Remembering Fernando Valenzuela and the Summer of 1981 When "Fernandomania" Swept the Baseball World

Fernando Valenzuela, who was just 63 years old when he passed away yesterday, is one of the most memorable athletes from my childhood. He had a distinctive pitching motion in which, as Ed Guzman put it in his L.A. Times obituary for Valenzuela, he "would look skyward almost as if he sought guidance from a higher power."

In the pre-internet, pre-social media era, Valenzuela became about as big of a phenomenon as any athlete in the world, appearing on the covers not only of sports magazines but also of general interest magazines. "Fernandomania" was the buzzword describing Valenzuela's emergence as not just a sports star but a cultural touchstone. In 1981, Valenzuela became the first--and still the only--player to win the National League Rookie of the Year award and the National League Cy Young award in the same season. That was a magical summer during which he was an immediate sensation, giving up just four runs in his first eight starts with seven complete games, five shutouts, 68 strikeouts and a 0.50 ERA in 72 innings (Valenzuela pitched briefly during the 1980 season, but according to MLB rules he was classified as a rookie in 1981). Valenzuela finished that strike-shortened campaign with a 13-7 record while leading MLB in strikeouts (180) and shutouts (eight) and pacing the NL in games started (25), complete games (11), and innings pitched (192.1). He earned an All-Star selection and a Silver Slugger award.

In the 1981 playoffs, Valenzuela went 3-0, including a complete game victory in game three of the 1981 World Series after his L.A. Dodgers lost the first two games to the New York Yankees. The Dodgers won the next three games to capture their first World Series title since 1965.

Valenzuela's former teammate Dusty Baker told MLB.com in 2021, "He could do everything on a baseball field but run. He could hit, he could bunt, field his position. He knew how to play the game. He was a breath of fresh air as a youngster with a man's knowledge on how to play the game."

I grew up as a Cincinnati Reds fan, so I did not root for Fernando Valenzuela--who spent most of his career with the Dodgers, the Reds' chief division rival during my childhood--but I was captivated by him and I closely followed his career. The Reds won the National League West title in 1972-73, 1975-76, and 1979, while the Dodgers won the National League West title in 1974, 1977-78, and 1981--so in the first 11 years of my childhood, only two other teams won the NL West (San Francisco Giants in 1971, Houston Astros in 1980). The Reds reached the World Series four times (1970, 1972, 1975-76) during that time span, and won the World Series twice (1975-76), while the Dodgers reached the World Series four times (1974, 1977-78, 1981) and won the 1981 World Series.

After that special 1981 season, Valenzuela never quite reached that same status again, but he made the NL All-Star team each of the next five seasons while finishing second in Cy Young voting in 1986, third in 1982, and fifth in 1985. He earned another Silver Slugger award in 1983, and he led the NL with 21 wins in 1986 while also pacing MLB with 20 complete games that season. Valenzuela won a Gold Glove in 1986. Although his physique was not svelte, he was durable, amassing a streak of 255 consecutive starts before being sidelined in 1988 due to a shoulder injury. That injury forced him to miss the 1988 playoffs when the Dodgers captured another World Series title.

The Dodgers released Valenzuela after he went 13-13 in 1990, and he posted a 32-37 record with five other MLB teams before retiring after the 1997 season. For his career, Valenzuela finished with a record of 173-153, a 3.54 ERA, 2,930 innings pitched, and 2,074 strikeouts. He threw 113 complete games, including 31 shutouts.

Valenzuela was a fan favorite throughout the baseball world, but particularly so for Mexican fans and Mexican-American fans who idolized him in way similar to the way that Jewish fans admired Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax.

This has been a sad few months for baseball fans with the deaths of Fernando Valenzuela, Pete Rose, and Willie Mays, three distinctive stars who helped their teams win while playing with great flair.

