PDA

View Full Version : OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?


edjs
08-31-2015, 05:16 PM
It is being reported that there will be a decision tomorrow on whether or not Rob Manfred will reinstate Joe Jackson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/08/31/mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-could-reinstate-shoeless-joe-jackson-on-tuesday/

What do you guys think, will he be reinstated or not? Though I think he should be, I am guessing that it is not going to happen. I hope I'm wrong.

correction- title should have read "reinstatement", not HOF

vthobby
08-31-2015, 06:05 PM
Thumbs :) Up! Reinstatement will be a "Yes"!

Say it is so Joe!

Peace, Mike

ullmandds
08-31-2015, 06:09 PM
maybe the price of JJ cards will decrease if he is reinstated?????

edjs
08-31-2015, 06:10 PM
maybe the price of JJ cards will decrease if he is reinstated?????

LOL, maybe I can afford one then.

Joshchisox08
08-31-2015, 06:39 PM
It is being reported that there will be a decision tomorrow on whether or not Rob Manfred will reinstate Joe Jackson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/08/31/mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-could-reinstate-shoeless-joe-jackson-on-tuesday/

What do you guys think, will he be reinstated or not? Though I think he should be, I am guessing that it is not going to happen. I hope I'm wrong.

correction- title should have read "reinstatement", not HOF

I'd like to think so but then again there should be stipulations.

#1 this isn't happening just to get Rose to be reinstated.
#2 the other 7 men will be reinstated mainly Cicotte, Williams, and Weaver.

johnmh71
08-31-2015, 06:42 PM
This is an absolute joke. He needs to stay banned. If they want to reinstate someone from that group, they should reinstate Buck Weaver.

egbeachley
08-31-2015, 06:43 PM
My guess is a "No". Then they would open a can of worms and have to reinstate Rose.

grainsley
08-31-2015, 06:50 PM
Why would MLB allow the Museum to make the announcement? They like their own glory.......

yanks12025
08-31-2015, 07:12 PM
My guess is a "No". Then they would open a can of worms and have to reinstate Rose.

No it wouldn't. Joe Jackson has been banned for like 90 years, while rose has been for like 30.

Sean
08-31-2015, 07:17 PM
This is an absolute joke. He needs to stay banned. If they want to reinstate someone from that group, they should reinstate Buck Weaver.

+1

bbcard1
08-31-2015, 07:25 PM
I don't really care one way or another. I am deeply passionate about baseball but there are a lot of players who are in who shouldn't be and, arguably, a few out who should be in. I will assure you it is worse from a popularity standpoint for Jackson to be in than it is for him to be out.

glchen
08-31-2015, 07:27 PM
I would think Joe Jax's card values would go up if he were reinstated. There would be all of these HOF collectors that would then need to add a card of his to their collections if he were voted in.

egri
08-31-2015, 07:37 PM
If he is reinstated, then I predict the auction houses will be inundated with people who discovered signed photos of Joe Jackson that were stored in someone's attic or barn for the past century yet are miraculously in mint condition. And of course PSA will deem, if not all, then most authentic.

slidekellyslide
08-31-2015, 07:51 PM
It was a "lifetime" ban...Jackson's life time ended in the 1950s. Reinstate all of them. Otherwise throw Speaker and Cobb out for their role in throwing a game.

mattsey9
08-31-2015, 07:56 PM
This is an absolute joke. He needs to stay banned. If they want to reinstate someone from that group, they should reinstate Buck Weaver.

This is the correct answer.

bobbvc
08-31-2015, 08:32 PM
This is an absolute joke. He needs to stay banned. If they want to reinstate someone from that group, they should reinstate Buck Weaver.
+3

bbcard1
08-31-2015, 08:34 PM
You know, Cicotte, though a little light on wins, has pretty nice career numbers.

drmondobueno
08-31-2015, 09:37 PM
It was a "lifetime" ban...Jackson's life time ended in the 1950s. Reinstate all of them. Otherwise throw Speaker and Cobb out for their role in throwing a game.

+1

kailes2872
08-31-2015, 09:51 PM
My buddy Jim who sold me my awesome 1957 topps set is all about shoelessjoeinthehof. For his sake I hope it happens. Otherwise, if it helps Pete get in, then I am violently opposed.

familytoad
08-31-2015, 09:56 PM
I 100% agree with Grant.
There is no way this decision is going to be announced by the Museum if the decision is to reinstate Jackson. That is a MLB call all the way.

They will drum up some free PR for the museum, that's all. Should be about as effective as a 2 dollar discount coupon in the weekly Nickel Ads.

As far as whether Joe gets reinstated, I also agree that his popularity will not increase much if any if allowed in. Some of his fame comes from him being a great player but <I> not </I>being in the Hall.

