 1. Mazeroski's homer far outdistances this one on the grand scale of baseball moments. So do those of Maris and Chambliss.
Of course, I'm prejudiced, to some extent. First, the Gibson Moment was one of my most annoying, as a baseball fan. In 1988 both David Beck (before he'd attained EEEEEE! contributing editor status) and I, deeply disappointed with the way the season went, chose to pretty much boycott the postseason. I still feel that the Dodgers had no business there -- not that the Giants necessarily should have; however, I did feel that the Dodgers weren't even the best team in their division, by maybe three teams.
In any case, that night, Dave and I picked up a pizza at Eagle, which used to have the best pizza in The City. While waiting, we saw the Canseco grand slam -- and while neither of us had any love for the A's (especially Canseco himself), it wasn't hard to pick a team to root for here. Some time later, I don't know what possessed us, but we turned on the TV to NBC, just in time to see Dennis Eckersley go 3-2 on Gibson. Dave and I just looked at each other -- how could anyone not know what was coming next? The pitch came in, and we changed the channel as soon as Gibson hit it. We did not watch it go out. We did not watch his famous limp around the bases. We didn't need to.
Jonathan says, "I'd think about adding Nolan Ryan's last no-hitter. [Or even his fifth, which broke Sandy Koufax's record, one which I'm sure many believed would never be broken. -- GP] The Kerry Wood game/last strikeout. The ball bouncing over Freddie Lindstrom. Ted Williams' real walk-off home run. Ruth's three home runs in Pittsburgh. And some others that don't involve New York or Boston. [Really! It's as if Ken Burns made up the list -- except that there were actually some Giants moments in there, which is how you know he didn't. -- GP] Eighteen of these involve New York or Boston; eight of them are New York-New York or New York-Boston matchups. Of course, New York teams have been in plenty of postseason play, but still. Hmmm.... The Philadelphia A's 10-run seventh. The Phils-Cubs game, with all those runs. [Final score: 26-23. -- GP] Kirby Puckett's home run [in the 1991 Series]."
Anson adds, "Marichal's 16-inning game? [A victory over Warren Spahn. -- GP] And how 'bout Ruth's 'called shot' (if anyone could prove it)? I guess All-Star Games don't count, or Carl Hubbell has to be in there somewhere."
Gawrsh....
"I understand the negative feelings toward a new franchise buying a playoff berth, and I'm sure I would share them more should such an upstart beat out the Cubs. But of course it goes back to free agency, and despite all I've read on your site regarding this issue, I have to say I still am in favor of it. I hate the way teams' personnel changes so rapidly these days, and I hate the way a few teams can afford a disproportionate share of the top-flight free agents each year, but I hated the injustice of the reserve clause more. I think revenue sharing is the answer, but it won't happen to a significant degree with the current bunch of owners. I like the fact that the players are getting a significant share of the revenue that their skills produce, and I think the game is resilient enough to survive -- albeit in a modified form, which of course antagonizes traditionalists.
"But Carlos' comments about the similarity between one's children and one's favorite team were perceptive. We do love them in spite of all the ways they drive us crazy. And we have to take some satisfaction from the margin of success they have, because most of them won't go all the way, even over a decade. Or, in the case of some teams, several decades."
A couple comments on all that: The last set of September notes, not the one about the 'Stick -- was a hard one because it was so negative, and of course it had to sound pretty pouty. Mainly, though, I was just reacting to the Giants eating the big one, and mostly taking it out on a couple of oafs who attempted to dominate the newsgroup. Not real mature of me... but it passed pretty quickly. I hope.
I understand Brad's take on free agency. Thing for me, though, is that I was still pretty much a kid when the reserve clause was torn asunder, so there was a certain continuity, at least with the Giants (till about 1972) that I really liked. On the other hand, I liked the way the A's personnel changed all the time.
Also, one argument in favor of free agency is that, well, at least the Yankees haven't dominated, like they did for basically 45 years. And that's true. But still, the rich get richer, and the poor -- well, other owners are talking about dumping the poor. A guy like Jerry McMorris, owner of a club still in its early days, states that, say, the Twins and Royals should be deep-sixed. Teams without rich traditions, necessarily, but certainly richer than his team -- and they should just be dropped. You know?
I can understand the viewpoint that the reserve clause pretty much was responsible for what was wrong with baseball several years ago, and maybe free agency is a better alternative -- but the way it's been handled, I think, is what's hurting baseball now.
Meanwhile, Grant, really one of the Giants newsgroup's funniest and more interesting contributors, but one who hasn't been around much lately, says, "I was reading EEEEEE! today at work, and I saw a link to an article by Woody. I was surprised I hadn't seen it, and I clicked on it right away."
He's talking about "Rookie Sleeves," about Woody's at the Giants' Fantasy Camp last February.
Grant continues, saying he wants "to let you in on the shock of what I saw. In letters three stories high if they were an inch, read, 'Grant's minimalist attire of jock, sock, and shower shoes reflected his apparent urgency to speak his piece.'
"'Wow,' I thought. 'I don't remember this one bit.'
"For a split second, I thought my contribution to the newsgroup extended beyond my initial 'You are wrong' response [to earlier professional troll Noah]. I might be exaggerating, but that might be the most popular catchphrase of the 20th century.
"Wait, where was I? Ah, jocks and shower shoes. So, ending a short story that turned out long, Woody was writing about Mark Grant. Oh."
Yes, but you enjoyed the story, didn't you? Still, it lends a new perspective to the "It is! Wanna buy a toothbrush?" joke.
"I just wanted to let you know that you succeeded in confusing the hell out of (at least) one person today, if even for a few seconds."
The way I see it, if I can manage to confuse just one person a week, I'm doing my bit. I could run for office.
And finally, Gordon says, "Having read how EEEEEE! came about, I just wanted to sympathize with you. I live in Scotland, and have supported the Giants for a few years now. The reason that this came about is stupid, but here goes: I had just got into baseball, and needed a team to support, and I just happened to get a free Giants cap from a cereal packet. So I chose to support them."
Any reason is a perfectly fine one -- the Giants being The Only Correct Team To Support, and all....
I also get very pissed off, because trying to get baseball on TV in the UK is murder. It's only on one night a week, at 3 a.m., and it's almost always the f**king Yankees game! EEEEEE! And the news in the UK means that it is very difficult to find out the Giants' scores."
So I hear. A couple of the newsgroup regulars are UK natives. I guess they listen to a lot of RealAudio broadcasts, which makes them true fans, considering how late they have to stay up.
I really don't know much about sports in the UK in terms of how much media saturation there is, but here, there's serious TV overexposure of recent champions (plus Los Angeles and New York teams, champions or not). It's been like that as long as I can remember. When I was a kid, it seemed as though NBC's Game of the Week every Saturday was the Reds vs. the Dodgers.
But I just wanted to say that those living overseas, finding a paucity of Giants news in print, usually can get a pretty good feel for what's up with the Giants via the Giants newsgroup, but ESPN.com seems to keep abreast of each team. You can always get scores from them as well. And let's not forget the Giants' official site. I'm sure there are dozens of other good sources.
Copyright ©1999 by Gregg Pearlman
Last updated 10/31/99 Gregg Pearlman, gregg@EEEEEEgp.com