In my opinion the Baseball Hall of Fame is watered down now with players with mediocre accomplishments being voted in

Ron Petersen

Don't disagree that there are some players who prob don't deserve to be there, but I think the phenomenon you describe is more about how players who came on the scene when we are grown men often don't seem as mythical and as magical and as fantastic as the players we watched as star struck 12 year old boys. My dad would watch baseball game with me and tell me that the greatest outfielders today couldn't hold a candle to Carl Furillo and as Duke Snyder. Because they were his childhood heroes.

Different times between the 50's 60's 70's 80's nothing mythical or magical just stats

Admitting to taking money but lying about throwing games portrays himself in the best possible light so it definitely makes sense that he would be honest about taking the money (since I think there was evidence or other testimony to prove it so lying wouldn't have helped anyway) but he would then lie and say he always played his best and didn't help throw games. I'm not saying he did or didn't throw games, just that I can see why he would lie about it if he did.

Jackson was the 2nd person to testify in front of the grand jury (Cicotte was first) and did so under the guidance and instruction of the White Sox/Comiskey's lawyer. There was really no other story out specifically about him to try to slant at the time he went up to testify. You could still be right in that he said what he did to make himself look better or seem better but dont think it was to correct a story or change a previous narrative.

LOL. Justin, that was my poor attempt at being sarcastic and mentioning how much they were willing to pay Landis right out of the gate with no experience or idea of what he would be doing at all. At least Goodell is involved in handling TV and other money generating contracts for the NFL and I believe also dealing with the player's union. Other than being sure to ban the Black Sox, what did Landis really do for MLB?

Jackson's Testimony
 

Thomas and Jay,

You are both right as to why Jackson would testify as to taking the money and then probably deny throwing games, does put him in the best light possible. I amend my thinking based on your comments. Still,you can't argue that Jackson had outstanding stats in the 1919 WS and 1920 season which make it very hard to really prove or believe he was lying about it. Plus it seems when there is the testimony and stories about who supposedly did what questionable things to throw games, it usually seems to be someone other than Jackson. And as Thomas mentioned in an earlier post, even Comiskey seemed to have some faith in Jackson, as evidenced by not bothering to have him watched by private detectives during the 1920 season.

I really think Jackson got sucked into this by teammates who were likely pressured by Rothstein and his gambling cronies to bring Jackson in on the fix so they were assured it would work. I can see Gandil, Cicotte and whomever, being told that they had to have Jackson in on this or else no one would get any money. And if that is the case, then Jackson was caught in a no-win situation. Of course you can point to his teammates, Collins and Schalk especially, who were not in the fix and wonder why him. I don't know the answer, but did Collins and Schalk really not have direct knowledge of the fix and only surmised what was going on initially, or did either of them get asked to join in and they simply refused? Thanks.

Well I read it was Cobb, but regardless of which one it was, the point has been well established that Joe Jackson had a great swing, and I doubt if there is anyone yet to be elected to the HOF that was or is a better player than Shoeless Joe.

I can see some merit in this, but there is a vast difference between betting on a team and taking bribes to throw games.

While Jackson's batting average during the 1919 World Series was over .300, he did exhibit some very questionable fielding during the types of plays he normally made cleanly. That, I believe, more than his batting is what has served as evidence against him. And of course he tried to return the money after the Series, which only compounded his guilt in the matter.

No argument, but it wasn't just over .300, I think it was something like .385. And yes, i'd heard of some questionable fielding, but I was including his play going through the 1920 season as well. No way to tell for sure if he was or wasn't trying to tank it on any specific play. Problem is, and I'd said this previously, once he admitted to originally taking the money, even if he had batted 1.000 and hadn't made a single error, there would still be people saying he had done things to throw games.

No not really, because in both instances the player/manager is perceived to be purposely trying to lose games. In Jackson's case he took money from gamblers to throw games he played in. The gamblers would bet on those games for Jackson's team to lose and the money they paid him would come out of their winnings. In Rose's case he was a player/manager in games that he personally bet on himself, the bets weren't placed by separate gamblers. The perception then is that if Rose bet against his own team that he would do something to throw the game so he would win the bet and collect the money himself. In either case, the issue and bottom line with both Jackson and Rose is them making money off gambling by them doing something to purposely lose games. It doesn't matter if Rose said he never bet against his team or not, because the perception is that if he tried to make money gambling then why wouldn't he be doing it by purposely losing some games as well as through winning some.

The issue isn't the gambling, it is the fans thinking that the players aren't always trying to win games and baseball turning into the WWE.

Based on statistics rose and Jackson are hofers and I believe both should be enshrined in the hof.

Barry Bonds, to name just one.

Neither belong in. Both were aware of what they were doing and just went with it. Jackson I feel somewhat sorry for. Rose was always a wise guy and thought he could do anything he wanted. You follow the rules or else.

For Jackson it depends on which of the many versions of the different stories you believe. Some accounts have said...

He refused the $5000 twice and teammate Lefty Williams threw it on the hotel room floor. He then tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but he refused to meet with him.

It was said that in his grand jury appearance he said he would muff balls and he would be slow and make short throws back to the infield but there are
no stenographic records of him saying that.

Years later the other seven players who were supposedly involved said he was never at any of the meetings.

He was acquitted by a grand jury

So if you believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty then Jackson does belong in the Hall of Fame.

Roger Clemens was acquitted, in a verdict that essentially meant the jury didn't believe he used.

Joe Jackson was charged with perjury after testifying in his civil trial against Comiskey. He was a proven liar who changed his story multiple times.

I think he probably played to win after he realized he was getting screwed out of his payoff money, but if he botched one play in the field or one AB on purpose, hes just as guilty as the rest.

Jackson was charged with perjury by his civil suite judge going against and AFTER the jury ruled in favor of Jackson in the case.

And the differing in testimony, if you are arguing for Jackson, between 1920 and 1924 you could say in 1920 he was without council and likely coached by Comiskey's lawyers...

Jackson is the most difficult of the 8 to try to understand his role. He obviously knew about it, was offered money, and kept money given to him debatable if he accepted it at first...testified it was thrown down in his room by Williams and that after the series he went to see Comiskey to ask about what to do with it and then again with Grabiner when he went to resign Jackson for the 1920 season to which Grabiner was indifferent and thus he and his wife kept it. Could he be making up things? Sure but still a lot of gray area around Jackson...Eddie Collins who was adamant about Weaver being guilty always had sympathy for only Jackson which mirrored many other players and managers of the time so there has to be something to that.

In the end this is all kind of moot as Landis had to treat them all the same regardless of levels of guilt, even Joe Gedeon who was banned bc he knew about the fix (and probably bet on it) but obviously didnt throw any games as he was on the Browns.

Jackson's knowledge and accepting money sealed his fate even though he had no idea what would happen and I feel if he did he would have handled things differently. Doesnt matter what he did on the field...honestly I believe his 1920 statements of playing to win which he never waivered on.

It would be interesting to actually hear his testimony in 1920 to get more context and meaning...or know exactly what he said and how he said what he did to Gandil...was he taking Gandil seriously and his reply a serious one or was it taken as a joke and Jackson's response a sarcastic/joking tone? Who knows.

It is worth noting that according to Edd Roush's graddaughter he told her that gamblers tried to bribe the Reds, specifically Hod Eller and he turned them down and when asked in a team meeting if anyone had been approached by gamblers Eller spoke up and told without hesitation...so while bribery and throwing games was a thing that happened honesty and integrity could still be leveled against such things.

Honestly there is so much gray area about Jackson and his involvement I dont think he is a fair comparison with Rose in these HOF debates.

I think Eddie Cicotte or Hal Chase are better for these debates. Both would be HOFers and their guilt, like Rose, is pretty black and white.

Ya I think Cicotte is a HOFer, better record and ERA than HOFers and as Cummings is in basically bc he was the first real effective curveball pitcher (if not inventor) the same can be said about Cicotte and the knuckleball.

Chase was considered the greatest 1B to play by many even well into Lou Gehrig's career in the 1930s.