It will irritate HOF Collectors (like me) who have been able to avoid collecting his astronomically priced cards since he's not in the Hall of Fame. Voting purely with my wallet, I am in no rush to have him added to my WL :p

Kenny Cole
08-31-2015, 10:28 PM
Yawn. No way it happens unless Manfred departs from 90 years of baseball and then the voters give him the nod. I don't see it at all. I think I have an equivalent chance to be elected, and that ain't ever gonna happen. Non-issue IMO. Hope I'm wrong, because that would make for fruitful discussion, but not seeing it.

RaidonCollects
09-01-2015, 03:00 AM
IMO

Jackson shouldn't be reinstated. If Mountain Landis decided on that all these years ago, and the fact that Frick, Chandler and every commissioner after him didn't reinstate them, then it is obvious that they shouldn't be voted in.

~Owen

EDIT: And..... he's still banned

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2015-09-01/mlb-decide-to-keep-shoeless-joe-jackson-banned-from-baseball-denied-reinstatement

Enfuego
09-01-2015, 05:46 AM
It is being reported that there will be a decision tomorrow on whether or not Rob Manfred will reinstate Joe Jackson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2015/08/31/mlb-commissioner-rob-manfred-could-reinstate-shoeless-joe-jackson-on-tuesday/

What do you guys think, will he be reinstated or not? Though I think he should be, I am guessing that it is not going to happen. I hope I'm wrong.

correction- title should have read "reinstatement", not HOF

If Jackson is going to be considered to be reiinstated, then Rose should as well since both were banned for practically the same reason

jerseygary
09-01-2015, 06:01 AM
I think Rose and Jackson should both stay banished but I don't think they were "banned for practically the same reason"

-Rose bet on baseball. Dealing with bookies is a no-no and every one from a kid in single A ball to a veteran like Rose knows betting on the game is instant expulsion

-Jackson took cash to throw the World Series.

Both admitted doing what they were accused of and both should stay banned.

jerseygary
09-01-2015, 06:03 AM
And does anyone find it disturbing that MLB is supporting that Fan Duel betting racket?

obcbobd
09-01-2015, 06:24 AM
This is an absolute joke. He needs to stay banned. If they want to reinstate someone from that group, they should reinstate Buck Weaver.

Agreed.

Also, if reinstated I doubt he would be elected to the HOF

slidekellyslide
09-01-2015, 06:26 AM
And does anyone find it disturbing that MLB is supporting that Fan Duel betting racket?

Interesting, I did not know that. In what way are they supporting it?

jasonc
09-01-2015, 06:35 AM
Agreed.

Also, if reinstated I doubt he would be elected to the HOF


This is what I was thinking. Are his career stats even good enough for the hall?

Enfuego
09-01-2015, 06:57 AM
I think Rose and Jackson should both stay banished but I don't think they were "banned for practically the same reason"

-Rose bet on baseball. Dealing with bookies is a no-no and every one from a kid in single A ball to a veteran like Rose knows betting on the game is instant expulsion

-Jackson took cash to throw the World Series.

Both admitted doing what they were accused of and both should stay banned.

The similiarities IMO are both were driven by cash.

Jay Wolt
09-01-2015, 07:10 AM
This is what I was thinking. Are his career stats even good enough for the hall?
What? His career average was .356 incl .408 in 1911.
If he is reinstated & doesn't make the Hall, it will be from the 1919 fix, not his career stats.

tazdmb
09-01-2015, 07:21 AM
He isn't being reinstated-

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/09/01/shoeless-joe-jackson-is-not-being-reinstated/

jasonc
09-01-2015, 07:22 AM
What? His career average was .356 incl .408 in 1911.
If he is reinstated & doesn't make the Hall, it will be from the 1919 fix, not his career stats.

Oops, forgot about that. I was looking at the totals line.. 1772 hits.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 08:11 AM
Rose and Jackson should both be in the HOF hands down

arc2q
09-01-2015, 09:14 AM
Odd that the commissioner's response was dated July 20, 2015. If so, the museum held the letter for over a month knowing full well the results but didn't share it publicly until a day after baiting the public into thinking that a reinstatement was possible.

ksabet
09-01-2015, 09:24 AM
And does anyone find it disturbing that MLB is supporting that Fan Duel betting racket?

Why did you call it a racket...Its just fantasy the same way you play for a season they just offer daily leagues. Its actually pretty fun. I am not a gambler (I understand the gray area of Fantasy) but have enjoyed the one day leagues very much.

yanks12025
09-01-2015, 09:44 AM
Joe Jackson could have been voted in but he's only gotten 4 total votes the whole time.

Hot Springs Bathers
09-01-2015, 09:49 AM
This is one of the great things about baseball, the debates that can go on forever.

I appreciate both sides of this debate and side on the they were both great but they should not be in the Hall.

In my opinion one of the things that makes the Baseball Hall of Fame special is the ethics clause. While we all know that there are several rascals already in, it makes it more special in my mind that the quality of the human being matters.