Journey to the National Master Title, Part 11

On July 18, 2024, my daughter Rachel and I played in the Cincinnati Chess Club's G/24 Swiss. This event only affected our USCF Quick ratings, and was a good warm up for the 4th Annual Joe Yun Memorial Tournament. I scored 2/4 and finished out of the money. Rachel lost all four of her games, but she enjoys playing chess regardless of the result, and she played casual games between rounds (in addition to checking on me and providing moral support during my games).

Rachel and I played in the 4th Annual Joe Yun Memorial Tournament, held from July 19-21, 2024. One of the weekend's highlights was introducing Rachel to International Master Calvin Blocker, who has won a record 15 Ohio Chess Championships. I first met Blocker at the 1989 Ohio Chess Congress. Blocker won the Ohio Chess Championship that year, and he was featured on the cover of the November-December 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin:

 Cover photo of November-December 1989 Ohio Chess Bulletin

The magazine's photo caption is not hyperbole. I and the other spectators were in awe of Blocker's chess prowess. Rachel and I spoke to Blocker briefly right after we arrived at the tournament site, and we spent some quality time together prior to the second round:

Calvin Blocker and Rachel after the second round of the 2024 Joe Yun Memorial

Rachel and I played the two day schedule with a first round bye, so we each played two games on July 20, which was International Chess Day. My first game (second round) was a back and forth struggle versus Aaryn Rudrapati, the talented young player who beat me in the first round of the May 4, 2024 Columbus Plus Score tournament. After he blundered with 47...Kh7, I played 48.Re8:

Most tournament chess players know the value of placing a Rook on the seventh rank, but it should be noted that placing a Rook on the eighth rank can be powerful as well. Here, my opponent could have played 47...Kf8 to keep my Rook out, but once my Rook entered I had a winning attack. 

I won both of my International Chess Day games, while Rachel lost both of her games. I drew my third game (fourth round), and Rachel lost her third game. Rachel received a final round bye, while I needed a win in the final round to clinch a prize. Rachel enjoyed playing chess in the skittles room while I contested one of the last games to finish. When the dust cleared, I won, and I tied for first-third in the U2000 section. I gained 23 rating points to push my rating back up to 2004.

Unfortunately, I squandered the hard-earned gains from the Joe Yun Memorial Tournament by scoring just 2.5/4 in the August 3, 2024 Columbus Plus Score tournament. I lost 29 rating points to plummet to 1975; that is the most points I lost in one tournament since I lost 32 points in the January 2024 Cardinal Open. This is the sixth time I have played in a Columbus Plus Score event, and the third time that I have finished with 2.5 (I had 3 twice, and 2 once, which was the only time that I did not achieve a plus score). In round one, I lost to a player rated 1521, and in round three I drew with a different player rated 1521.

My rating slid down another 17 points to 1958 after I scored 3/5 in the U2100 section of the August 24-25, 2024 Indianapolis Open. This was a very frustrating tournament, because after winning my first game I obtained an equal position with Black on move four in the second round before playing sloppily and succumbing to a strong attack; then, in round three I obtained a decisive advantage by move eight only to let my opponent back in the game and then overlook a game-changing tactic. I recovered from those self-inflicted setbacks to win the last two games, but that only partially mitigated the damage to my rating. One bright spot is that after round three on Saturday August 24, I scored 6/8 in the Indianapolis Open Blitz to finish tied for first-seventh.

I scored 2.5/5 in the Open Section of the August 31-September 1, 2024 Ohio Chess Congress, losing five rating points to slip to 1953. I scored a draw and two losses versus higher rated players, and I won both games versus lower rated players. After round three on Saturday August 31, I scored 4/7 in the Ohio Chess Congress Blitz to finish tied for third-sixth.

