[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.

Kinda like Bud Selig and PEDs eh?

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

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.

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.

Mays and Aaron used greenies.

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

He's done his time. 25 years or however long it's been.

We will just have to agree to disagree about that.

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

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.

Jackson Ban
 

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.

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.

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.

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.