I enjoy watching pro football but the Pro Football Hall of Fame (which I have visited) is not special in my opinion. From the Lawrence Taylors of the world to the Warren Sapps and Michael Irvins, these are just not quality human beings.

There are some players in Cooperstown that I have encountered that are beyond rude like Mays, Bench and now Randy Johnson. They may be rude but they have never injured anyone off the field that I know about?

Heck, if Lawrence Phillips could still run some NFL team would try to get him off this latest charge of killing his cell mate.

Once again, I appreciate everyone's dissenting opinions, this is a cool part of baseball.

packs
09-01-2015, 09:50 AM
He admitted himself to taking $5,000 from Lefty Williams. Whether he threw the series or not, he took money to throw it instead of reporting anything or doing anything to stop the fix. He deserves the ban in my opinion.

mattsey9
09-01-2015, 10:06 AM
And does anyone find it disturbing that MLB is supporting that Fan Duel betting racket?

Yes, I do. I'm all for placing a bet, but the fact that the league and the players are allowed to sponsor gambling in this form is an issue. Particularly when players who sponsor the sites, like C.C. Sabathia, would likely be banned for utilizing them.

It's a far cry from when Kuhn suspended Mays and Mantle for being casino greeters

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 10:58 AM
He admitted himself to taking $5,000 from Lefty Williams. Whether he threw the series or not, he took money to throw it instead of reporting anything or doing anything to stop the fix. He deserves the ban in my opinion.

So if he took the money but didnt jeopardize the series he should still be banned??? Just curious but whats the logic behind that. Who cares if he took money. If he didnt throw the game then....

pariah1107
09-01-2015, 11:01 AM
Odd that the commissioner's response was dated July 20, 2015. If so, the museum held the letter for over a month knowing full well the results but didn't share it publicly until a day after baiting the public into thinking that a reinstatement was possible.

I agree. Rose visited Manfred July 14-15, and this letter was penned July 20. Sounds like Manfred spent that week reaffirming past decisions of former commissioners. Don't see any new ground here, non story.

packs
09-01-2015, 11:42 AM
So if he took the money but didnt jeopardize the series he should still be banned??? Just curious but whats the logic behind that. Who cares if he took money. If he didnt throw the game then....

What is your logic? Guy A offers Guy B money to throw the World Series. Guy B takes the money. His team loses. He keeps the money.

Did Guy B do nothing wrong? Even if you want to argue that Jackson played well, he took money to throw the World Series. The appropriate thing to do would have been to not take the money and alert the league. But he chose to take the money and keep his mouth shut until he was implicated, at which time he admitted to taking a bribe to throw the Series.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 11:46 AM
What is your logic? Guy A offers Guy B money to throw the World Series. Guy B takes the money. His team loses. He keeps the money.

Did Guy B do nothing wrong?

He did nothing to jeopardize the game right? So besides taking money then what did he do personally to keep him outta the HOF??? I get what youre saying but if he played his best and didnt purposely throw any games then he deserves to be in

packs
09-01-2015, 11:47 AM
He accepted a bribe to throw the World Series and admitted such in court. That is why he is banned from baseball. Seems cut and dry to me. If there is some honor in accepting a bribe, I am not aware of it.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 11:50 AM
He accepted a bribe to throw the World Series and admitted such in court. That is why he is banned from baseball. Seems cut and dry to me. If there is some honor in accepting a bribe, I am not aware of it.

Accepting a bribe is meaningless unless u do something personally to fulfill the terms of the bribe. If he didnt then theres no reason whatsoever why he shouldnt be in

Joshwesley
09-01-2015, 11:51 AM
That's a shame... obviously by judging his performance in the series... Joe didn't throw anything, but taking the money makes him guilty.

He'll never get in..... but he'll always be an iconic figure and his cards will always have significant value.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 12:03 PM
Jackson had 0 errors, 12 hits and a .375 batting average during the world series and he doesnt deserve to be in the HOF??? Come on

packs
09-01-2015, 12:11 PM
He accepted a bribe. His play doesn't matter and no one is going to ignore the fact that he took the money and his team then lost. His personal play doesn't mean as much as the moral implications of taking the money and being on the losing team, just like he was supposed to be.

You need to think about coercion and how it works. Either everyone is in, or no one is in. So just by accepting the money he told his teammates that he didn't object to losing the World Series on purpose. There's your ban.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 12:18 PM
He accepted a bribe. His play doesn't matter and no one is going to ignore the fact that he took the money and his team then lost. His personal play doesn't mean as much as the moral implications of taking the money and being on the losing team, just like he was supposed to be.

You need to think about coercion and how it works. Either everyone is in, or no one is in. So just by accepting the money he told his teammates that he didn't object to losing the World Series on purpose. There's your ban.

