admin
Major League Baseball’s recent decision to remove Pete Rose and 16 other deceased individuals from the permanently ineligible list sparked debate on whether political influences like the “Trump effect” played a role. Commissioner Rob Manfred clarified the move stemmed from practical considerations, stating deceased individuals “cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game” and lifetime bans lose deterrent value after death. This allowed the Cincinnati Reds to proceed with honoring Rose, whose 4,256 career hits remain unmatched.
Fox News’ Gutfeld! panel explored whether external pressures influenced MLB’s timing, with some suggesting cultural shifts under conservative leadership might have accelerated Rose’s posthumous reinstatement. However, Manfred’s letter emphasized baseball’s internal logic rather than external political forces, noting penalties shouldn’t outlive recipients. The Reds’ ownership celebrated the decision as overdue recognition for Rose’s on-field legacy.
While some commentators draw parallels between this decision and broader cultural battles over legacy and accountability, MLB’s rationale aligns with historical precedent. Former Commissioner Bud Selig endorsed Manfred’s approach, acknowledging the late Bart Giamatti – who originally banned Rose – would’ve recognized the distinction between punishing living violators and memorializing deceased ones. The league maintains its stance against gambling violations but views posthumous eligibility through a pragmatic lens.