On September 7, 2024, I scored 2.5/3 in the top section of the Columbus G/60 Swiss, tying for first-second, and gaining 25 rating points to lift my rating back to 1978. I scored 3/3 in the September 14, 2024 Columbus G/75 Swiss, earning clear first place, and gaining 23 rating points to push my to 2001, the third time this year that I broke the 2000 barrier after falling below that level. The next task is to not only maintain a 2000-plus rating--which I did in each USCF rating supplement issued from December 2009-May 2017--but to advance past the 2100 level and then eclipse 2200 for the first time. I am proud that I have had a 2000 rating at some point in every calendar year from 1995-2024, an accomplishment that I suspect is uncommon for a player who does not have a 2000 rating floor and has never been rated over 2200. While I tend to be very goal-oriented and forward-thinking, it is important to also acknowledge what I have already achieved in chess.

In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 7, I recapped the 2023 Ohio Senior Open and described why this is such a special event for me. The 2024 Ohio Senior Open again featured a contest for the most interesting or unusual chess set, with the winners determined by anonymous polling of the tournament's participants.

  

Joe Bello's 1923 Margate replica set won in the Staunton set category

 Joe Bello's Sherlock Holmes set won in the Figurine set category

Richard Hayes' Chaturanga set won in the Other set category

After gaining 48 points with two first place finishes in my two previous tournaments to increase my rating to 2001, I looked forward to posting a strong Ohio Senior Open performance--but I lost in the first round to 1700 rated Dave Rutherford, the same kind of setback that I suffered in my very first game after my excellent result in the Joe Yun Memorial Tournament lifted my rating above 2000. In my previous five rated games versus Rutherford I scored four wins and one draw; this loss is also the first time this year that I lost to a player rated below 1800 who is not a kid. During most of this game the position was equal, but I could play for practical winning chances without risk. Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time trying to find a win that was not there, and by the critical point in the game I barely had two minutes remaining while my opponent had nearly 20 minutes remaining (G/75 time control with 10 second delay). My winning attempt failed, and I ended up with a pawn down position that is drawn with best play:

Unfortunately, I erred by playing 69. Kxa4?? instead of 69. Bc2, which holds the balance. Here is one possible line: Bxg6 70. Bxa4 Ke5 71. Kb4 Kd4 72. Bd1 Be4 73. Bg4 g5 74. Bh3 Kd3 75. Bg4 Bd5 76. Bf5+ Ke3 77. Kc3 Be4 78. Be6 Kf4 79. Kd2 Bf5 80. Bc4 g4 81.Ke1 Kg3 82. Be2=

However, my opponent gave me one more opportunity to hold the draw by not pushing his pawn quickly enough, and a few moves later we reached this position when I barely had one minute remaining:

Trading Bs obviously leads to a lost K+P ending, but I had to decide quickly where to put my B. I played Bf1?? to cover one of the squares in the P's path, but the correct method is to place my B behind the P on a longer diagonal: 76. Bb5 Ke3 77. Be8 Be6 78. Bh5 Kf4 79. Kd2 Bg4 80. Bf7 Kf3 81. Ke1 Bh3 82. Be8. The P cannot advance without giving me an opportunity to seize the long diagonal and sacrifice my B. Instead, after the game continuation my opponent played 76...Ke3. With my K shut out, it only took him a few more moves to use his K and B to force me to give up control of the key diagonal. I have thought a lot about this loss, and I believe that two factors proved to be critical. The first factor is that I did not know the two diagram positions "by hand." I had studied similar positions and I know enough to figure them out step by step given sufficient time, but I am not familiar enough with them to play them fluidly in contrast to, for example, a position of K+Q versus K, from which I could produce a checkmate very quickly. The second factor is that by getting into such severe time pressure I left myself vulnerable to not having enough time left to accurately calculate variations in positions that I don't know "by hand." More practice could increase the number of positions that I know "by hand," but it is also important to give myself a sufficient margin for error by not getting so low on time, particularly in a game that did not feature many critical decisions (until the end, of course!).