I see what youre saying and i agree to a certain extent. But my own personal opinion is i could care less if he took a bribe. If looking at his personal achievements and stats he should be in. If he personally didnt jeopardize the game then to me he should be in. Theres all kinds of speculation about what really happened but jackson's stats dont lie and based on those itd far fetched to say he threw any games. Let him in

packs
09-01-2015, 12:22 PM
But how can you say he didn't jeopardize a game? You have no way of knowing that and you could easily view his play as a straw man tactic to alleviate suspicion.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 12:26 PM
But how can you say he didn't jeopardize a game? You have no way of knowing that and you could easily view his play as a straw man tactic to alleviate suspicion.

No youre right i dont know but looking at his world series stats if he did he sure did a horrible job..lol

arc2q
09-01-2015, 12:36 PM
I see what youre saying and i agree to a certain extent. But my own personal opinion is i could care less if he took a bribe. If looking at his personal achievements and stats he should be in. If he personally didnt jeopardize the game then to me he should be in. Theres all kinds of speculation about what really happened but jackson's stats dont lie and based on those itd far fetched to say he threw any games. Let him in

While a timeless debate, I don't see your side of it really. I think romanticism has clouded our judgement of what occurred.

I thought Manfred's letter was perfectly worded. What do we know now that Landis did not know in 1921? Likely nothing. Therefore Manfred has to respect that decision. Only if new, substantive evidence emerges that changes the fact that Jackson admitted under oath to accepting money from a person he knew to be paying him and his teammates to throw the World Series should baseball even consider re-looking at the case in its entirety.

Authoritative decisions like banning a player must be respected by future generations and future commissioners for the punishment to have merit and for the authority to be considered inviolable. You cannot rewrite history out of nostalgia. While it may have seemed harsh, the decision was final in Jackson's life and should remain so now unless new evidence emerges.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 12:40 PM
While a timeless debate, I don't see your side of it really. I think romanticism has clouded our judgement of what occurred.

I thought Manfred's letter was perfectly worded. What do we know now that Landis did not know in 1921? Likely nothing. Therefore Manfred has to respect that decision. Only if new, substantive evidence emerges that changes the fact that Jackson admitted under oath to accepting money from a person he knew to be paying him and his teammates to throw the World Series should baseball even consider re-looking at the case in its entirety.

Authoritative decisions like banning a player must be respected by future generations and future commissioners for the punishment to have merit and for the authority to be considered inviolable. You cannot rewrite history out of nostalgia. While it may have seemed harsh, the decision was final in Jackson's life and should remain so now unless new evidence emerges.

I see both sides and respect people's opinions but personally i feel like he should be in along with pete rose. Thatll never change but like you said itll always be a timeless debate.

mybuddyinc
09-01-2015, 01:03 PM
You can do a lot of things and not get banned from Baseball. But gambling or taking money has always been THE BIG NO-NO.

Jim Devlin, George Hall, Al Nichols and Bill Craver of the Louisville Grays were banned in 1877. They were, late in the season, 27-13, but went 8-12 in the last games. All but Craver admitted throwing games.

I've always felt these guys set the "unbreakable" rule in Baseball that has held up for all these years.

Rose, Jackson, Weaver, NO.

Iron Horse
09-01-2015, 01:17 PM
They both get my vote to be in. In my opinion their career numbers should determine their entry to the HOF.
The only ones i don't want in are the ones we know 100% used PED.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 01:37 PM
They both get my vote to be in. In my opinion their career numbers should determine their entry to the HOF.
The only ones i don't want in are the ones we know 100% used PED.

Totally agree

Dan Carson
09-01-2015, 01:40 PM
NO!!

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 01:49 PM
In that era who would be dumb enough to rat on the mob???? Arnold Rothstein was in business with luciano, lansky, etc youd be looking at a death sentence if you snitched..period

packs
09-01-2015, 02:36 PM
The point is you could have just said no and not taken $5,000 from Lefty Williams. You can't look at stats and say Joe Jackson definitively did not throw the World Series. He played the field. There's nothing about a box score that will tell you a guy didn't pull up on a fly ball they could have caught or tripped up rounding the bases and took a base away from themselves.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 02:44 PM
The point is you could have just said no and not taken $5,000 from Lefty Williams. You can't look at stats and say Joe Jackson definitively did not throw the World Series. He played the field. There's nothing about a box score that will tell you a guy didn't pull up on a fly ball they could have caught or tripped up rounding the bases and took a base away from themselves.

Thats true but not going along with it couldve also meant a death sentence as well. There was millions at stake and if 1 person was a threat to that do you really think theyd hesitate to do something. How do you explain jackson begging comiskey to take him out of the series? Obviously he didnt want any part of it.

packs
09-01-2015, 03:14 PM
I don't know if there's any truth to that claim that he asked Comiskey not to play. He made it later in life and not during his deposition.