If he was so guilty of perjury, why was he never prosecuted then? Even today people make lots of accusations that go nowhere. Also, if in trying to get through this he listens to different people, like the White Sox attorneys who were advising him at some point, and then others at different times, he's going to get thrown into a lot of different directions trying to do what everyone is telling him at that time. Not saying it is right, but his situation is a lot more gray than most of the others. Plus, hate to bring it up again, but there was no specific rule in place at the time of the 1919 scandal about what was done. Also, the actual trial wasn't about a specific law being broken, but about how the Black Sox players by throwing the World Series had cheated their their non-complicit teammates out of their share of the WS winning money. In fact, I believe teammate Shano Collins was named as the wronged party in the indictments, not baseball, the fans, or anyone else. Also heard that Comiskey supposedly went ahead and paid the difference in player's money earned between the winners and losers of the World Series to White Sox players not part of the scandal. So Collins and the others it seems were made whole and didn't suffer any financial loss after all. It is all very strange and confusing, and based on Comiskey's and the team's actions during all this has to make one wonder if they maybe had a bigger role in all this that they were trying to keep covered up.

Jackson was charged with perjury, it was investigated and a warrant was issued for his arrest and he failed to show up for a pre-trial hearing.

In his civil trial, Jackson testified he never made the statements that were in grand jury transcripts, he claimed no one ever approached him about a fix, then admitted he took $5,000, there were just way too many inconsistencies to believe anything he said. No matter who was coaching him on what to say, the truth is the truth.

Jackson Perjury
 

Here's more of the story regarding the perjury charge against Jackson. It actually comes from a suit he brought against Comiskey for back pay on his contract after he got banned from baseball, and actually won via a jury trial. The judge however threw the case out and claimed that he wouldn't agree with the jury because he claimed Jackson had perjured himself. There was no actual indictment per se, and thus no charges ever brought. But it did get get Comiskey out of having to pay Jackson anything.

https://onmilwaukee.com/articles/sho...trialmilwaukee

Also, isn't it a bit odd how transcripts and documents that supposedly were lost and couldn't be found from back when the 1919 Black Sox trial was going on suddenly and miraculously appeared, coming from Comiskey's attorneys no less, to allow the judge in this civil case to find a reason to rule against Jackson and vacate a valid jury decision?

The more I see and hear about this, the more I come to believe that Jackson was a pawn in this whole thing and used and manipulated by those around him. Was he wrong for ever getting involved in this and supposedly keeping the money he admitted being given, yes? But when you read and hear about all the other circumstances surrounding this it appears that he was not a willing participant and clearly not an instigator of the of the whole mess. In law, intent and motive can play a big part in someone's guilt or innocence. It was said that he didn't ask for the money and it was literally thrown at him, and that he tried to give it back, but the others wouldn't take it, so he ended up keeping it. What if instead of just keeping the money Jackson and his wife had donated it to some charity? Would that change anyone's mind today, or have maybe swayed MLB and the HOF to have let him in? Of course we'll never know.

For all the people who are so righteous and strictly follow all rules and laws and say he's guilty and broke the rules, and therefore should have been banned from baseball and ineligible for the HOF, just remember, there was no specific rule about this in baseball at the time of his alleged offense. And if you go back through all the rules changes that have occurred in baseball over the last 150 or so years, never once has any change in the rules been retroactively applied. How many of you knew that prior to 1931, if a player hit a ball that bounced in the outfield and then it went over the fence that it was considered a home run? Has anyone ever gone back and asked about adjusting the records then so they comply with the modern rules? Or look at the current issue in baseball regarding pitchers using foreign substances, should there be a review and revision to all earlier pitchers now because of it? And here's a really good one. How many times in the history of MLB have you heard or seen of an instance where a pitcher deliberately threw at a batter? Happens quite a bit, unwritten rules of baseball and all that, right? How many of those pitchers have ever been arrested and charged with assault (and battery if they actually hit the batter)? Forget the fact that the baseball Commissioner can fine and suspend them per Rule 21, intentionally throwing at and hitting someone with a baseball is a clear violation of actual criminal laws pretty much everywhere in the U.S., and having it occur on the field during a ballgame is no exception or excuse. But no one ever gets arrested and charged do they? One big reason is probably because the players being thrown at and hit don't/won't ever press charges and the baseball community as a whole follows their unwritten rules that throwing at someone is part of the game and therefore, you don't go after them outside of baseball. So what if players suddenly started to ask authorities to press charges against these pitchers? Just think how police, prosecutors, the MLB itself, and even the fans, would initially react and how they would likely be against it and try to ignore the charges and such because of the negative impact on the game.

Back in Jackson's day the circumstances weren't that much different. People knew of the gamblers and their potential influence on ballplayers and the game, including the owners. They knew how wrong it really was, but nobody really said or did anything about it and the baseball community kind of just accepted it and took care of those issues internally, much like a pitcher intentionally throwing at another team's batter for an alleged baseball offense. It was only when the owners started to feel that their revenue was at stake from the fans getting fed up with the gambling that they did something about it. And make no mistake, they didn't do it exclusively for the good of the game, they did it for their own pocketbooks.

I don't know that I would let him into the Hall because the evidence does suggest he took the money, but I don't disagree he probably just handled the whole thing terribly and didn't know what to do. Hopefully without sounding politically incorrect, he was not sophisticated, I believe he was functionally illiterate, and he may just have been out of his element and didn't have the confidence to go against much less report his teammates.

Don't disagree and hadn't heard that part of it. But if he did have a warrant issued, why was it never followed up? Something doesn't make sense. Here's an interesting story from a writer at the time with additional information maybe not well known.

https://chicagology.com/baseball/191...ejacksontrial/

And during the original trial, the same attorneys for Comiskey that were supposedly helping to defend him were then working against him in the later civil trial he brought against Comiskey for back pay. The hints, rumors and coincidental occurrences that point to all the collusion, bribery and underhanded tactics going on back then is appalling. During the 1919 trial, Jackson was told what to do and say by Comiskey's attorneys, and he was obviously very naive and foolish in thinking that Comiskey was ever looking out for him. By Comiskey's own testimony and actions he proves himself to be an even bigger liar than pretty much anyone else involved in the scandal. It is very obvious he is concerned solely with protecting himself and his interests, and that he would do virtually anything to do so, and at the detriment of anyone else. Here's a really good question for you. Since Jackson had told him about the scandal and everything, and he still worked to keep it secret and hide it from then AL President, Ban Johnson, along with re-signing all the guilty players for the next season, isn't he technically guilty of pretty much the same thing as all the accused in the case, even though his involvement was more after the fact? So when the truth started coming out about his knowledge, involvement and obvious cover-up, why wasn't he also immediately banned from baseball by either Johnson, or Landis later on? Hmmm, could it be because he was one of the owners that paid their salaries?????

It is very interesting how when you look at MLB's Rule 21 regarding gambling and the fixing of games, it specifically stops short of including exactly what Comiskey is clearly guilty of in regards to this whole cover-up. Does anyone not think he was given special treatment because of his place and ownership back then? He clearly wouldn't get away with that today and would likely be forced to sell the team immediately. I believe it was Landis who put Rule 21 in place, around 1927 or so. Do you really think it was a coincidence that the Federal League case against MLB that Landis oversaw, and purposely delayed to the benefit of the MLB owners, wasn't at least partially responsible for his being offered a lucrative job as their Commissioner? That sounds a lot like a payoff to me! Any reason then that he may not have given Comiskey a break when writing that Rule 21 then so it wouldn't specifically incriminate him for what he had done? In fact, wasn't he hired for 7 year terms as Commissioner? And oh yes, wasn't 1927 the 7th year of his initial term so WOW, another coincidence. He got voted to another 7 year term right after putting the new rule in place that didn't incriminate one of the MLB owners, how convenient.

So would it really be a shocking surprise for someone rich and powerful like Comiskey to have gotten his attorneys to draw up records and documents to improve his case, or to make Jackson look bad for his benefit. Or even reach out to the judge in the later civil case for help. Heck, look how the MLB owners sidled up to Landis for his help. Truth is, if Landis did knowingly handle things in the case brought by the Federal League in favor of MLB and its owners, he should have retired from the case due to his his inability to be impartial. And then accepting a job and money from MLB owners soon after only makes his potential collusion with them all the more plausible. And for all we know, Landis himself being a former federal judge could have intervened on behalf of Comiskey with the civil judge in the later case, and the claim and warrant for perjury were possibly done to deter Jackson and his attorney from even thinking about coming back after Comiskey ever again. So again, if they really intended to go after Jackson for perjury, why did it never go to trial if they went to the trouble of charging him and even issuing a warrant?