I bounced back to win my next three games, and then I obtained a winning position by move 14 in the fifth round versus 2029 rated Mike Sheaf before squandering my advantage and then blundering into a loss. Jordan Henderson secured first place with 4.5/5 after Mike Joelson--who started out 4/4--walked into a helpmate in their last round game. I was the fifth seeded player out of 20 participants, and I finished tied for fifth-seventh place (fifth on tiebreaks). Sheaf, a co-champion last year, finished tied with Joelson for second-third, with Joelson receiving second place honors on tiebreaks. This is the first time that I lost two games in one Ohio Senior Open, and the first time in three appearances that I did not win a trophy (I tied for the best score in the age 50-59 category, but this year the tiebreak procedure resulted in that trophy going to the oldest of the tied players--even though the player who received the trophy played in a separate U1800 side event against lower rated opposition than I faced in the Open section). My 3/5 score added up to 23 lost rating points, pushing my rating back down to 1978.

This result is very disappointing for me, but while ruminating about that disappointment I recalled an article that I wrote 11 years ago. In Only Thoughts and Actions Can be Controlled, Not Outcomes, I discussed how I processed the aftermath of a chess game during which I blundered but still won because my opponent blundered:

In a recent chess tournament, I won a game because my opponent responded to my blunder ...Nxe5 with the blunder Nxf7 instead of playing Nb5, which would have given him a winning position. Winning chess games used to make me feel very happy, while losing chess games used to make me feel very upset but those reactions are too extreme. A better, more balanced path is to prepare properly before the event, concentrate fully during the event, enjoy the entire process and not overreact to the result. All that a person can control is his own actions; outcomes and results are influenced by factors that a person cannot control: the results of other games affect who I get paired against--which means that I could face someone whose style is a good matchup or someone whose style is a difficult matchup--and my opponent's training, discipline and outlook affect the quality of his moves, so unless I play perfect moves 100% of the time I cannot control the outcome of the game. Of course, the better that I play the more influence I can exert over that outcome and that is one of the most seductive qualities of chess: the illusion that with only a little more knowledge and discipline a person can completely control his destiny (echoes of that illusion can be heard in the famous concluding words of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby). The difference between winning a game and losing a game and the difference between winning a tournament and finishing in the middle of the pack is sometimes just one move, one flickering of a neuron in someone's mind.

If I had been more well-rested and/or if I had studied more before the tournament then perhaps I would have played a different move but I have many interests and I enjoy the time/energy that I devote to those interests; I am not making excuses about that blunder or any other chess blunder, just stating the truth. At that moment under those conditions, ...Nxe5 was the best move I could find; I did not play impatiently and I thought that I had considered all of the relevant tactics. A minute or two after I played ...Nxe5, I saw the Nb5 idea; while I waited to see which move my opponent would play, I pondered the folly of basing one's emotional state on what happened next: I knew that the outcome of the game would likely be determined by his move and that if I was not careful then I could permit that outcome to affect my mood for the next several days. I vowed that, whatever happened, I would not overreact. I tried my best and ...Nxe5 is the move that I played, so there is nothing to be elated about and nothing to be upset about; winning the game after my opponent blundered did not "prove" anything about me (or about my opponent).

My opponent also did not rush and I assume that he did the best that he could under his individual circumstances. I have deliberately not given the complete move list or provided a diagram of the game position, because this particular game and these particular moves are just vibrations of a much larger cosmic string. If my opponent or I had vibrated the string a bit differently then we would have played a different melody but--regardless of the melody we created--there is nothing to cry about here. I should celebrate that I have been playing tournament chess for more than 25 years and that I am capable of playing chess at a higher level than 97% of all rated players; my young opponent should celebrate that he is already a strong player and that if he stays on his current path then he likely will become a chess master. No, it is even simpler than that: regardless of years spent or rating points obtained, the enjoyment of playing the game in the moment is the height of ecstasy; the game result is logically determined by the combined mental and psychological states of both players and there is no reason to become emotional about that logically determined outcome: if you have a succession of outcomes that you deem to be unsatisfactory then it is necessary to adjust your life pattern (sleep habits, study habits, etc.) to maximize the chance that you will enjoy better outcomes in the future.