If you want to go with the mob angle, which I don't really buy into because it takes a whole team or no team, he didn't have to accept the money. Accepting the money is what did him in.

edjs
09-01-2015, 03:29 PM
You can do a lot of things and not get banned from Baseball. But gambling or taking money has always been THE BIG NO-NO.

Jim Devlin, George Hall, Al Nichols and Bill Craver of the Louisville Grays were banned in 1877. They were, late in the season, 27-13, but went 8-12 in the last games. All but Craver admitted throwing games.

I've always felt these guys set the "unbreakable" rule in Baseball that has held up for all these years.

Rose, Jackson, Weaver, NO.

I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

mattsey9
09-01-2015, 03:41 PM
I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

Some historians state that Weaver was present at three separate meetings when the fix was being planned. He was more than just some naive innocent.

Remember, Asinof's Eight Men Out took a lot of artistic license with the story and should be read with caution when seeking out historical fact.

packs
09-01-2015, 03:50 PM
When MLB looked at Weaver's case again they found that he definitively participated in at least two meetings, one in New York City and one in Cincinnati. He discussed throwing the series with his teammates. He told no one and did nothing when they did throw the series.

JoeyFarino
09-01-2015, 04:28 PM
I don't know if there's any truth to that claim that he asked Comiskey not to play. He made it later in life and not during his deposition.

If you want to go with the mob angle, which I don't really buy into because it takes a whole team or no team, he didn't have to accept the money. Accepting the money is what did him in.

But it wasnt the WHOLE team and the fact that jackson even knew about it made him a liability. You dont think for a second that Rothstein used intimidation to persuade some of the players to go along with it???

Peter_Spaeth
09-01-2015, 04:30 PM
But how can you say he didn't jeopardize a game? You have no way of knowing that and you could easily view his play as a straw man tactic to alleviate suspicion.

In that case why pay him at all to be in on it? He didn't have to be paid extra to play well.

PS At this point Rose has paid the price. I would reinstate him, unless there is evidence he bet against his own team and I don't believe there is.

EvilKing00
09-01-2015, 06:03 PM
So when is this desition happening? Or did it happen today already?

packs
09-02-2015, 07:10 AM
But it wasnt the WHOLE team and the fact that jackson even knew about it made him a liability. You dont think for a second that Rothstein used intimidation to persuade some of the players to go along with it???

I don't think so, no. Because Buck Weaver attended multiple meetings and took no money, he simply sat back and watched his team throw the series. Joe Jackson on the other hand did take money. No one had to do anything.

steve B
09-02-2015, 09:45 AM
In that case why pay him at all to be in on it? He didn't have to be paid extra to play well.

PS At this point Rose has paid the price. I would reinstate him, unless there is evidence he bet against his own team and I don't believe there is.

Does everyone in the hobby that supports Rose forget the shady stuff he did hobbywise? Stuff that comes very close to fraud if not being fraud and sometimes only because it's so hard to prove?

Selling loads of game used bats - Sketchy when he was using a new bat for what seemed like every pitch. Not illegal, but still a little questionable for the era.

Selling multiple bats from the same milestone hit. - Hard to prove he did that, harder still to prove that's exactly what he claimed at the time. sort of dueling stories, and the buyers could have been interpreting his claims. Sort of "this bat is from the at bat where I got the hit" which gets taken as "this is the bat I got the hit with" In the buyers mind - instead of the more truthful "this is the bat I hit the foul with a couple pitches before" (Not sure of the exact at bats/hits , just a for instance)

He did some other stuff too. I'd have to really dig for the old magazines that have the details.

As for Jackson, I agree that taking the money and playing well but keeping quiet is wrong, and I'm confident in thinking that Landis viewed it as being just as bad. Plus, as others have pointed out, there's a lot of subtle stuff a great athlete could do that wouldn't be obvious from the stats. While it might be trackable now with the video all teams have of other teams in detail. At the time there was no way to track stuff like not getting a good jump on maybe one particular ball so it falls in, or not taking a base, or taking a strike in a certain situation.

Steve B

Peter_Spaeth
09-02-2015, 10:05 AM
I don't care about Pete Rose's personal shortcomings or hobby activities. By sheer force of will he made himself into the all-time hit leader and a superstar. He was the consummate competitor, and obviously raised the level of play of his teammates. His work ethic was unmatched.

As Sports Illustrated put it, even in the stands, his will to win could be felt.

As Rose himself put it, in one of the greatest of all baseball quotes, "I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball."

Yeah he gambled, but he's paid for that with purgatory for decades. He is clearly a Hall of Famer.

packs
09-02-2015, 10:13 AM
Nope. He refused to admit what he did until it was undeniable. At any time, if he did in fact never bet against his own team, he could have admitted as such. So after all those lies he told when faced with the truth, you really believe him and believe he has enough integrity to be telling the truth this one time?

