Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...
 

Let's take all the racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, bullies, gamblers, drunks, womanisers, liars, cheats, felons, tax-evaders, horse-whippers, agnostics and pet abusers out of the Hall of Fame and create a building where we can go stare at a statue of Christy Mathewson.

Contrasting opinions will be briefly considered.

Read The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg.

After reading that, I doubt that you think Joe should get in; and I'd be surprised if you think Pete should get in.

Ginsburg's book isn't shooting from the hip with emotion and feeling, it's a scholarly work that I found to be well researched.

I saw Pete play several times, saw the Cobb passing hit against the Padres while I was in law school, and had heard of Judge Norbert Nadel a few years before he acquired and then ruled on the Rose case. Rose would be among the most focused, tenacious, and capable of competitors ever to lace up spikes for a ball game. But he doesn't belong in the Hall.

The difference is that "racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, bullies, gamblers, drunks, womanisers, liars, cheats, felons, tax-evaders, horse-whippers, agnostics and pet abusers" have little to do with baseball, except the cheats possibly. Gamblers is an odd inclusion on the list as that is quite literally what Rose did and for why some people don't want him enshrined.

Joe Jackson probably accepted money to throw games, at the least. Pete Rose broke the number 1 rule. Not measuring up to contemporary social standards of morality is different, cheating on ones taxes or wife is different, whipping horses is different, agnosticism (are we really saying those who do not think they can know if there is a God are guilty of some moral wrong?) is different.

The people who think Jackson and Rose do not belong think they do not belong because they broke the biggest rule in Baseball, not because any moral transgression in one's life should block one from enshrinement. They are not making an argument with no context. Further, unlike a normal "cheat", Jackson broke a rule to try and lose.

I'm agnostic on if Rose should be allowed in. I am probably against Jackson being allowed in.

EDIT: The Fix Is In is an excellent book

The lifetime Rose ban is simply silly and a bitter pissing contest between himself and Giamatti which has trickled down to his contemporaries as anger for just never being able to shut up.

There is no proof in existence of him betting against his own team nor changing any game plan or play to influence games. He was an addict and unlike the greatest basketball player of all time with a far worse addiction he couldn’t just shut up and switch sports for several years as a punishment.

It’s a joke, it’s been 30+ years, and it should just be over.

I am all for Pete being enshrined, but am against Joe's inclusion.

Joe, as a player, accepted $300 to throw the World Series, and even though he tried to give it back remorsefully, the damage was done to our national pastime. Nobody who accepts a bribe(s) to lose games in any sport is HOF-worthy because it undermines the integrity of the game.

Pete, as a manager, bet on the Reds to win. His bets were the manifestation of a gambling addiction - not an effort to undermine the game in any way.

I’m not very familiar with Joe Jackson, and had always thought he should be in, but this article changed my mind: https://sabr.org/journal/article/pla...-1920-pennant/.

Did Pete bet on the Reds to win all 162 games? On days he doesn't bet on his team to win - doesn't that imply he expects them to lose?

Not just that, but if you bet on your team to win, then you go all out to win that game even if it's not in the best interest of your team. Overusing a closer for instance. It's a long season, going all out to win a game in June because you have money on it creates MASSIVE issues.

When you bet on the team you manage on SOME games, but not others, you are setting up a personal conflict. For example, if your starters need a rest here and there throughout the season, you are much more likely to rest them on games you are not betting on. If your light-hitting backup catcher needs a little work, he will get it in a game you are not betting on. Even if your best relief pitchers are a little tired, you will be more likely to use them in a game you are betting on.

And so on, and so forth. People say "Pete never bet against his own team..." Well, I would argue that if he's betting on them in some games, but not others, he effectively was.

Baseball doesn't ask a lot of its players, coaches, and managers, but after 1920 so severely damaged the National Pastime, baseball does demand one thing: Don't gamble on baseball, especially games where you can affect the outcome, and certainly, managers have that power. You can drink, cheat on your wife, rob a bank, misspell the word "Damn," and do all sorts of other things the world frowns on.

But don't bet on baseball. So Pete, a student of the game and its history, looks at that and says to himself, "Dam, I'm going to bet on baseball."

No to both. Reasons are obvious, so there's no need to rehash them here

This is by far the most accurate comment...