Easy to say, hard to do but very necessary. My opponent looked distraught when he realized that he had blundered and I understand that feeling all too well. Chess is a very violent game; it may not be possible to completely eradicate the suffering one feels after a loss but I think that determined, focused concentration can result in a modified perspective.

More than a decade later, it is still difficult but necessary to embrace that modified perspective. As I noted when I began this series of articles, there are no guarantees on the Journey to the National Master Title, but I will not give up trying to achieve my goal and I will not give up chronicling my journey. I have a full slate of tournaments for the fourth quarter of 2024, so check back in January 2025 when I review my progress in the next installment in this series (Spoiler alert: I did not do well in my first two October 2024 tournaments, but I will persevere and expect to have good news to report at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024).

In Journey to the National Master Title, Part 8, I listed four chess goals for 2024. Here are those goals, with notes about my progress toward each one through the first nine months of the year:

1) Gain 60 rating points per quarter. I gained three rating points in the first quarter of 2024, improving my rating from 1968 to 1971; I gained 10 rating points in the second quarter of 2024, improving my rating from 1971 to 1981; I lost three rating points in the third quarter of 2024, dropping my rating from 1981 to 1978.

2) Do not lose any games to players rated below 1800. I lost two games to players rated below 1800 in the first quarter of 2024, I lost two games to players rated below 1800 in the second quarter of 2024, and I lost three games to players rated below 1800 in the third quarter of 2024.

3) Accumulate more draws than losses. I had 15 draws and eight losses in the first quarter of 2024; I had seven draws and nine losses in the second quarter of 2024; I had four draws and seven losses in the third quarter of 2024.

4) Maintain a winning percentage of at least .750, to break my personal record of .740 set in 2014. My winning percentage through the first three quarters of 2024 is .694.

In 2024, I have scored 71 wins, 26 draws, and 24 losses in regular rated tournament games with 10 first place finishes in 30 events. I have lost seven games to players rated below 1800. My net rating gain for 2024 is seven so I need to gain 222 points to reach my goal.

Remembering Pete Rose, "The Hit King"

"I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball"--Pete Rose

The best, worst, and most accurate thing that you can say about Pete Rose is that he did it his way. Peter Edward Rose--also known as "Charlie Hustle" and "The Hit King," but forever known as "Pete" to his adoring fans--passed away on Monday at the age of 83. During a 24 year career spent mainly with the Cincinnati Reds and also including time with the Philadelphia Phillies (1979-83) and Montreal Expos (1984), Rose set many MLB records, but none are more impressive or meaningful than the career hits record; Rose bashed 4256 hits, eclipsing a Ty Cobb mark that stood for over 50 years. A player averaging 200 hits per season for 20 years would not match what Rose accomplished, so it is fair to suggest that Rose--who has been "The Hit King" since 1985--will remain number one for a long time.

Other MLB records held by Rose include being the only player to play at least 500 games at five different positions (first baseman, second baseman, third baseman, right fielder, and left fielder), most seasons with 150 or more games played (17), most seasons with 100 or more games played (23), most career runs by a switch hitter (2165), most career doubles by a switch hitter (746), most consecutive seasons with at least 100 hits (23), and most seasons with at least 200 hits (10, a mark shared with Ichiro Suzuki). A popular catchphrase declares "Chicks dig the long ball," but Rose did it his way without being a home run slugger, and he achieved his goal of becoming the first $100,000 singles hitter at a time when making $100,000 a year as a baseball player was a rare feat.

Rose participated in 1972 MLB games that his team won, a record that is unlikely to ever be approached. Rose was fond of pointing out that he won more games than the total number of games played by the legendary Joe Dimaggio (1736)!