Peter_Spaeth
09-02-2015, 10:15 AM
Nope. He refused to admit what he did until it was undeniable. At any time, if he did in fact never bet against his own team, he could have admitted as such. So after all those lies he told when faced with the truth, you really believe him and believe he has enough integrity to be telling the truth this one time?

Given how fiercely competitive he was, I doubt he bet against his own team.

packs
09-02-2015, 10:16 AM
He's a compulsive gambler though. When are compulsive gamblers moral crusaders? If it meant winning the money he was chasing, why wouldn't he do it? Clearly he didn't respect the game enough to not bet on it.

Peter_Spaeth
09-02-2015, 10:30 AM
Has anyone claimed he did, or suggested specific games where his playing or managing was questionable? They may have I just was not aware of it.

mybuddyinc
09-02-2015, 12:18 PM
I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

Same with Louisville Craver. He never admitted to taking money. Later in life, trying to be reinstated, he adamantly denied it. He was included, in association, like Weaver, for not coming forward.

Arguably more minor, but others would argue the opposite.

JoeyFarino
09-02-2015, 12:34 PM
Does everyone in the hobby that supports Rose forget the shady stuff he did hobbywise? Stuff that comes very close to fraud if not being fraud and sometimes only because it's so hard to prove?

Selling loads of game used bats - Sketchy when he was using a new bat for what seemed like every pitch. Not illegal, but still a little questionable for the era.

Selling multiple bats from the same milestone hit. - Hard to prove he did that, harder still to prove that's exactly what he claimed at the time. sort of dueling stories, and the buyers could have been interpreting his claims. Sort of "this bat is from the at bat where I got the hit" which gets taken as "this is the bat I got the hit with" In the buyers mind - instead of the more truthful "this is the bat I hit the foul with a couple pitches before" (Not sure of the exact at bats/hits , just a for instance)

He did some other stuff too. I'd have to really dig for the old magazines that have the details.

As for Jackson, I agree that taking the money and playing well but keeping quiet is wrong, and I'm confident in thinking that Landis viewed it as being just as bad. Plus, as others have pointed out, there's a lot of subtle stuff a great athlete could do that wouldn't be obvious from the stats. While it might be trackable now with the video all teams have of other teams in detail. At the time there was no way to track stuff like not getting a good jump on maybe one particular ball so it falls in, or not taking a base, or taking a strike in a certain situation.

Steve B

All that stuff has NOTHING to do with what he accomplished on the field without any help. Who cares if he sold bats..how does that affect anything he did as a player? The HOF is based on numbers and what you accomplished as a player. The bat issues can be dealt in another way. He deserves to be in no question about it

jiw98
09-02-2015, 03:18 PM
In 1920 Jackson batted .382. This is the year after the 1919 series. Landis announced his rule against throwing a game Aug. 3, 1921. This is almost two years after the 1919 series.
So here's my question. How can you be suspended for life for breaking a rule that hasn't been written yet? Wouldn't that be like getting a speeding ticket for driving 70 mph on a highway that was two years later changed to 55 mph?

Now for the life time suspension. Wasn't Steve Howe given like 7 life time suspensions? If I remember it right, each "life time" suspension was for one year.

Just sayin....

Bigdaddy
09-02-2015, 08:48 PM
Joe took money to throw a World Series. Landis had to set a hard example to keep organized gambling out of the game and instill the public's trust that the games were not fixed going forward. Joe and the others were the example. Time does not change what he and the others did.

As for Pete, and I'm a big Reds fan and loved Pete the player, I cannot believe a word that comes out of that man's mouth. He has lied from the day he was investigated, only fessing up to whatever evidence is on the table that he cannot deny. He agreed to a lifetime ban and that is what he deserves.

Now if the Hall of Fame wanted to induct either of these gentlemen, it could change their own rule and take out the part about being banned from baseball - remember being banned from baseball and not being eligible for the HoF are two independent issues.

Kenny Cole
09-02-2015, 09:35 PM
I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

JoeyFarino
09-02-2015, 10:56 PM
I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

Very interesting...im sure we'll never know the real truth on what occured. But looking at Jackson's stats and what hes confessed about the world series i dont believe he personally jeopardized any game. But the debate will go on.....thanks for sharing what you learned.

howard38
09-03-2015, 02:10 AM
[QUOTE=Joshwesley;1448233]That's a shame... obviously by judging his performance in the series... Joe didn't throw anything, but taking the money makes him guilty.

That isn't necessarily so. The Sox weren't trying to throw every game and in the three they won (and in which Jackson was presumably doing his best) he batted .545. In the five losses he batted only .286 and most have that production (HR, 2B, 3 RBI) came in the final game when they were already getting blown out. That isn't proof of any wrongdoing but neither is his overall BA of .375 proof of innocence.

