Shoeless Joe in the HOF...and his cards?

[sgbernard]

Not sure if people have seen this, but MLB just clarified that bans on players end with their death. The specific implication, as discussed in this article, is that dead, banned players may now be eligible for the HOF, which includes those Black Sox like Joe Jackson:

Link to article https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28502513/source-mlb-ineligible-list-ends-death-banned-players

My question is, what does this do to Shoeless Joe's cards' value? His story and him NOT being in the HOF has, I think, helped make his cards some of the more valuable of any pre-war player. If he's another top tier HOFer, then do his cards go down, does it change anything?

Would love to see some Shoeless Joe cards while we're at it!

[Snapolit1]

It's a moot point . . .he will not be elected into the HOF.

[triwak]

Steve's certainty notwithstanding, ;) I think this is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, I do not have any career cards of Jackson, as my focus is HOFers only. I sincerely hope that changes!! Thanks for posting.

[packs]

If MLB knows the rules around the ban I'm sure the HOF does too. Don't see how it changes things for anyone banned. The guilty are not made innocent in death.

[phikappapsi]

I think the value of his cards is already set. The will likely only ever go up; whether because he ends up in the Hall, or doesn't - either can/will be a driver of value (seems oxymoronic - but I feel it's true).

But the real value in his cards is rarity. There just weren't that many issues of him in his playing days. and, I think because of the scandal, relatively few were treasured by collectors in the 20's 30's, 40's 50's the way that Cobb, Ruth, Young, etc. were.

[wondo]

If MLB knows the rules around the ban I'm sure the HOF does too. Don't see how it changes things for anyone banned. The guilty are not made innocent in death.

..............except for Aaron Hernandez.................

[Snapolit1]

Always has been and will be interest in his cards. Frankly I thought all the Black Sox stuff would go through the roof on the 100th anniversary in 2019 and I didn't notice that happening.

[triwak]

Always has been and will be interest in his cards. Frankly I thought all the Black Sox stuff would go through the roof on the 100th anniversary in 2019 and I didn't notice that happening.

Thought the same thing about the 100th anniversary. Interesting.

[darwinbulldog]

I imagine that would only impact cards' prices to the extent that the 100th anniversary came as a surprise to the collectors.

[ullmandds]

I think the value of his cards is already set. The will likely only ever go up; whether because he ends up in the Hall, or doesn't - either can/will be a driver of value (seems oxymoronic - but I feel it's true).

But the real value in his cards is rarity. There just weren't that many issues of him in his playing days. and, I think because of the scandal, relatively few were treasured by collectors in the 20's 30's, 40's 50's the way that Cobb, Ruth, Young, etc. were.

Exactly!

[Snapolit1]

I imagine that would only impact cards' prices to the extent that the 100th anniversary came as a surprise to the collectors.

Or if a boatload of publicity got new blood into the hobby. I didn't see much broad based publicity.

[C-mack]

It would pretty cool to see

I was fortunate enough to buy this card a week ago

[BeanTown]

If MLB knows the rules around the ban I'm sure the HOF does too. Don't see how it changes things for anyone banned. The guilty are not made innocent in death.

Maybe the people who said he is guilty, are guilty. Corruption goes both ways and there was a lot of pressure for those people who had a say in his guilt. What were Joe stats again in the series?

[packs]

Maybe the people who said he is guilty, are guilty. Corruption goes both ways and there was a lot of pressure for those people who had a say in his guilt. What were Joe stats again in the series?

This is a pragmatic issue. If you were banned for something you did in life, dying doesn't erase what you did in life.

[Kenny Cole]

This is a pragmatic issue. If you were banned for something you did in life, dying doesn't erase what you did in life.

The question is, what did he do? A jury acquitted him. Landis convicted and banned him despite the verdict. I can see good arguments both ways.

[AGuinness]

Life, death, guilty, innocent, stats... none of that will change. I think the impact on his cards, as asked about in the OP, is an interesting question, and I could imagine a small bump surrounding the announcement if he were voted in. But I wouldn't anticipate a dramatic shift, as his status as an elite MLB player has already been baked into the price, as well as the infamy surrounding him - and that infamy, I think, is in the same ballpark already as his HOF status would be.

[Jim65]

The question is, what did he do? A jury acquitted him. Landis convicted and banned him despite the verdict. I can see good arguments both ways.