Rose holds the NL marks for most years played (24), most career runs (2165), most career doubles (746), and most career games with at least five hits (10). The Cincinnati Reds Record Book could be renamed "The Pete Rose Story," as Rose is the franchise's career leader in games (2722), plate appearances (12,344), runs (1741), hits (3358), singles (2490), doubles (601), and walks (1210). Reds' principal owner and managing partner Bob Castellini said, "Our hearts are deeply saddened by the news of Pete's passing. He was one of the fiercest competitors the game has ever seen, and every team he played for was better because of him. Pete was a Red through and through. No one loved the game more than Pete and no one loved Pete more than Reds Country. We must never forget what he accomplished."

Not only did Rose make the All-Star team 17 times, he is the only player in MLB history to be selected as an All-Star at five different positions: second baseman, left fielder, right fielder, third baseman, and first baseman. In Rose's era, the All-Star Game was not treated as an insignificant exhibition game but rather as a highly competitive battle between the National League and the American League. Perhaps no player took that spirit of competition as seriously as Rose, as exemplified by the famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) play at home plate in the 1970 MLB All-Star Game when Rose bowled over catcher Ray Fosse to score the winning run in the bottom of the 12th inning. Fosse injured his shoulder on the play and was never fully healthy again. Asked about the play years later, Rose regretted that Fosse got hurt but did not regret his action, stating that playing all out is the only way to play the game. That was the NL's eighth straight All-Star Game win and, after losing in 1971, the NL won the next 11 All-Star Games.

Rose won the 1975 World Series MVP, the 1973 NL regular season MVP, the 1963 NL Rookie of the Year award, and three NL batting titles (1968-69, 1973). He won two Gold Gloves (1969-70), and when he retired in 1986 he not only had the highest MLB career fielding percentage for a right fielder but he also had the highest NL career fielding percentage for a left fielder.

In 1978, Rose's 44 game hitting streak electrified baseball fans, and it is still the third longest such streak in MLB history. I am too young to have clear memories of the Big Red Machine's 1975-76 glory days, but I remember Rose's hitting streak being much discussed on TV and radio during the summer of 1978, and I recall the daily updates in local newspapers. 

Rose's teams went 9-5 in postseason series as he hit .321, including .370 in the 1975 World Series. Rose's teams won three World Series titles (1975-76 with his hometown Cincinnati Reds, 1980 with the Philadelphia Phillies). The 1976 Reds are the only team in MLB's two round playoff era (1969-93) to go undefeated, sweeping first the Philadelphia Phillies and then the New York Yankees. Rose was an integral member of the powerful Big Red Machine teams that reached the World Series four times (1970, 1972, 1975-76) in a seven season span.

Rose helped the Phillies win their first World Series title after they fell short in three straight NLCS losses (1976-78) prior to his 1979 arrival in Philadelphia. Hall of Fame third baseman Mike Schmidt enjoyed some of his finest moments--including winning his only World Series and capturing two of his three NL regular season MVPs (1980-81)--as Rose's Philadelphia teammate. Schmidt issued this statement after Rose's passing: "My heart goes out to his family. I was lucky that I got to play with Pete and to watch him every day. As a teammate, he boosted my confidence, he made me laugh and kept me loose. He taught me to enjoy the game, perhaps advice that I needed the most."

The negative side of Rose doing things his way involved illegal gambling, culminating in betting on baseball games while he served as the Reds' manager from 1984-89 (including a stint as MLB's last player-manager from 1984-86). Despite a mountain of evidence stacked against him, Rose adamantly denied betting on baseball until he admitted the truth in 2004. Nevertheless, he accepted a lifetime ban from MLB in 1989 with an option to seek reinstatement. It must be emphasized that the lifetime ban barred Rose from participating in MLB in any capacity but DID NOT prevent the writers from voting him into the Baseball Hall of Fame should they choose to do so after he became eligible; a 1991 ruling by the Baseball Hall of Fame board rendered Rose ineligible to be elected, taking the decision out of the hands of the baseball writers. In 2008, the Baseball Hall of Fame's Veterans Committee passed a similar rule. Both rules primarily--if not exclusively--target Rose. I analyzed this topic at length in 2015, and I concluded that it is wrong to keep Rose off of the Hall of Fame ballot:

I understand the argument that Rose's character flaws should keep him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. I have made it clear that MLB's PED cheaters should not be inducted in the Hall of Fame because they have defiled MLB's record book. What Rose did is terrible and the way that he denied his conduct for years before begrudgingly making some admissions says a lot about Rose's character but the difference between Rose and the PED cheaters is that there is no evidence that Rose's gambling impacted the quality of his play or defiled the sport's record book. Rose should be placed on the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and if he is voted in then his plaque should not only list his pertinent accomplishments but also state that in 1989 he was placed on the permanently ineligible list because he bet on baseball. Unless or until there is evidence that Rose's playing career/statistics are tainted by his gambling Rose deserves at least the opportunity to be selected as a Baseball Hall of Famer. The lifetime ban from the sport shields MLB from any damage that Rose's compulsive gambling could cause now and punishes him in a way that will hopefully deter others from making the mistakes that he did.

The argument in favor of Rose's Hall of Fame candidacy is bolstered by the fact that MLB--like most other major sports leagues--has now fully embraced and profited from sponsorship deals directly connected with promoting gambling, in marked contrast to the decades-long notion that any affiliation with wagering would taint sports. That cultural shift does not justify Rose's conduct--he broke the rule in place at that time, and that rule is still in place now--but it is hypocritical for MLB to profit from promoting gambling while taking such an unforgiving stance toward the "Hit King," and I reiterate my position that Rose should be made eligible for Hall of Fame induction.

Despite MLB's lifetime ban, Rose was selected to MLB's All-Century Team in 1999. During the on field ceremony, reporter Jim Gray--acting as if he were a candidate for a prize in investigative reporting--grilled Rose on national TV about the gambling scandal. Rose, like most of the audience, was surprised that Gray pursued that line of questioning at that moment. There is a proper time and place for everything, and that was neither the proper time or place. Rose deserved to celebrate that moment without being interrogated and humiliated.

Earlier in 1999, The Sporting News ranked Rose as the 25th greatest baseball player of all-time. His place in baseball history is secure, with or without his deserved Hall of Fame induction. Pete Rose was a flawed human--as we all are--but he set a great example on the field by playing hard and playing to win. I vividly remember the second half of his playing career, and it was a joy to watch him play. For a kid in the 1960s-1980s, it was a delight to pull a Pete Rose baseball card from a pack or to find a Pete Rose baseball card in a hobby shop. Here are three of my Pete Rose baseball cards:

The first baseball cards that I remember getting were the Kellogg's 3-D Super Stars cards. I still have both Pete Rose cards from that series that I got as a kid:

 

The captions to those cards are poignant in retrospect. 

The first card's caption declares, "The NL leader in hits, runs, and doubles last year, Pete's 11th .300 season and his eighth with 200 hits enabled the Cincy superstar to continue his ascent to Cooperstown fame."

The second card's caption describes Rose's quest to break Cobb's all-time hits record and asserts, "No one, of course, is betting against 'Charlie Hustle.'"

I met Pete Rose at the 2004 National Sports Collectors Convention, which I attended with a press credential so that I could interview basketball legends (including Dolph Schayes). What does one say as an adult upon meeting a childhood sports hero who did so much for baseball but also has been exiled from baseball for breaking the sport's cardinal rule? I walked up to Rose, shook his hand, and thanked him for all of the joy I felt watching him play. He looked me in the eye, and said, "You're welcome." Unlike Jim Gray, I did not feel the need to corner Rose and demand that he answer for his past lapses. Rose gave so much to the sport of baseball and its fans, and he suffered the pain of baseball exile until his last day on Earth.

Rest in peace, Pete--and thanks for the joyful childhood memories!