Peter_Spaeth
09-03-2015, 06:42 AM
I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

Kinda like Bud Selig and PEDs eh?

steve B
09-03-2015, 07:41 AM
A question then for those saying it's all about what someone did on the field and that off the field stuff should have nothing to do with it

Are you then against the current practice in pretty much all sports of suspending players for stuff they do that's off field and unrelated to their sport? Adrian Peterson? Michael Vick? Delmon Young?

And should the PED users be sanctioned? Many of them did stuff before MLB had any specific rule or testing program.


Steve B

JoeyFarino
09-03-2015, 08:34 AM
A question then for those saying it's all about what someone did on the field and that off the field stuff should have nothing to do with it

Are you then against the current practice in pretty much all sports of suspending players for stuff they do that's off field and unrelated to their sport? Adrian Peterson? Michael Vick? Delmon Young?

And should the PED users be sanctioned? Many of them did stuff before MLB had any specific rule or testing program.


Steve B

No i feel that the fact that he took a bribe shouldve been dealt in a different way and seperately. It should in no way keep him out of the HOF. Everything he accomplished on the field proves he deserves to be in. Now if youre using PED's you dont deserve to be in based on the fact you used something to enhance the results you got on the field. Jackson's numbers speak for themselves. The fact that he took a bribe didnt enhance his game or been proven that it made him lose any games either.

Same with pete rose. Who the hell cares if he bet on games. How does that affect anything he did on the field. He played his ass off without PED's and has some insane numbers. How can anyone justify not letting him in. I understand theres a rule but unless he had his team throw any games to benefit him then he deserves to be in. The fact that he bet on games is a seperate issue. Firing him takes care of that. Maybe a fine too but keeping him out of something he clearly belongs in is excessive

pariah1107
09-03-2015, 12:31 PM
Same with pete rose. Who the hell cares if he bet on games. How does that affect anything he did on the field. He played his ass off without PED's and has some insane numbers. How can anyone justify not letting him in. I understand theres a rule but unless he had his team throw any games to benefit him then he deserves to be in. The fact that he bet on games is a seperate issue. Firing him takes care of that. Maybe a fine too but keeping him out of something he clearly belongs in is excessive

Are amphetamines PED's? Rose admitted to using them on David Letterman in 2010, but "only to lose weight". He is not banned from baseball for amphetamines, but your contention that Charlie Hustle played without the aid of PED's is false.

packs
09-03-2015, 12:56 PM
I also disagree that the fact that Rose bet on games is a separate issue. He was betting on games while being on the field. That is one and the same. Ban him for life.

Peter_Spaeth
09-03-2015, 01:12 PM
Are amphetamines PED's? Rose admitted to using them on David Letterman in 2010, but "only to lose weight". He is not banned from baseball for amphetamines, but your contention that Charlie Hustle played without the aid of PED's is false.

Mays and Aaron used greenies.

almostdone
09-03-2015, 01:36 PM
What confuses me in all of this "knowing but not telling equals lifetime banishment" is the case of Rube Benton. He testified to knowing the series was fixed but didn't talk until the hearing. Basically he was thanked by Landis and kept right on playing until retirement.

Btw, there is a young man in my town I know who is a direct decendant of Benton. Kind of a weird family legacy, related to the one guy not banned who admidted for knowing.

Drew

tschock
09-03-2015, 01:57 PM
Now if youre using PED's you dont deserve to be in based on the fact you used something to enhance the results you got on the field.

Sort of like taking greenies in the '60s and '70s, right? :D

JoeyFarino
09-03-2015, 02:58 PM
I also disagree that the fact that Rose bet on games is a separate issue. He was betting on games while being on the field. That is one and the same. Ban him for life.

Ok let me ask you this....did pete rose betting on games have anything to do with what he personally accomplished on the field?

packs
09-03-2015, 03:02 PM
He was betting on games while on the field. The actions are one in the same.

JoeyFarino
09-03-2015, 04:58 PM
He was betting on games while on the field. The actions are one in the same.

That didnt answer my question. Did his betting on baseball have anything to do with his stats, records or personal achievements on the field?

JoeyFarino
09-03-2015, 05:10 PM
He was betting on games while on the field. The actions are one in the same.

How are the actions one in the same??? He achieved everything on the field without any help. I didnt know betting makes you hit and run better. Unless youre running away from a angry bookie who wants his money. The betting has NOTHING to do with his playing ability at all. Thats why he deserves to be in. The betting issue should be dealt with by suspension of games or a fine. But to strip someone of a title that they clearly earned is excessive

Kenny Cole
09-03-2015, 07:46 PM
The HOF is not exclusively about statistics. There is a morality clause and, now, there is the Pete Rose rule -- that if you are permanently banned, you are permanently ineligible for the HOF. Fair or not, that's the current rule.

I feel much more strongly about betting on baseball than I do PEDs. That is particularly true for Rose, who read the rule against doing that -- one of, if not the only rule taped on the door of every clubhouse -- every time he went out to play. He also had the example of what happened to Jackson. He knew what he was doing would get him banned and he did it anyway.