The jury acquitted them all, does that mean they were all innocent of taking money and throwing games?

[rgpete]

Thanks Leon got this one last year

[Kenny Cole]

The jury acquitted them all, does that mean they were all innocent of taking money and throwing games?

I don't know. Do you?

[Jim65]

I don't know. Do you?

I don't think we will ever know positively about Jackson but the fact that a jury acquitted him is really irrelevant is the point I was trying to make.

[Republicaninmass]

We need lawsuits or it never happened.


I think prices baked in. In fact, this revelation would justify the run up on them in the last few years. Theyve gone a little nuts

[Kenny Cole]

I don't think we will ever know positively about Jackson but the fact that a jury acquitted him is really irrelevant is the point I was trying to make.

No, actually its not. You made what essentially seems like a guilt by association argument, i.e., that somebody threw the series so it doesn't matter if Jackson did or not. That's the Buck Weaver argument and I personally think its a load of crap. Always have. Do you rat out your buddies whenever they do something you don't approve of or think is wrong?

The jury heard the evidence and he and the others were acquitted. If you want to argue that the trial was tainted, OK. Some are, either way. For every OJ, I can probably name someone who sat on death row for years before being exonerated because the prosecutors cheated by withholding exculpatory evidence. Juries most often get it right IMO, but sometimes they don't. The system isn't perfect but it generally works.

But it was Landis (who was a federal judge), not the process, who said that whether or not he did it didn't matter. Jackson didn't have a Court of Appeals he could ask to review his ban. Landis was it. That's rather unfair too, since Landis was a creation of the owners, including Comiskey, and Jackson's alleged actions took place before he had any jurisdiction. On other occasions, Landis used that very fact to duck having to make a decision.

I don't know whether Jackson was involved or not, although the stuff I've read has me leaning a little bit toward probably not. At this point, its a court of public perception issue as much as anything, which probably also screws Jackson since his guilt has been assumed for so long. But the answer to the first question I asked is still that no one knows what Jackson did. That matters. How can you decide whether someone is HOF worthy if you don't even know whether they did what is clearly keeping them out?

[ullmandds]

Whether JJ is ever inducted into the HOF...or not...there is already tremendous "value" currently built into JJ period cards...as has been noted...due to scarcity and mystique due to the "celebrity" status of JJ...imo.

Sure if all of a sudden JJ were in the HOF...there are some HOF collectors who would now "need" a card of his...and this could drive up prices.

But what ultimately determines values is what the "collectors" will pay for an item. And despite all the BAD SHIT happening in the hobby at the moment...there are a lot of people out there with a lot of $$$$$$...along with the supply of a lot of once common older cards has virtually dried up.

So at any given moment in time...any given card can and will sell for whatever someone with the $$$$ thinks it's worth to them...or what the AH pushing the item thinks the buyer should pay for it!!!!

So imo there is as good a chance of JJ items going up in value/price...as there is going down.

[Bigdaddy]

To the OP's question, I believe that for high profile players who are no-question Hall-of-Famers, then the price of their cards already reflects their inevitable election. However for guys that are on the edge, for whatever reason, then their election will provide a bump in the prices of their cards/autographs/etc.

For a recent example, look at Ted Simmons. I don't have any numbers, but I would believe that his RC, at least in higher grades, got a bump. Same with his autograph as the demand from HOF collectors increased. His more common cards, probably not so much.

With Jackson, and the very limited supply of his cards, I can see a bump should he be elected.

The question as to him being on a HOF ballot is (and always has) been purely up to the HOF, not MLB. And should his name appear on a ballot, then his election is up to the appropriate committee members. And while his actions/statistics/guilt/innocence has not changed one bit in the last 100 years, his eligibility to be elected to the HOF has.

The bottom line is that MLB has essentially washed it's hands of HOF eligibility of Jackson and others and left the decision in the hands of the HOF.

[Snapolit1]

Only way I could conceive of the HOF putting someone in after their death who had been otherwise barred would be maybe some hypothetical situation where a black player was run out of baseball on some criminal charge that was obviously trumped up and based on some horribly racist law of 100 years ago. In such a case I could see it happening for symbolic purposes. And I don't know of any situation like that.