Despite the conflicting testimony of Jackson and him keeping the money, it appears that pretty much all of that damning evidence is due, at least in part, to Comiskey and his attorneys' involvement in the case and in all likelihood from telling Jackson what to do and say in the original trial. Just think about it, how coincidental is it that transcripts and grand jury testimony disappear from the original trial, which helps to get the Black Sox players acquitted, but then suddenly reappear and are produced by Comiskey's lawyers just in time in defense of his civil trial against Jackson?

So if Comiskey did tell Jackson to keep the money, and then tried to cover things up like it sounds, it seems Jackson was trying to do the right thing and do what his boss and employer said. And don't forget, back then with the reserve clause in baseball, Jackson was basically an indentured servant to Comiskey and he knew it. If he went against what Comiskey said he could be locked out of baseball forever anyway. In fact, in today's world what Comiskey did to Jackson could almost be considered criminal in some cases. So if Jackson doesn't deserve to be in the HOF, then Comiskey even more so, should be banned from baseball retroactively, and his name removed from the HOF immediately.

One other thought that I don't think has been mentioned yet in Jackson's defense: Gamblers back then were dangerous and the people who got involved with them knew it. Lefty Williams and his wife were threatened if he didn't lose that final game for instance. So if Jackson took money, or, if under Comiskey's attorneys' advice, said he took money, Jackson might have been afraid to then say he essentially double-crossed the gamblers by playing to win.

Very good point. Also a supporting narrative to Jackson's claim that Williams literally threw the money at him. Would make sense that Williams would be so concerned in trying to get Jackson on board with the fix, to better assure it would actually happen. And also makes sense that Jackson wouldn't say anything to possibly protect one of his teammates, and their family, from potential harm. And interestingly, with all that was going on, I've never heard of any of the gamblers involved suffering any consequences from all this.

Arnold Rothstein was shot to death 9 years later.

Yes, but that was unrelated (he didn’t pay his debts in a poker game he thought was rigged) and a number of mobsters he mentored held high positions in organized crime into the middle of the century.

Can't disagree with you. Still say he was a pawn in all this and likely doesn't deserve the treatment he got as he was taken advantage of by both his teamates and Comiskey. Once he told Comiskey what had happened, I'm guessing he figured he did the right thing and then followed his orders. How was he to know just how crooked and conniving Comiskey and his attorneys could be. In his defense though, MLB should have gone after and similarly booted Comiskey for his actions in all this, or should I say inactions. The fact that nothing seemed to blow back on Comiskey just helps to show how corrupt and collusive the MLB owners could be. The fact that the rest of the owners didn't band together to oust Comiskey because of all this just makes you wonder what he had on all them that kept them quiet.

And if that is true, isn't that an ironic coincidence. He creates a gambling scandal to cheat others betting on the world series, and then he gets shot for refusing to pay off a gambling debt to someone he thinks cheated him. Got what he deserved it sounds like!!!

Jackson said this both in 1920 and 1924. In 1920 the attorney did not follow up and ask what he meant by "...brought it in my room and threw it down" and 1924 Jackson and Williams both basically claimed that Williams paid Jackson part of his (Williams) payoff bc Williams used Jackson's name in the meeting with the Gamblers...meeting Jackson never attended. Basically putting up the idea that Williams used Jackson's name to help sell the fix to gamblers then felt bad about it later. Who knows if this is true, maybe, but Jackson still knew about it per Gandil running it by him.

Several of the problems with Jackson's 1920 testimony could be laid to the fact that the attorney didnt follow up with proper questions after Jackson's responses...which might have helped Jackson's case but again the players interest was not at all in consideration...and this is probably one of the chief differences in the 2 testimonies as in 1924 Jackson was representing himself and had proper council and chances to clarify.

So true. Think about what would have happened had Jackson gone to the AL President, Ban Johnson, with the money and the story about the scandal instead of going to Comiskey. Chances are Jackson would be in the HOF today, but probably nowhere near as well known and as popular (and expensive) as his cards are today.

Very true.

And to the point about his baseball cards (and really all the Black Sox cards bc lets be honest if the scandal never happened that 1915 Zeenut McMullin aint no $5k card)...

My first baseball collecting book was Robert Obojski's "Baseball Memorabilia" printed in 1991 and he has a mini section titled "Joe Jackson Reinstatement Unlikely Despite Petitions, So Cards Suffer"...this did not age well

LOL

So very true.

Think about it like the Gretzky-T206 Wagner card, which up until this pandemic had previously been the most expensive baseball card ever sold. But that sale came before the Mastro trial and Bill Mastro's admission in front of an open court that it had been cut off a strip of T206 cards found back in the 80's I believe, which means PSA completely mis-graded the very first card they ever looked at. And instead of an "8" grade, it should have gotten no better than an "A". Well, I remember hearing some speculation on what that admission by Mastro would do to the value of that card. There was even some speculation that the card's current owner should go back to PSA and demand they make good on their guarantee and buy the card from them for what they had paid for it. But then I remember someone else saying they would never do that, and that PSA probably wouldn't pay out for it anyway. And not because PSA wouldn't stand behind their guarantee, but because the card had gone from simply being famous to having now become infamous, and in all likelihood was now worth even more than it was before. And oddly enough, I can't disagree. So it isn't just the ladies that apparently have a thing for the bad boys! LOL

If he was scared for his safety, so scared he couldn’t say anything about the fix, I don’t see why he would double cross them, which the pro-Jackson narrative is that he did.

I would say the pro-Jackson narrative is he knew about the fix and turned down the offer to participate and was given money by his friend Lefty Williams for using his name with gamblers without Jackson's permission...

There is also this...if you read the AP that "quotes" Jackson from the day he gave testimony in 1920 there are a lot of damning quotes attributed to Jackson telling how he threw games, which he does not say at all in his testimony where he says he played to win...there are two possible reasons for this:

1. The AP simply made it up/guessed at what Jackson was telling the grand jury...other words...totally fake news

2. Jackson did issue comments to the press/AP and he did say this in order for the underworld to read and not try to hurt/kill him for crossing them.

I firmly believe #1 but I know big JJ supporters that think it is #2

Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame because he holds the most important record in baseball. And he never bet against the Reds so his performance was never compromised.

Again how he placed the bets does not matter as the rule is you cant bet on baseball period...a rule he fully knew...rules are rules

Landis original rule in 1927 was betting on a game "you were involved in", I believe was the wording, was a life time ban...the Reds/Rose was directly involved in the games he bet on...the "he never bet against the Reds" argument is irrelevant and a moot point

Anything related to homers is a much more important record.

At least I hope most see it that way. Glorifying base hits isn't much different than keeping track of just how many first downs a QB, RB, or WR produce.

I would also think 1 is likeliest, the media has a very long history of completely making crap up, while Jackson was an unintelligent man who had no history of being media savvy in the least.

Exactly how and why does that make a difference when the rule makes no such distinction?

What is your basis for determining this? Did you examine whether his decisions and performance in games he bet on impacted performance in other games? If not, how can you make such a definitive proclamation?

Think about it, he didn't really double cross the fix. In his testimony from the later 1924 civil trial he said he took the money and went to tell Comiskey right AFTER the 1919 World Series had ended. So he waited till things played out and the gamblers got the result they wanted. Had he gone to Comiskey at the very beginning, he had no idea what he would say or do. For all he knew, Comiskey would have blown the whistle and stopped the series and put Williams and his family at risk from retribution by the gamblers. It seems that by waiting he may have actually been doing it to protect others, which is something that his naysayers never seem to take into consideration. Even though it seems clear that he was never directly involved with any of the gamblers himself, never meeting any of them in person apparently, he was likely made aware of the physical threats to others and had to consider that in his reaction to what was happening around him and what he would say and do as a result. In fact, given the uncertainty of knowing how the gamblers would react if their scheme was thwarted and their fix exposed, it isn't a huge stretch for Jackson to have possibly been worried that coming forth with what he knew could have potentially put his own family at risk also. So think about that, here's a guy who didn't go out and ask for any of this, and he gets stuck right in the middle of everything surrounded by a lot of complete a--holes on all sides of the situation, and he still is the only one to come forward to try and tell someone he thinks will know what the right thing to do is, all why possibly worrying that by doing so he could potentially be putting others, and his own family, at risk of physical harm. His biggest mistake from where I'm sitting was telling this all to Comiskey. Being the team's owner and literally a partner of all the other MLB owners, you would think Comiskey's having such a huge vested interest in baseball would have made him the perfect person for Jackson to go to and tell about all this. Unbeknownst to Jackson though, it turns out that Comiskey is probably the biggest a--hole of them all in this whole affair. And before anyone says that Jackson should have gone to someone else then, don't forget how player contracts were in those days. Comiskey basically owned Jackson's baseball rights for life. He couldn't have gone and have played for anyone else in the majors without Comiskey's permission.