+1

Everyone knows the rules.

The rule is and was pretty clear:
Rule 21(d)(2). Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Permanently ineligible. Period. Full Stop.

The rule does not differentiate between betting for your own team or against your own team so any arguments based on that have no merit.

Independent of the issue of whether or not they should be eligible, there are already several better players who are eligible and haven't yet been inducted.

Rules
 

In the case of Shoeless Joe and Pete, I believe both should be in. Rules were meant to be changed and enough is enough. Back when Joe played, these guys could hardly make ends meat. For both of them, being kicked out of the game and time served should be enough. We all know about the hazards of gambling addiction, and it is not the worst offense that some of these guys in the hall have committed. How many things are still the same from 1920. Lets reevaluate what is fair and just. Pete has done his time and Joe needs to be recognized by being enshrined.

So then based on this rule, both Cobb and Speaker (and possibly others) should be kicked out of the HOF.

So? What does that have to do with THESE players and their situations??

The difference is Cobb and Speaker were accused by a single person who was unable to provide any evidence. The evidence that Rose bet is undeniable, that Jackson took a payoff at least is pretty strong.

That made me laugh out loud.

It's been a while since I read anything on the Cobb and Speaker scandal but from what I remember the two letters that Leonard used as evidence to back up his accusations specifically cleared Cobb of laying down a bet, and they did not mention Speaker at all.

Though the letters don't speak of a fix, they do speak of the intent to gamble on a game they were involved in. Cobb and Speaker were temporarily suspended, and then reinstated under dubious circumstances amid a political tug-of-war between Ban Johnson and Judge Landis. Hard to know the real truth with the passage of time and minimal concrete proof.

I guess my wider point is it's so difficult to draw the line on everything from gambling (which supposedly many players did in the teens and twenties) to PEDs (steroids vs greenies being popped like candy). It just seems more than a little hypocritical of the Hall to use certain arguments when convenient and ignore them other times.

All hail Christy Mathewson! :)

But in the case of Rose, he admitted to gambling on the team he managed. And for Jackson, he confessed in sworn grand jury testimony to having accepted $5,000 cash from the gamblers. Those are not arguments of convenience.

It's always interesting how people in a baseball collecting hobby support Rose, who did some pretty crummy things to damage the hobby itself.

Like selling multiple bats as "the bat" from a landmark hit.

And less seriously, but a glimpse of things to come

Sold loads of "game used" bats etc that were only used for one AB or part of one AB.

And amazingly he gets a pass on all that.
Seriously Rose supporters- His card already gets the price it "should" there won't be any big bump if they drop all standards and let him in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGoMCJ8bKtk

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

This is by far the most accurate comment...


Also, being banned by baseball and being ineligible for induction into the HOF are linked, but only by a rule of the HOF. Should the HOF want to eliminate that rule, it is their prerogative. Then it would be strictly up to the voters, just as the PED users are being considered.

Interesting . . . can you name any better players than Joe Jackson that have yet to be inducted?

Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers than Rose and Jackson? Are you also an Oscar voter? :D

That is what it all boils down to. There really is no debate.

Does his exclusion suck for his fans and fans of the game who enjoyed his play on the field? Absolutely, hence why many clamor for him to be included in the Hall still.

But if he is that stupid to do the one thing that every clubhouse has a sign saying NOT TO DO...then he made his bed.

+1000 ...the premise is laughable

That's inaccurate IMO

I think this is a good point. Look at the price gap between Jackson and Speaker. Was Jackson a better player? No, they are very similar bats through their age 32 seasons (when Jackson's career ends) plus Tris was a legendary glove. Look at Cicotte vs. Vic Willis or any other similar pitcher. Gandil far outsells his talent level too. Being the villain appears to do more for one's prices than being the good guy. I'm not sure why; I'd chalk it up to "any name recognition is good" except these guys outsell other famous players (anyone buying Jackson knows Collins well) and HOFers every collector knows.

Look at how popular Hal Chase is, even among many on this forum. The guy was more despicable than any of the Black Sox, or Pete Rose.

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

There is a case for Joe Jackson to be had...Pete Rose there is not a case until he dies and then you can argue the technicality of what "lifetime ban " means.

