Reese Kaplan -- Do Your Misdeeds Disappear With Your Death?

For once let’s not focus on the standings, the individual statistics, the contract clauses nor the size of the crowds attending games in home stadiums.  No, today instead we will become a bit more introspective and philosophical about the game itself and a recent ruling that brings the issue to the forefront.

While everyone is well aware of the 1919 Black Sox scandal during which players were allegedly throwing their games instead of trying hard to win in order to get a cut of a predetermined gambling take. The White Sox players were for the most part revealed to be guilty as charged and some even admitted what they did when the proof was undeniable.

The MLB commissioner’s office was swift and harsh in its censure of the involved players.  They would be banned for life from baseball and suspended from future award honors such as enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.  This particular aspect hit Shoeless Joe Jackson particularly hard as his career was very much on a Cooperstown type of track.  We can’t say for sure since the Hall itself didn’t open for another 20 years, but look at his numbers.  Jackson hit .356 not for a single season but for his entire career which ended at age 32 due to the MLB ruling.  He four times eclipsed the 200 hit mark in what at the time were 154 game seasons. 

During the World Series and the brouhaha that evolved Jackson wasn’t exactly looking as if he was a participant in the scandalous actions.  Jackson was promised $20,000 for taking part in giving the World Series victory to the Cincinnati Reds.  He only received $5,000 which he never returned, but it’s been reported that the less-than-brilliant ballplayer didn’t understand what he was supposed to do as he hit .375 for the Series which is 19 points higher than his career average. 

Many years later Pete Rose was a formidable ballplayer who took the field in several different positions and played with an intensity that few could even hope to rival.  He beat Ty Cobb’s all-time record for the number of hits obtained during his career, made the All Star team 17 times, an MVP, a Rookie of the Year, a Silver Slugger, 2 Gold Gloves, 198 career stolen bases and 3 batting titles.  No one can deny the level of professional he was on the field.

Then, of course, came his managerial career during which it was revealed that the man in charge of the lineups and the decision making in game situations was actually gambling out the outcome of his Reds ballgames over which he most definitely had a major influence on their outcome.  At first he was a player/manager and then exclusively a manager when he retired from playing the game.  During one of those years, 1987, Rose placed baseball bets 52 times.  In a book written years later in 2004 Rose admitted what he did.  Consequently his lifetime ban from baseball which also precluded his Hall of Fame honor made sense.

Now commissioner Rob Manfred has decided that a lifetime ban ends when one’s life ends.  Consequently both Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose and a list of others involved in the Black Sox Scandal are now no longer subject to a ban from baseball.  This change means that both Jackson and Rose are now eligible via the formerly called Veteran’s Committee ballot to make their way into Cooperstown.

So how do you feel about this change?  Yes, the word lifetime does suggest the duration is for a person’s life.  Yet at the same time the removal of the ban doesn’t eliminate the actions taken by the person judged for what he had done.  You can make the case that both of these primary players should be evaluated solely for what they did while playing the game.  Or you could take the position that the punishment is meaningless if it’s only temporary.  If you had a ballplayer during his playing career committed murder and received a ban, would we similarly sweep it under the rug once he himself passed away?  Or is the punishment during the lifetime sufficient?