So then to top it all off, Jackson gets screwed by Landis and the rest of MLB, who just want to make an example of him and the other Black Sox players so they can increase their control over all the players in MLB, and make themselves look good to the fans in supposedly trying to protect the integrity of the game. The MLB owners didn't care about the game's integrity though, they only cared about their pocketbooks and making sure the fans didn't stop coming to the games because they thought they were fixed. If they had really cared about the game's integrity, they would have immediately thrown Comiskey out of baseball. Jackson has to be sacrificed then because if they had made an exception for him because of his story, the focus would have likely jumped over to Comiskey and his part in all this. And that is about the only logical sense you can make out of all this. The owner's, and Landis, stuck together and protected themselves. This also goes to show how collusive and equally corrupt Landis may have been all along, going back to his involvement with the Federal League case years earlier and his seeming failure to act impartially, as was his duty, on behalf of the American public as a whole, and then the follow-up appointment a couple years later as MLB's first Commissioner, at a very lucrative salary. Of course no one would ever think of that as being some type of payoff by the MLB owners!?!?!?

The one thing that doesn't make a lot of sense though is that this info about Comiskey and what was going on eventually did come out, especially one would think when the susequent civil trial between Jackson and Comiskey took place in 1924. Yet there didn't seem to be any big uproar or questioning about it in among the fans or the public at large. Certainly nothing like the exposure and coverage the original Black Sox scandal and trial received. I guess a lot of that has to do with the lack of technology and the virtually instantaneous media coverage we have today, and the fact that back then a civil suite isn't going to have anywhere near the interest a case about the World Series would. Plus, I wouldn't have put it past MLB and the owners to use their wealth and connections to suppress, or at least control, what actually got out in the media and try to limit what and how many people heard anything, so it would all blow over as quickly as possible. Which it apparently did. So this again makes me question who really is guilty and who really is innocent in all this.

Wid,

Rose's record is included in the HOF, so his name is ackowledged. It is just that he is not eligible to be a formal HOF inductee and have his own plaque, etc.

And the major league Rule 21 about gambling is, I believe, required to be prominently displayed in all major league team locker rooms, or somewhere the players will easily see it. So Rose knew the rule and knew he was breaking it. And if he was such a gambling addict, why didn't he just bet on other sports, or at least teams he wasn't playing/managing on, or playing/managing against? And whether you think the rule fair or not, it is the rule, and makes obvious, logical sense.

Mmmmm, maybe! But not that easy and clear cut because you need base hits to get your average up there. Also, a homer isn't the only way to drive in runs. You can easily argue that a single or double with the bases loaded is more significant than a solo home run. Plus, how do the players most often get on base to score runs when someone does hit a multi-run homer? And don't forget there used to be a dead-ball era where few homers were hit at all, and up until 1931 a ball that landed in the outfield and then bounced over the fence also counted as a home run. Today that is just a double. MLB has done what they can to increase homers because modern fans seem to like the offense more than 1 - 0 pitching duels. Still, when you talk of offensive might in MLB, I don't think anyone would dare dispute the epitome of that to be someone who won the Triple Crown; most homers, most RBIs, AND highest batting average. And the last two of those Triple Crown items are going to definitely be dependent on hits (singles) to a very significant degree, either by that player trying to win the Triple Crown, or by his teammates.

Which explains why Rose is 179th in career Avg...

Behind luminaries such as Manny Mota, Hal Morris, Rusty Greer etc.

Please do not soil Rusty Greer's name in this manner ever again!

LOL

Touche' Scott. I can give you that, but in Rose's defense, he's also 14th on the all-time Walks list, and that definitely doesn't help his average. Also, most of those ahead of him on that all-time Walks list are considered HR hitters. Unfortunately, he is only 288th on the all-time OBP list, which doesn't seem to help him at all, but that is somewhat offset by him being 6th un the all-time Runs Scored list, which he wouldn't be if it wasn't for all his hits. Another thing to be considered regarding Rose's average is that he played in 24 seasons, the last 5 of which he wasn't even close to hitting .300 in any of them. Had he stopped at only 18 or 19 seasons, he'd be a bit higher on that all-time averages list. Plus, don't forget that Rose primarily played during an era when the overall player averages were a lot less than many other eras. In fact, his first 6 seasons in baseball were played before MLB finally decided to lower the pitcher's mounds due to the extreme dominance of pitchers back then.

And as far as home run hitters being so much better, if you take a look at the true all-time home run leader, after discounting the questionable PED and 'roid users, we're really talking about Hank Aaron. Aaron had 755 home runs over a 23 year career, but oddly enough, never hit even 50 home runs in a single season, which seems odd for someone who would be an all-time home run leader. In fact, during Aaron's most prolific season he hit a max of 47 dingers which put him tied for 80th on the all-time list of single season home run hitters. And that was his best year. The majority of his years, Aaron only hit 20-30+ dingers. So he really isn't much different than Rose in this regard. Unless you honestly want to give full credit to the steroid and PED cheaters.

So it seems to me that if you are going to disparage Rose, you're pretty much doing the same thing to Aaron.

Ya know, I looked up Rusty since you mentioned him. He had a MUCH better career than I remembered. He was actually really good before the injuries wrecked him. Color me shocked!

Walks have no effect on his average.

He's 14th on the walks list because he played for 500 years. He averaged 71 walks per 162 games, a very pedestrian amount, even moreso for a guy at the top of the lineup.


Well, yeah. He played 250 more games than anybody else while hitting at the top of the order. I would hope he'd be way up there in runs scored. To be fair, he did have some great seasons scoring runs, leading the league four times.

If he quit after 1981, his last good season, he'd have a .310 career average. That would put him in a tie for 109th with Luke Appling, Jim O'Rourke, and Bob Meusel.

But he also would have been a couple hundred hits short of Ty Cobb and there's no way Pete was going to retire without passing Ty barring injury.

A fair point.

It's absolutely indisputable that it's better to be a home run hitter than a singles guy like Pete Rose. Rose and Hank Aaron had the same OBP (basically) but Hank did WAAAAAY more damage when he got on base. Aaron had more than 400 more extra base hits than Rose and all of those addition XBHs were home runs.

Put another way - every time somebody hits a homer, runs are scored. Not so much for singles.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

This makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

Yes Rusty Greer is a Texas Rangers' legend and very under rated player who's career was cut short.

If 1) Jackson took money to throw games, which I understand he admitted to in court and 2) then played to win as his average suggests he may have and he and his supporters say he did, I would think that is double crossing the gamblers. Taking money from people to do a thing he did not then do. If he was scared of them, as was being alleged, this is quite a bold move.

They take away from times at bat where he could get a hit. I see your point though because he could not do as well with those extra at bats. Point taken!

Agreed and already acquiesced to you in your first point.

Of course, that is a function of his playing for so long. But again, he wouldn't have played for so long if he wasn't able to still play.

Agreed, but again, I said he'd move up a bit, not get into the top 10. Look at the major league averages over the time he was playing versus other eras in baseball.

Don't disagree. But the argument about singles being nothing compared to home runs was being brought up in this thread as more of a way to dis Rose and further the argument against him being in the HOF. That is the main reason I'm using Rose's stats to try to discourage the concept of singles not really being that important versus home runs. So i was using him in my counter arguments. Doesn't mean he's the be-all, end-all player to refer to, just that he was the one being mentioned in regards to this HOF thread and singles not being so important. Also, even if he missed Cobb, he still would have had close to 4,000 hits which normally would have gotten him HOF status regardless of catching Cobb or not.

Thank you for that.