Screw him. He has no excuses and he is a dick to boot. At least the Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver supporters have some arguments they can make. Rose has none. He was one of the most competitive players I ever saw, but he needs to buy a ticket to Cooperstown. I hope he is never elected.

Peter_Spaeth
09-03-2015, 07:56 PM
He's done his time. 25 years or however long it's been.

Kenny Cole
09-03-2015, 08:03 PM
We will just have to agree to disagree about that.

ls7plus
09-04-2015, 05:14 PM
This is an absolute joke. He needs to stay banned. If they want to reinstate someone from that group, they should reinstate Buck Weaver.

Put me down for one ENORMOUS +1 on that. Joe got $5,000, and what he and the other guilty ones did struck near fatal blows to the very heart of the game--who's going to be interested if it is widely believed that the outcome of games is predetermined, other than possibly pro wrestling fans?

Regards,

Larry

Jlighter
09-05-2015, 09:20 PM
And does anyone find it disturbing that MLB is supporting that Fan Duel betting racket?

Yes. I'm very glad someone else has noticed this. I find it hard to watch MLB Network because of the constant mentions to Fanduel and daily fantasy lineups.

Vintageclout
09-07-2015, 03:48 PM
Accepting a bribe is meaningless unless u do something personally to fulfill the terms of the bribe. If he didnt then theres no reason whatsoever why he shouldnt be in

To all: Don't think for ONE minute that Joe Jackson didn't do anything to "throw" the 1919 World Series. True, his statistics do not warrant that notion. However, when Christy Mathewson joined iconic sports reporter and good friend Grantland Rice to cover the 1919 series, Matty was appalled at the number of balls that were falling safely between and in front of Jackson and Felsh (CF). Matty insisted something was terribly wrong, especially considering Jackson's world class fielding reputation. Jackson may not have been charged with any "official" errors, but he played a "careless" left field "at least" the first 5 games. Also attributing to Jackson's .300+ series average was his performances in game 6 and 7 (when he hit his one series homer) after the Sox were down 4 games to 1. Rothstein had not paid the players what he promised them, thus enticing the players (including Jackson) to revolt and play hard to win those 2 games. Unfortunately, after Lefty Williams' wife was threatened after the Sox closed the series to 4 games to 3, Williams didn't make it out of the first inning in game#8, ultimately leading to the Red's series victory.

Bottom line: Jackson was a guilty as "Original Sin"! He has no business being in Cooperstown and neither does Pete Rose.

JoeT.

JoeyFarino
09-07-2015, 04:22 PM
To all: Don't think for ONE minute that Joe Jackson didn't do anything to "throw" the 1919 World Series. True, his statistics do not warrant that notion. However, when Christy Mathewson joined iconic sports reporter and good friend Grantland Rice to cover the 1919 series, Matty was appalled at the number of balls that were falling safely between and in front of Jackson and Felsh (CF). Matty insisted something was terribly wrong, especially considering Jackson's world class fielding reputation. Jackson may not have been charged with any "official" errors, but he played a "careless" left field "at least" the first 5 games. Also attributing to Jackson's .300+ series average was his performances in game 6 and 7 (when he hit his one series homer) after the Sox were down 4 games to 1. Rothstein had not paid the players what he promised them, thus enticing the players (including Jackson) to revolt and play hard to win those 2 games. Unfortunately, after Lefty Williams' wife was threatened after the Sox closed the series to 4 games to 3, Williams didn't make it out of the first inning in game#8, ultimately leading to the Red's series victory.

Bottom line: Jackson was a guilty as "Original Sin"! He has no business being in Cooperstown and neither does Pete Rose.

JoeT.

Agree to disagree.

bbsports
09-07-2015, 04:46 PM
About 15 years ago I met Bob Feller at a card show in Florida. He told me it takes more than stats to be in the baseball Hall of Fame. You must be a member in good standing to the game as part of the qualifications. As great a baseball player as Rose & Jackson were, they were not members of baseball in good standing & therefore they should be banned forever of entering the baseball Hall of Fame.

Tabe
09-07-2015, 10:11 PM
Given how fiercely competitive he was, I doubt he bet against his own team.

So what? Not betting on his team to win is essentially the same as a bet against.

Fact is, he bet as a player and as a manager. As a manager,he had the power to influence multiple games through his actions in one. Blow out the bullpen to win a bet and sacrifice the rest of a series, for example.

The idea that there's some "loophole" for Pete if he didn't specifically bet to lose just baffles me. It's not like there's a gray area in the rule he knew and broke anyway.

packs
09-08-2015, 08:11 AM
There is not a compulsive gambler on the planet who wouldn't play the bet that most favored them. It is crazy to me to think that Pete Rose, who admits to betting on his own team, didn't bet against his team when the odds favored the bet.