[Jim65]

No, actually its not. You made what essentially seems like a guilt by association argument, i.e., that somebody threw the series so it doesn't matter if Jackson did or not. That's the Buck Weaver argument and I personally think its a load of crap. Always have. Do you rat out your buddies whenever they do something you don't approve of or think is wrong?

The jury heard the evidence and he and the others were acquitted. If you want to argue that the trial was tainted, OK. Some are, either way. For every OJ, I can probably name someone who sat on death row for years before being exonerated because the prosecutors cheated by withholding exculpatory evidence. Juries most often get it right IMO, but sometimes they don't. The system isn't perfect but it generally works.

But it was Landis (who was a federal judge), not the process, who said that whether or not he did it didn't matter. Jackson didn't have a Court of Appeals he could ask to review his ban. Landis was it. That's rather unfair too, since Landis was a creation of the owners, including Comiskey, and Jackson's alleged actions took place before he had any jurisdiction. On other occasions, Landis used that very fact to duck having to make a decision.

I don't know whether Jackson was involved or not, although the stuff I've read has me leaning a little bit toward probably not. At this point, its a court of public perception issue as much as anything, which probably also screws Jackson since his guilt has been assumed for so long. But the answer to the first question I asked is still that no one knows what Jackson did. That matters. How can you decide whether someone is HOF worthy if you don't even know whether they did what is clearly keeping them out?

This jury got it wrong about Gandil, Cicotte, Risberg, Williams, etc. Did they get it right about Jackson? I have no idea but I can't assume he's innocent because the jury says when they were wrong about the others.

I never decided whether anyone is HOF worthy or not, Landis saw enough evidence to ban him, agree or disagree, he was banned. I've never seen enough evidence to overturn that ban.

This is just my opinion but I believe Jackson probably tried to win after he realized he got stiffed for the money. But if he blew one play or made one out intentionally while batting, then he's just as guilty as the others no matter how hard he played after that.

[packs]

We're not talking about a crime. We’re talking about the rules of baseball. Baseball determines its own rulings and it ruled against them. Nothing has changed in the 100 years since as far as I can tell.

[PowderedH2O]

Jackson is a player that I have always wondered what would have happened if had kept playing. He clearly was still great in 1920. But he was 33 back when 33 was getting old. How many more years could he played at that level? Two or three? Then maybe he hangs on for a few more years. The ball got livlier, so maybe that bumps his numbers some. My guess is that his average drops ten to fifteen points and he doesn't reach 3000 hits. Would he have Tris Speaker type values then?

[Kenny Cole]

We are not talking about a crime. We’re talking about the rules of baseball. Baseball determines its own rulings and it rules against them. Nothing has changed in the 100 years since as far as I can tell.

Yes, and unfortunately, it enforces them selectively, and chooses to punish some, and not others, selectively. That was particularly true of Landis, the Czar of baseball, who enforced "unwritten" rules that didn't exist and ignored others that did, if that was to his benefit. I'm not a fan of his for a multitude of reasons.

[chalupacollects]

The jury acquitted them all, does that mean they were all innocent of taking money and throwing games?

It means the prosecution didn't prove it's case. That said he was not guilty so maybe the HOF does vote him in on that merit...:confused:

[Tabe]

Question is moot - the Hall clarified today that they will continue to honor bans after death.

[Leon]

Question is moot - the Hall clarified today that they will continue to honor bans after death.

I am one who believes Jackson's value is already baked in. That said, there would be some more HOF collectors who would need him and don't now.

[CMIZ5290]

To not have Joe Jackson and Pete Rose in the Hall is a freaking joke.... Hell, gambling is legal now! and no proof ever came out of Rose betting AGAINST the Reds......

[Bigdaddy]

To not have Joe Jackson and Pete Rose in the Hall is a freaking joke.... Hell, gambling is legal now! and no proof ever came out of Rose betting AGAINST the Reds......

Re: Rose: But he bet on his own team (while he was managing) to win, sometimes. It doesn't take much of a stretch to see how that could affect his management of the game and use of players. Manage today like it's Game 7 of the WS, then coast tomorrow and not place a bet on your team. Is that not exactly what the rules against gambling were trying to prevent - altering your participation/performance in a contest based on a wager that you had financial interest in??

And I was a Rose fan growing up. But he crossed a line, and then lied to everyone, including his biographer (Roger Kahn), lawyers and the commissioner, about it. His story should be in the HOF, but he does not deserve a plaque.