Again, you're talking about Rose in this context, and now Rose versus Aaron. And I never said that hitting a home run wasn't better than hitting a single. This whole thing started because of my initial response to a post by cardsagain74 who said "Anything related to a home run is a more important record. At least I hope most see it that way. Glorifying base hits isn't much different than keeping track of just how many first downs a QB, RB, or WR produce." My response back didn't say yes or no, just maybe! And I put forth things in my response to him that were trying to show that maybe hits were a little more important to the game than he was letting on. I never even mentioned Rose in that response. It was then that Scott (Aquarian Sports Cards) made the funny post/response about Rose only being 179th on the career AVG. list, and the "luminaries" he was behind. I was just as jokingly coming back and basically agreeing with him, not defending Rose really, but pointing out some of his career stats overall to show he wasn't a complete schmuck!

Yes, but there are still way more singles hit than home runs, and they will always be a huge part of the game. And again, going back to the original context based on what the original poster I was initially responding to was saying about homers, it almost sounded as though he'd prefer we do away with anything but home runs entirely. If that is the case, it almost sounded like he'd rather we turn baseball into a home run derby contest and make it a pitcher versus batter duel where if it doesn't go over the fence, its an out! The Home Run Derby is super popular during the All-Star game break, and just think, you don't need to worry about position players in the field then. Just find as many big studs as you can to pound the ball over the fence. Still have a nine inning game with the pitchers able to strike out the batters, but no walks. (Lord help us, those are even more boring than singles, right?) And just think how much faster the games would go by then if we didn't bother with overly glorified singles and other hits that aren't home runs, which is another thing MLB and fans have been complaining about for a lot years now.

Really!?!?!? It is pretty obvious Bonds used PEDs to extend his career and become the all-time hone run leader, so if you properly don't count him, that leaves Hank Aaron as the true all-time home run leader. And Aaron got to that point by doing what Rose did, play for so many years to wrack up the numbers to finally pass Ruth. Again, how is it that the all-time (honest) home-run leader never once hit 50 in a single season? Remember, Aaron's most prolific home run season ever tied him for only 80th on the list of all time single season home run totals. Still, Aaron led the majors in home runs 4 times, runs scored 3 times, hits 2 times, and doubles 4 times. Rose led the majors in runs scored 4 times, hits 7 times, and doubles 5 times. Granted, Rose never led the majors in home runs or RBIs, whereas Aaron led in RBIs 4 times. But as previously mentioned, that RBI difference had a lot to do with Rose being primarily a lead-off hitter whereas Aaron was a middle-of-the-order guy with way more RBI opportunities. And to be fair, the most hits Rose ever had in a season only put him tied at 36th on the all-time single season hit list, whereas Aaron's best year had him tied for 71st most hits in a season on that same list. However, Aaron also only reached 200 hit seasons twice in his career, whereas Rose reached 200 hits 11 times. Bottom line is, the point you didn't get is that the (honest) all-time home run leader got his title the same way Rose got his all-time hits title, by hanging on and doing it over a very long period of time. Quite frankly, had Ichiro not spent so many years playing in Japan before coming to the majors, he likely would have easily eclipsed both Cobb and Rose as the all-time hits leader. And had Ruth not spent his first five years in the majors mostly just pitching for Boston, Aaron would have probably still been on a major league roster right up till the past season, still trying to catch Ruth. (And even better, we probably wouldn't have been concerned about Bonds and what he had done, as he likely wouldn't be the all-time home rune leader either!!!)

It's basically what I just got through saying. If you're disparaging Rose's all-time hits record because he batted more than anyone else, you basically have to say the same thing about Aaron. Ruth had his 715 home runs in 8,399 official plate appearances. It took Aaron 12,364 official plate appearances to get to 755 home runs. Rose had 14,053 plate appearances to get 4,256 hits lifetime, whereas Cobb had 11,440 plate appearances to get 4,189 hits. Aaron needed 3,363 more plate appearances to out homer Ruth by 40 dingers, and Rose needed 2,613 more plate appearances to get 67 more hits than Cobb.


Bottom line is, my posting was really about the disparagement of singles versus home runs and someone saying how unimportant they seemed to feel that singles were. I was merely trying to come back and argue that in the history of the game, and still today, regular hits, while maybe not always as important as home runs, are still pretty damned important as part of the game.

I'll leave you with this to think about. I remember hearing the story about how reporters and others used to bug Cobb about all the home runs being hit by Ruth and others, and how much better that was than all the singles that Cobb hit over his career, and so why didn't he hit more homers. So supposedly Cobb told some reporter one day he could hit homers if he wanted to, so watch him. And over the next two games he played on May 5th and May 6th of 1925, he preceded to hit a total of 5 home runs in those two games. He actually ended up going 9 for 12 over the two games, so hit for average as well. He then went back to his normal style of batting and ended up with 12 homers for the season, tying his all-time single season home run total from 1921. By the way, I believe he was 38 years old at the time, an age where many power hitters have already started to experience a severe decline in their ability to hit home runs. Oh, I forgot to add, that is still the major league record to this day for most homers ever in two back-to-back games. In fact, Kyle Schwarber just matched that record this past June 20, 1921. Now Cobb was not the first major league player to actually accomplish this feat, it was actually first set by Cap Anson back in 1884, but Cobb was the second ever to do it. But how about this, of the top ten all-time home run hitters in MLB, only Bonds and A-Rod have been able to match that record, and they are both known PED cheaters. McGwire at #11 on the all-time home run list actually matched the record twice, but again, a known PED user and cheater. Then you go all the way down to Manny Rameriz, #15 on the list, to possibly find a clean hitter that matched the record......oh wait, Manny was caught using PEDs as well. Finally you get down to Mike Schmidt at #16 on the all-time home run list before you finally find a known clean hitter that was able to match the same major league record that Cobb has held part of for almost 100 years now. Isn't that amazing?

So here's Cobb at 38 years of age in 1925 just turning on the home run hitting ability to shut up some reporter during the height of the initial home run craze in baseball, powered by Ruth no less. And then immediately after showing what he could do, Cobb goes right back to his normal batting style of getting hits and bats .378 for the season. He did lead the majors with a 1.066 OPS that year also. (Not too shabby, huh?) The whole story of what Cobb actually said, or didn't say, about suddenly hitting home runs can't be proven exactly, but the record is for real. Think about it, no one else in the 1920's could match this, not even Ruth or Gehrig. It wasn't till 1936 that Lazzeri was the next player to match the record, and after that it wasn't till 1947 when Kiner did it on two different occasion that one Summer.

So all you people talking about how home runs are so much more important than singles, I only wish Ty Cobb was still with us today to hear what he'd have to say to all of you about that!!! LOL Have a good 4th of July everybody..

Well, the problem is no one knows for certain what exactly happened or was actually said. From what I remember hearing about the testimony given in the 1924 civil trial, Lefty Williams supposedly gave Jackson the money and told him that he (or maybe one of the other Black Sox players) had used Jackson's name in talking to the gamblers and selling them on the deal, and that he supposedly felt bad for doing that and so he gave Jackson $5,000 out of the money that he was given by the gamblers. So if that is the true version of what happened, Jackson never actually took or was directly given money by the gamblers. In which case he wouldn't have been double crossing them as he never really agreed to the fix with them to begin with. Plus, he waited till after the the World Series had ended and the actions of the other Black Sox players involved had been enough to throw the series so the gamblers were able to cash in on their bets. To my thinking, he would have only been able to double-cross them had he somehow stopped the White Sox from losing the series, which he didn't because he waited till after it was over to go to Comiskey and tell him what had happened. And as was supposedly told in testimony during the 1924 civil case, and apparently confirmed by Comiskey himself, Jackson brought the $5,000 that Williams had given him to Comiskey's office two days after the World Series had ended and asked Comiskey what he should do with it after telling him about the fix. To me that doesn't sound like Jackson had actually intended to keep the money, especially when it was supposedly testified to that Jackson had originally tried to give the money back to Williams, who apparently refused to accept it. And then after telling Comiskey about the fix and asking him what to do with the money, Comiskey apparently told Jackson to keep it and say nothing about it to anybody. And if all these previously described events actually occurred, that is most likely the main thing that got Jackson in trouble, listening to Comiskey and following his advice to keep the money. Supposedly Jackson spent the money on a sister's medical bills, so it doesn't sound like he and his wife personally enriched themselves. But because he ended up keeping it, that seems to be what most people end up hanging their hat on as the main reason he's so guilty and deserving of his permanent banishment from baseball.

