I’ve never been a big fan of Bill James, but I’ve learned a fair amount from him over the years, and I always recognized his intelligence. Which is why it blew my mind whenever he made one of his impassioned public defenses of Pete Rose.
I mean, NOBODY except Bill James EVER really believed Pete Rose was innocent! Even his most passionate fans in Cincinnati couldn’t maintain that position for more than 3 seconds. That’s why they always contradicted themselves or changed the subject in mid-sentence “There is NO proof that Pete Rose ever bet on baseball, and besides, he only bet FOR the Reds!” Or “Pete NEVER bet on baseball, and anyway, being a gambler isn’t as bad as being a racist like Ty Cobb.”
So anyway, now that even Pete admits he’s gambler and a lying sack of shit, I just wondered… has Bill James ever publicly acknowledged what an idiot he was or offered any kind of apology to John Dowd or the Commissioner?
Your question is based on a ridiculous mischaracterization of Bill James’s position on Pete Rose. What Bill James said was (1) he did not know whether Pete Rose bet on baseball or not, and (2) that the evidence on which MLB determined that Rose had bet on baseball was flimsy.
The fact that Rose later admitted that he bet on baseball has no bearing on either one of these points.
Not as far as I know. But that was so grossly (and as you say, passionately) argued, that I haven’t subscribed to his newsletter, where he might have elaborated on Rose over the years. It’s the single subjet I find James totally wrong on, and abandoning all common sense. He got on Dowd’s case because he was a zealous prosecutor, and lost sight of the big picture.
James did a LOT more than question the strength of Dowd’s evidence. He slandered Dowd, Giamatti, Vincet and Selig, repeatedly questioning their integrity and suggesting the Powers That Be were out to get Rose.
That calls for an “Oops, my bad” at the very least.
That’s why I’m wondering if James ever gave anything resembling an apology.
Y’know, I got curious today–after explaining why I hadn’t subscribed to his newsletter, I thought my reasons sounded petty so I subscribed. 36 bucks per year. Looks pretty interesting. Maybe I’ll find an update about Rose, and if not, I can write in to the “Hey, Bill” section which seems to be answered pretty fully.
I’ll have to ask for a cite, sorry. He did rip Dowd, and he has repeatedly made several errors in his examination of the evidence that suggested a stubborn refusal to admit truth, but you sound like you’re partially conflating his comments with those of others. I don’t ever remember him saying anything about Giamatti that even approached slander.
I’m more interested in hearing Baseball Prospectus explain their “Pete Rose: He’s back in baseball in 2004!” story, which they incredibly have never retracted or explained.
Will Carroll’s position is there was an agreement between baseball and Rose that baseball retracted after Rose’s admission got such a bad reception. Trying to find you a better source, but it was asked about towards the end of this interview The Stat Pack: Special Interview with Will Carroll
I’ve seen this interview. A direct quote from Will Caroll, answering the question “It’s been 4 years since you and Derek Zumsteg wrote the “Pete Rose Article”. Do you still stand behind it till this day as being correct?”
Uhhh…
… His backup is the most notorious liar in baseball? Say what? Carroll has also been quoted as saying that they had an anonymous source for the story who they won’t reveal, and he’s been quoted a few times as supporting the story by saying “Pete Rose says so.” Colour me quite unimpressed.
I sent Will an e-mail about this a little while back and politely asked this same question, and got this same answer. I then asked why, if there was a signed deal, baseball wasn’t forced to readmit Rose. He didn’t answer.
James in books appearing in 1990 and 2002 criticizes the truthful of betting slips showing Atlanta played Philadelphia on a certain date (April 8th) when the Braves and Phillies had not met on such a date in interest. James did not consider the fact the NBA Hawks and 76ers played on a date and the betting slip is not a forgery but mixes baseball and basketball bets
James criticizes two of Rose’s accusers, Peters and Janszen, of looking to save themselves jail time by blaming everything on Rose. The two were not friends and admitted to crimes which increase jail time for them
James does not fill the level of proof is good enough to convict in a criminal court. Possibly but standards are lower in a private business and many people such as attorney Floyd Abrams thought the decision was consistent with legal practiceso
Well, the good news is I got a direct answer, almost immediately, from Bill James on his pay-to-view website.
The bad news is that he says he has nothing to add about Rose beyond what he’s said before. (More precisely: “I don’t have anything I wanted to say about Pete Rose.”) Sounds to me like a fellow who’s decided, after having stuck his foot in his mouth several times, that he doesn’t care for the taste of his own feet all that much.
I also found an odd bit of info on James’ web-site answering a question **Gonzomax ** raised in the Right-Fielder’s HoF thread, so maybe I’ll put it there…