100th anniversary of Black Sox Scandal next year.... time to let them into the Hall?

[Topnotchsy]

I've been thinking that it would be pretty cool on the 100th anniversary of the Black Sox scandal; to consider opening the Hall to Joe Jackson.

The way I see it:
1) While I'm not an expert on the subject but it seems as if there is at least a reasonable discussion about whether Jackson's play was at all compromised in the Series
2) Long after the player's have passed on, it is no longer a punishment for the players. At this point, I feel like for baseball and baseball history, Jackson should be in the Hall.

Anyone agree?

[keithsky]

I agree. If they let in steroid cheaters no reason Jackson and Rose should not be in.

[Jason]

I think that would be great but im skeptic that it will happen. I would at the least like to see him have a official review like Rose did. I think 100 years is long enough for the purported crime.

[conor912]

Would love to see it, but they'll never consider putting Joe in until Rose is dead. If they put him in while Rose is still alive, he'd be up the HOF's ass mercilessly and they don't want to give him the satisfaction.

[clydepepper]

I can't say I'd be in favor of any of them ever being in...even if the Black Sox have some sympathetic figures (i.e.Jackson;Weaver)...it would be an insult to all those who didn't cheat or throw games.

IMO

Being a HOFer isn't a birthright and it isn't something you can attain just through numbers...rose, bonds, and Clemens all believe they were better than the game itself...and they were not!

[Rascal1010]

With legalized sports gambling on the legislative agenda's in a lot of states right now, and more than likely will be legal nationwide within the next 5 years, I don't ever see the Baseball Hall of Fame ever saying it's OK for any player to fix a game or games, much less a World Series. I wouldn't be surprised within the next 20 years we don't actually see more players receive "lifetime" bans for fixing games if we do in fact see legalized sports gambling. The "lifetime" ban has to remain in effect and in full force as a deterrent, or they are just saying fixing games isn't that big of a deal.

Personally, I think Joe Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but the fact still remains that he did conspire to throw a World Series. It doesn't matter if he actually took money or not, what his batting average in the Series was, the bottom line is he was a member of a "conspiracy" to fix games for gamblers, and for that he was banned from the game for life.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Rascal1010

With legalized sports gambling on the legislative agenda's in a lot of states right now, and more than likely will be legal nationwide within the next 5 years, I don't ever see the Baseball Hall of Fame ever saying it's OK for any player to fix a game or games, much less a World Series. I wouldn't be surprised within the next 20 years we don't actually see more players receive "lifetime" bans for fixing games if we do in fact see legalized sports gambling. The "lifetime" ban has to remain in effect and in full force as a deterrent, or they are just saying fixing games isn't that big of a deal.

Personally, I think Joe Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but the fact still remains that he did conspire to throw a World Series. It doesn't matter if he actually took money or not, what his batting average in the Series was, the bottom line is he was a member of a "conspiracy" to fix games for gamblers, and for that he was banned from the game for life.

Steve- I don't think you're directing your comments correctly. The reason for Rose's ban is not because he bet on Baseball games, but that he bet on Baseball games on which he had inside information (injuries) or could take action (lineup changes) which could determine the outcome of those games.


I can see, regretfully, a time in the future when Baseball players are allowed to bet on games, but only with absolutely strict limitations on which games would be involved.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Rascal1010

The "lifetime" ban has to remain in effect and in full force as a deterrent, or they are just saying fixing games isn't that big of a deal.

Sure, a "lifetime" ban. His lifetime is over. Let him in, IMO.

[timn1]

Is it weird that some of the community who want to let Shoeless Joe in are the same ones who want to keep marginal (but entirely honest as far as we know) players like Alan Trammell out?

Letting any of the dishonest Black Sox in would be a travesty to the HOF. However, Rose is a different kettle of fish, IMO.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I can't say I'd be in favor of any of them ever being in...even if the Black Sox have some sympathetic figures (i.e.Jackson;Weaver)...it would be an insult to all those who didn't cheat or throw games.

IMO

Being a HOFer isn't a birthright and it isn't something you can attain just through numbers...rose, bonds, and Clemens all believe they were better than the game itself...and they were not!

[jerrys]

All major league baseball club houses have a sign posted stating the rules of conduct.

Rule 21(d):

BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

It says permanently.

If Pete Rose was given a pass - added to his stats on his HOF plaque would be: As manager, guilty of betting on baseball games from the dugout during ball games.

On Jackson's plaque: Joe Jackson: Guilty of being a willing member of a conspiracy to fix World Series baseball games.

Honor with dishonor - contradictory - incompatible.