The story is that Lefty Williams and his wife were supposedly threatened by the gamblers. I hadn't heard that Jackson was directly threatened, but given what was said about Williams and his family, I guess it could be construed to have applied to Jackson and his family as well. I'd also never heard about any of the other Black Sox players being physically threatened by the gamblers either, but don't know all the info out there. For all we know, Williams could have been making up the threats against him and his wife as a way to possibly coerce Jackson to go along with the fix and take the money. And Jackson not wanting his teammate or his teammate's family to be harmed, may have held onto the money, but waited till the series was over before telling Comiskey about the fix then. That way the gamblers got what they wanted and weren't double crossed. If I remember correctly, it was a best of nine World Series, and Chicago ended up losing it in eight games, apparently without Jackson having to do anything intentional to throw a game. Would be interesting had it gone to nine games and there was a chance that Chicago could have ended up winning. One wonders if in that case Jackson might have then purposely done something to help throw that last game to lose the series, and thereby help to protect Williams and his family from any harm at the hands of the gamblers. We'll never know though.

I disagree. The homer records have been watered down due to the steroid era and cannot be viewed consistently over time. Rose's record is a real record and will be the benchmark for decades, maybe centuries.

I think it is generally accepted that he only bet on the reds. I know of no testimony or accusation that he bet against his team.

The point of this thread, i thought, was to make an argument for Rose/Jackson to be in the Hall. So my argument is that his actions never affected the sanctity of the game because he always put in 100% attempt to win. I get that 'rules are rules' but we are not talking about Harold Baines, rather one of the greatest hitters of all time.

There are also signs for no pepper games written clearly on every wall in every stadium. not sure I ever saw anyone play pepper games but if I did , they would be breaking clear rules.

Wid,

Understand what you're saying, but in Rose's case he really doesn't has a leg to stand on as the rule was really clear. The problem with Rose's defense that he only bet on the Red's to win, while theoretically lending itself to the argument that he therefore wasn't doing anything to purposely lose games, is that there is no way to prove that. At least not that I'm aware of. The only way you could even begin to give him the benefit of the doubt is if you believe him 100% in that what he said about his betting patterns is true. But remember, he initially lied and kept denying he was betting on Red's games at all, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When he finally had to admit to the betting, that's when the story about him only having bet on the Red's to win came out. Why or how would anyone in their right mind be able to believe a word Rose said after the initial lies he kept swearing to for all those years? And the rule he broke had been in place since 1927, and said with absolutely no exceptions, the penalty was immediate and permanent suspension and ineligibility from having anything to do with MLB.

Now, with all the changes going on in professional sports here in the U.S., along with the loosening up of gambling laws and its legalization in more and more states, the major U.S. professional sports leagues all seem to be embracing sports gambling and trying to figure out how to partner up with the gambling industry, and of course get their cut of the pie as well. Given such changing thinking, I'm guessing MLB may at some point begin to rethink their rules on gambling as they may begin to look to restrictive and overly hypocritical. However, I doubt any of the major sports, especially baseball, will ever allow gambling by a player/manager on their own team, or on a team they are playing against. And for MLB, if they did finally revise their gambling rules, I think they would change the penalty so it wasn't always just permanent suspension and ineligibility. I would guess, depending on the facts and circumstances of each separate gambling transgression, they could maybe just suspend a player for a number of games or some specified period of time and/or fine them some specified amount, rather than always just invoking a permanent suspension

Because of Rose's past actions and lying, I've always figured he pissed off so many people that run MLB that as punishment, they'll never let him live to see the day he gets enshrined in Cooperstown. My guess is that after he finally passes away, they'll wait some period of time and then maybe change the rules to figure out a way to let him regain eligibility and allow him to then be posthumously inducted into the HOF. And I think at that point they'll also let Joe Jackson become eligible again and allow him to go into Cooperstown as well. Jackson's case for going into the HOF has always been stronger than Rose's, especially since the gambling rules keeping Rose out weren't even in effect when Jackson's transgressions occurred. Even so, always figured that MLB wasn't going to go back now and change the rules to let Jackson back in because if they did, they'd probably get lambasted by the pro-Rose people until they ended up letting him in as well. So I honestly think they'll both get in the HOF as inductees one day, just depends on how long Rose stays around.

And regarding the no pepper game rule, wasn't really aware of that myself, but that probably relates to MLB Rule 3.09. Did a little checking and sure enough, that rule was put on the books back in the 1920s, and the origin for it was directly because of the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Apparently back then, the players from both teams would often come out before games and talk and fraternize amongst themselves, and often play games of pepper together. After the gambling scandal, MLB was so afraid of the fans thinking the players from the two teams may be getting together before games to talk about fixing games or hooking up with gamblers , or whatever, they didn't want the fans to see the players or coaches from either of the two teams talking or fraternizing with each other, nor talking or fraternizing with any spectators or anyone in the stands, and then get the idea something was going on. The actual rule isn't that long and is as follows:

Rule 3.09: Players in uniform shall not address or mingle with spectators, nor sit in the stands before, during, or after a game. No manager, coach or player shall address any spectator before or during a game. Players of opposing teams shall not fraternize at any time while in uniform.

And that is it, that is the entire rule. It doesn't actually say anything about the game of pepper not being allowed, it just means that players from both teams can't join in on a pepper game together. Also, the rule doesn't really state what the penalty is for an infraction, or who exactly is responsible for enforcing the rule. Since there is no mention of umpires in the rule, I would guess MLB was looking to them to police and enforce this. But if the intent of the rule was to remove the fan's perception of anyone talking to each other or to gamblers to possibly fix a game, why would the umpires be exempt from that suspicion? In fact, given that the umpires probably made way less than any of the players, managers or coaches, wouldn't it be cheaper (and therefore easier) for the gamblers to bribe the umpires to help throw a game, especially the umpire behind the plate calling balls and strikes? This is really a stupid rule. Aside from the obvious omission in regards to the umpires, why wouldn't the players from both teams simply talk to each other before or after games, prior to getting into their uniforms, or after the leave the ballpark? And why would people assume that players would only meet and talk to the gamblers right there at the ballpark? This rule is insane and absolutely ridiculous if it was truly intended to keep fans from thinking games were being fixed. And yet, it is actually still pretty much followed even today. Why else do you think you never see opposing players talking before a game starts? Unlike all the other major sports, why do you think you never see opposing teams shake hands or the losers congratulate the winners after a game, apparently because of this rule. Never really knew that before (nor really thought about it), but now it makes some sense.

However, I do know for a fact that this rule is not always enforced. In the early 2000's I used to go to Westport, Ct every Summer to audit a client, and the Controller there was a huge Yankees fan, and she loved it when I came out with my staff assistant to do the audit work. She'd tell the owners they needed to take us out at least one evening during our stay as entertainment, so this was her way of getting the company to pay for Yankee tickets so she could go to the game as well. LOL And of course, since the company was paying for it she would try to get the best seats she could. So this one evening we head out for the old Yankee stadium from Westport, and get there early so we make it by game time and don't get caught in traffic. Turns out she was able to get some great seats, 10th-11th row back from the field, 1st base side, right on the edge of the dugout closest to home plate. So we're like 30-35 feet from the field, right at the edge of the Yankee's dugout. So I'm in the aisle seat and we're getting close to game time, and all sudden we look up and there's then current NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg going down the aisle to his seat in the 1st right, literally right in front of us and next to the Yankee dugout. And then a minute or two later, Ex-NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani comes walking down the same aisle, right past me, and plops down next to Bloomberg in the first row. (Who would have expected to see those two guys sitting together at a Yankees game?) And almost immediately after Giuliani gets settled in his seat, I look and there's Joe Torre coming out of the dugout. Takes a step or two towards the railing, picks his right leg up and swings it over the railing and sort of half sits on it, and starts BSing with Bloomberg and Giuliani, a clear violation of MLB Rule 3.09!!!!!

Thinking back on it now, never did see an umpire come anywhere near where they were talking, even though they must have been gabbing for at least a good 10-15 minutes. I also seem to remember that there were several very large gentlemen, all wearing similar dark suits, with ties and matching sunglasses and earpieces, that were all sort of standing around the area where the two ex-mayors were sitting. They never sat down once during the entire game, and I swear I never saw a single drop of sweat on any of them, despite it being about 85 degrees (or more) in the shade for the whole game. They may have been the reason the umpires never dared to come by and say anything. LOL For the life of me, can't remember who the Yankees were playing, but all the while that Torre was gabbing with the two ex-mayors, about 5-10 feet behind him we got to watch A-Rod and Jeter warming up playing catch, which was kind of cool. Best part of the evening though was getting to experience, in person, the top of the 9th inning, Yanks in a slim lead, stadium sold out and packed to the rafters, and all of a sudden you start to hear the first few notes from Metallica's "Enter Sandman" coming out of the stadium's speakers...................

What followed, alone, was well worth the price of admission!

He broke baseball's #1 rule, and he was very well aware of it.

What you are saying is like: "Sure I was driving drunk, but what's the big deal? I didn't hit anybody..."

"Lifetime Bans" ?
 

Joe Jackson was properly "banned for life" -- I used to think he was a semi-innocent dupe ("Shoeless Joe" from the movies)....but the learned SABR articles and books delving into the legal proceedings that followed the Black Sox scandal reveal him to worthy of the punishment he received.

Pete Rose was also correctly banned for life for violating MLB's "prime directive." Rose has not done anything that has convinced me otherwise. He has monetized his layers of denials and then his partial admissions and finally his alleged full admissions in books.... He still hasn't exactly done a full mea culpa. He just asserts that his achievements should "trump" the rules (sorry). Finally, even if we accept his current claim -- that he only bet on the Reds as a manager -- it's not as exonerating as one might think.
https://thegruelingtruth.com/basebal...reds-let-show/

Its also not entirely true:

https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/...ll-player-1986

Jackson is no longer alive so his ban no longer should apply if his HOF candidacy is otherwise worthy (it is)... We can talk about Eddie Cicotte too I guess.
Rose is still alive and as things now stand he should serve his lifetime ban and then we can talk about his career... Harsh, I guess but if If he gets in posthumously it would not be a tragedy like Ron Santo.

The difference is that Aaron was still great in 1973 and very good in 1974. He already owned Tyr record when he stopped being good and was just average. Rose stopped being good in 1981, playing 3 full seasons as a not good or even terrible player before playing another half season as a basically average player before finally breaking the record. And you could probably make the case he only got in the lineup because he was the one writing out the card. There's hanging around for a long time (Aaron) and the there's hanging on. Pete definitely hung on, to the detriment of his teams (.602 OPS at 1B in 1983? Yikes. Maybe Philly actually wins the title if they had an actual major league 1B that year.)


They tell similar stories about Ichiro. Seems odd that a player would intentionally choose to be less successful. In other words, the story is nonsense.

We can tell the story about Cobb is fiction because it's source is Al Stump, who just completely lied through his teeth again and again in the book it is from.

I'd check his 1925 game log, but since as it's Stump...

If you check the actual Rule 21(d)(2), it says that whoever breaks the rule is "permanently ineligible" and not "banned for life". I believe there is a difference, and the way the HOF and MLB appear to interpret it is that it goes on forever. And since MLB wrote the rule, I would think their interpretation is the one to be followed, whether anyone else likes it or not. Not saying I agree or disagree, just what it is.

I had said the background story was questionable, but I didn't hear about it from Stump's book either. There is a lot of info online and there was mention of someone other than Stump talking about it. And anyway, your logic is waaaayyyy off. Just because Stump did make up a lot of stuff about Cobb for his book doesn't mean everything he wrote about in the book is fiction and a lie. And you made a very emphatic statement that the story isn't true because of that reason, and that reason alone. And then you said to check Cobb's 1925 game log, why? To see that he didn't hit all the home runs in the story????? I trust Baseball Almanac is a reliable enough source for you. They already had it updated for Kyle Schwarber tying the record a couple weeks ago.


https://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hr5.shtml


So regardless of exactly what Cobb did or didn't say to anyone, he did do the feat and set a record that even Ruth never matched. And by the way, before anyone else jumps in to disparage Cobb, all 5 of the homers he hit in matching this record were over the fence. There were no inside-the-park homers or any that bounced over the fence.

No one is disparaging Cobb? Doubting him hitting 5 home runs in 2 games whenever he simply decided to do so is hardly disparaging, unless one feels Cobb has superhuman powers and could homer purely at will. Yes, a story that traces it's first telling to Stump is a story that is almost certainly untrue. Yes, I'd check the game logs to see if it even happened as a first step. I'm happy to stand corrected if someone has earlier documentation on this tale before Stump. I've not seen any. I doubt it's veracity.

I don't disagree that Aaron may have been a better player than Rose when comparing their last few years, but the truth is they had both lost quite a lot from their better days. And that is also not the relevant point and comparison I was referring to. Both Rose and Aaron had to play way beyond what a normal major league career is to be able to set their respective records. They both needed literally thousands of more at bats than the guys they were chasing, Cobb and Ruth. That is indisputable!!! And if you want to go even farther, the disparity is even worse. Remember, back when Ruth and Cobb played a season was 154 games, shorter than the 162 games it is now. And over the long career of Cobb, those missing games are likely the equivalent of another whole year's worth of at bats that he didn't get to add to his hit total. That could have easily been worth say another 200 hits to his all-time total. In which case, Rose may not have been able to hang on long enough to finally catch him. As for Ruth, I'd previously mentioned he didn't even bat full-time until he got to the Yankees in 1920. He was mostly pitching for the Red Sox from 1914 through 1919, even though he did start batting some more for the Sox in his last two season with them. In fact, it is funny how Ruth not even playing full-time still led the majors in home runs in both 1918 and 1919 for the Red Sox. Because of that, he didn't miss out on as many at bats as Cobb did because of the shorter schedule, but he still lost a lot of at bats from that also.

And I still point to the fact that Rose had so many years getting 200 or more hits, whereas Aaron seemed to have fewer years where he stood out as a home run hitter, and never hit 50 in a single season.

And to say Rose was chasing Cobb's record, yes of course. But you don't think Aaron wasn't also pushing to catch Ruth? You know MLB is always looking to pump up and advertise and bring interest to the sport. There was quite a lot of pressure on him to get that record. But to try and come out and now argue that because Aaron was a bit better player than Rose during their last few playing years does not change the fact that they both had to go and play a lot more to try and finally catch the people they were chasing. That was the valid and indisputable point I was making. Neither Aaron nor Rose over their careers completely dominated the area they hold their all-time records in. Certainly not like Ruth and Cobb did.

What story is nonsense, about Ichiro hitting home runs? I've also heard the stories that during batting practices Ichiro would change his swing to be like the home run guys and start belting shots all over the fences. And then after playing around and having fun he'd go right back to his normal swing and crank out singles and doubles, like he did over his entire career. A lot of his teammates had watched and seen him doing it, and felt that if he had wanted to, he could have hit a lot of home runs. But of course, he was mostly doing that during batting practices and not during actual games. Still, if you have major leaguers watching him and saying he could do it if he wanted to, I would tend to believe them more than you, unless by some chance you are a major leaguer and had actually seen Ichiro hitting in person and could honestly then tell everyone he couldn't do it if he wanted.

Now if you're saying the Cobb story is nonsense, what part of it? There is no dispute that Cobb hit 5 homers over back-to-back games, that is in the record books so that can't be it. Are you talking about the alleged story where he supposedly told some reporter beforehand he was going to hit home runs to show he could do it? If so, I'd already said there was no proof he actually said that to anyone, and it is possible someone had made it up after the fact, kind of like Ruth's called shot story. We'll never know the truth for either of them. But the fact remains that he did it, against major league pitching in back-to-back games. So regardless of what the actual story is and what was or wasn't actually said, for whatever reason, Cobb decided over those two days in 1925 to go for the fences, and boy was he successful!!!

Now here's the one thing you said that is really annoying. You said it seems odd that a player would intentionally choose to be less successful. Who are you talking about, Cobb or Ichiro, cause you didn't really say which story you find to be nonsense? Probably doesn't matter though because I'm not sure you'd find anyone to agree with you that either of them wasn't already as successful as they could be. So are you trying to say neither of them could really hit home runs if they wanted to, because if they could, they wouldn't have wasted their time hitting all the singles they did in their careers and would have been even better than they were? Is that it?!?!?! If the player with the all-time highest batting average in the history of baseball, who never hit more than 12 home runs in an entire season, suddenly decides to go for the fences in two games and knocks 5 homers out of the park, it sure ain't dumb luck on his part!!!!! And if it wasn't dumb luck on his part, then it had to be intentional, whether he told anybody he was going to do it or not. So are you effectively saying that Cobb chose to not be as successful as he could be?!?!?!? If that is the case, I wish he were alive today so you could stand in front of him and say that to his face. What I wouldn't give to be able to see his reaction to that! WOW!

Bounced over the fence? Do you even baseball?

??????

Do I even baseball what?

Were you trying to ask me - Do I even KNOW baseball? Because if you are, you need to go look in a mirror. You do know that up till 1930 the MLB rule was that if a ball was hit to the outfield and landed and then bounced over the fence it was counted as a home run, right? And if that wasn't your question, i have no idea what - "Do I even baseball?" - is asking.

And you know he never bet against his team, How? Who would believe anything that Rose say's now.

I will eat my slice of humble pie.

Though I will also point out that the AL changed the rule prior to the 1929 season, which I found out by checking your assertion.

Sorry I jumped on you, even us know-it-alls can still learn something!

Admitting you were mistaken, bro? Do you even internet?

LOL. Kinda hard to fight facts. For some of us anyway.

Don't know why I thought that rule changed around the turn of the century.

First of all, I wasn't saying that YOU doubting Cobb hitting 5 homers in two games was disparaging. The reason I put that in my post was as a pre-emptive strike against someone else posting and saying that Cobb's 5 homers probably included ones that were inside-the-park homers or had bounced over the fence and counted as homers, and that therefore his piece of this MLB record was tainted because they weren't all hit over the fence on a fly like they had to be after 1930 to count as a home run.

Cobb had hit 12 homers in a season only twice in his career, once in 1925, that included the 5 he hit over a two day period, and also in 1921. In 1921 however, 4 of those were inside-the-park homers. And back in 1909 when Cobb actually won the MLB Triple Crown, he did so hitting a total of 9 home runs, all of which were inside-the-park homers, not a single one over the fence. Supposedly all 12 of Cobb's homers in 1925 were the "over the fence" variety.

I figured I'd save myself time and not have to respond to posts from people who would just jump on and question Cobb's home runs without doing their own research first, but that doesn't appear to have worked. So, here are some articles/sources out there that include info on Cobb's home runs and also info about the story of him telling people he was going to purposely hit home runs back in 1925. Though one of these stories does mention Stump's book, it also names of a couple sportswriters who supposedly heard Cobb's comments about hitting home runs. And it is even more interesting that one of those two sportswriters eventually became a Director of the baseball HOF in Cooperstown (and is therefore someone whom you would think and hope is a little more respected and reliable source than Stump ever would be), and yet he, nor the other named sportswriter, apparently never disputed the Cobb story. So it isn't all just coming from Stump. Even after all that, I too still wonder and doubt if Cobb ever really said he was going to purposely hit home runs all of a sudden, and lean towards the myth side of that story myself. Just like the Ruth called home run shot story.

However, that doesn't change the indisputable fact that Cobb did hit the 5 homers, so I'm not sure what you meant when you said, "Yes, I'd check the game logs to see if it even happened as a first step." Are these ESPN and Baseball Almanac articles and stories that follow good enough for you, or do you still need more authoritative collaboration?


https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...hree-home-runs

https://www.vintagedetroit.com/ty-co...s-well-anyone/

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/pla...php?p=cobbty01

https://radicalbaseball.blogspot.com...ns-in-two.html

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/...nside-the-park

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hr5.shtml



And this whole thing with Cobb and the home runs really goes back to an earlier poster talking about how singles were so less important than home runs. That is the reason I originally brought up the Cobb home run story to try and show another side to the argument. I thought it was kind of funny that someone would come out and actually say they cared so much less for singles than home runs. So here's Cobb, one of the greatest hitters in MLB history (if not arguably the greatest), who had by virtue of these two games in 1925, late in his career and at a somewhat advanced age for a ballplayer, shown that he apparently could hit homers if he wanted. And yet he still chose not to over his entire career, save for these two games. That earlier poster then went on in a later post to say - "They tell similar stories about Ichiro. Seems odd that a player would intentionally choose to be less successful. In other words, the story is nonsense." This was in reference to the story of Cobb supposedly saying he was going to hit home runs all of a sudden, and that was this guy's way of trying to dispute that story. But he missed my point entirely. It didn't have anything to do with the story of whether or not Cobb ever really said he was going to do it to a couple sportswriters, the truth is that he actually did it!!!! And for a hitter as good and as consistent as Cobb, over a career as long as his, to suddenly have a couple games like that out of nowhere means that he must have decided to go for the fences in those two games, whether he said he was going to beforehand to someone else or not. That was no dumb luck fluke, not for someone with Cobb's batting eye and hitting ability. So it had to be intentional on his part. And if it was intentional, my whole point was how ironic is it that this earlier poster would say it is odd for a player to intentionally choose to be less successful (meaning they would consciously choose to hit singles rather than home runs I believe) and yet it appears that is exactly what Ty Cobb chose to do throughout his career. So it seems to me that this earlier poster, to put it bluntly, is saying that if Ty Cobb could have hit more homers if he wanted to, but didn't, that he was basically stupid! And that is why I also said I wish Cobb were still around today for this earlier poster to have said exactly what he posted about choosing to be more successful to Cobb's face, as I think Cobb would would have taken it just like I bluntly put it. I can easily envision Cobb's reaction being on a level like Brett's pine tar incident, or worse!!!

Forget the story, Cobb's apparent choice to hit singles instead of going for home runs I felt was the biggest counter to the earlier poster's argument that home runs were so much more important than singles. I'm not saying that homers aren't more important than singles (just not at the disparity that that earlier poster seemed to imply) or that Cobb could have ever come close to hitting home runs like Ruth did. Just saying that he's one huge proponent for singles still meaning something pretty important to the game, and to therefore not discount them so quickly, even when compared to home runs.

LOL

Scott,

No harm, no foul. I honestly wasn't really aware of that late date for the rule change until very recently either. By the way, I didn't realize there was a difference in the Al and NL, so thanks for correcting me as well. I saw the 1930 date somewhere and it didn't register with me that the two leagues could have different start dates for that particular rule.

As noted in a different post in this thread, I mentioned that rule and inside-the-park home runs so no one would need to call me out and say Cobb probably hadn't hit all 5 over the fence, and therefore argue they weren't true home runs. I found it interesting in some research that a very large number of Cobb's homers were inside-the-park (ITP) ones. When he hit 12 homers in 1921, apparently 4 of those were ITP. What I found astounding though was that in 1909 Cobb won the Triple Crown and led the majors with 9 home runs, all ITP homers. I never knew that till just a couple days ago. That is an insane statistic.

So given Cobb's history, I pointed out about the ITP and bouncing over the wall homers so that people couldn't argue that the 5 he hit in two games may have been a fluke. Think about it, if say 3 of the 5 had been ITP homers, and maybe another one had bounced over the fence, that would have left only one true homer hit out of the park. That would honestly make it look like pure dumb luck he had so many all at once then. But all 5 on a fly, over the fence, means they weren't a fluke and he must have done something those two days to hit that many homers all at once. They still talk today about how some players will consciously change their swings to elevate the ball and go for more homers, and how it can sometimes really screw up a hitter and their ability to get on base. They say they'll often strike out more or sometimes go into slumps where they seem to just pop or ground out all the time as well then. Thing is, that hitting part of the game hasn't really changed that much, but Cobb just suddenly doing what he did lets you know he must have consciously changed something with his swing those two games to hit all those home runs. There really is no other plausible explanation for it.

It should be noted that Cobb's offensive style was to get on base and then use his aggressiveness, brains, and unpredictability to not only manufacture runs, but distract the pitcher and defense into making mistakes. A single is a single.... unless it was Cobb.

Nobody else in baseball history was able to weaponize a single like Ty Cobb.

Rickey Henderson.

Just saw before I hit submit that Peter beat me to it. Add in walks for Rickey too.

Rickey (and Brock, and Wills) would use their raw speed and technique to turn singles into doubles (and maybe triples.) What Cobb did was more psychological - delayed steals, taking the unexpected extra base, sliding hard (clean, but hard,) and generally keeping the other team wound up tight, wondering what he would do next.

Henderson was a truly great player and play maker. His talent on the bases was speed and technique. You knew he was running. With Cobb, it was different - you never knew just what he would do next, or when, or how.

I dunno, pitchers talk a lot about how disruptive Henderson was on base. I think the idea of all that effort to hold him, and the full knowledge that he was going anyway had to make things considerably easier for whoever was batting after him.