Pete Rose knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was punishably by lifetime banishment and he did it anyway. The "he only bet on his team to win" does not matter at all as the rule is betting regardless and the use of this making it ok is idiotic on it's face as, if we assume it to be true. BC he didnt bet on the Reds to win every single game...so what is he as player/manager telling gamblers when he DOESN'T bet on his team to win...that is essential the same thing as betting against your team when you are laying bets regularly. And yes he was laying bets as a player not just as manager as he was a player/manager and could insert himself in the lineup at anytime so the argument "he didnt do it as a player..." is also out the window. I have zero sympathy for Rose and cant understand why anyone does.

Rose also signed off on his own punishment with Giamatti so there's that.

The Black Sox did not sign off on their own punishment, were found not guilty in court and in 1919 there was no expressly written rules against betting on games or throwing games for that matter. And were retroactively banned by a commissioner that didnt exist at the time of their alleged fixing. Jackson and the others were HOF eligible and Jackson even got some votes over the years.

Jackson's degree of guilt comes into play (same as Buck Weaver) and the debate of if all 8 (9 if you count Joe Gedeon) should have been handed the same banishment punishment.

There is no question of guilt with Rose..he is not comparable with Joe Jackson.

A better debate is should Hal Chase be in the HOF or Eddie Cicotte for that matter?

He didn't say that Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers. He said they were better players.

And he's right.

People's fascination with hitting a lot of singles over a (by far) record number of plate appearances never ceases to amaze me. Especially with someone who barely hit .300, had a career OPS under .800, and was a horrible base stealer hitting at the top of the lineup (in an era where your table setter was counted on to always be on the move). Not to mention a subpar outfielder.

But hey, he tried really hard.

Edit: I didn't notice Jackson mentioned there too. Naturally I'm only referring to Rose

Dutch Leonard produced two letters as evidence of his allegation to the commissioner, one letter written by Cobb to Leonard and another written by Joe Wood to Leonard.

In the Cobb letter, Cobb mentions that they were too late in pulling their money together and that the bookies were no longer interested. "Wood and myself were considerably disappointed in our business proposition, as we had $2,000 to put into it, and the other side quoted us $1,400, and when we finally secured that much money it was about 2 o’clock and they refused to deal with us, as they had men in Chicago to take up the matter with and they had no time."

The Wood letter states that "Cobb did not get up a cent. He told us that and I believed him."

Neither letter mentions Speaker at all. Leonard supposedly testified that Speaker was involved, but Leonard later denied ever naming Speaker.

Cobb hated Dutch Leonard, said he was one of the only guys he spiked intentionally, and essentially ended Leonard's career in his managing years. Speaker, an old friend then passed on signing Leonard.

Leonard went to Ban Johnson in 1926 and told him that he, Cobb and Joe Wood had conspired to bet on a game in 1919, and that Speaker had agreed to lose it. The Tigers won. Leonard produced 2 very vague letters from Cobb and Speaker that reference a bet, though what it is on is never fully stated. Johnson summoned Leonard to come answer questions about the allegation, Leonard refused to do so. Kennesaw Mountain Landis then publicly cleared Cobb and Speaker in early 1927, as the only source was a man who was angry at both of them, produced no real evidence, and refused to answer questions.

I believe the SABR bio of Dutch Leonard has a pretty good summation of the affair, from memory.

If they were guilty, they should be treated the same as Jackson and Rose when it comes to honors. I've never seen any real evidence they were guilty, much less a preponderance

The one huge advantage to letting them both in is that we could stop talking about it ;-).

A lot of players bet on and threw games...Cobb and Speaker according to HOF writer Fred Lieb the evidence was pretty damnable and listen to Joe Wood's Glory of Their Times interview...pretty damning as well.

Bill Veck in his book The Hustler's Handbook references Harry Grabiner's diary as 1918 World Series and Cubs games being fixed. Also mentions Pete Alexander and Rabbit Maranville as being involved in fixing games. Pete Alexander also friends with 1919 WS fixer Billy Maharg. Other Cubs involved in game fixes were Claude Hendrix and Lee Magee. Cicotte also said they got the idea by hearing the Cubs got money for throwing the 1918 WS.

It is pretty obvious that many players were betting on and throwing games and not being really punished for it (traded off seems to be the move that was made) and the White Sox knew this and thought they could make some easy money.

Landis in 1926/27 in regards to Speaker and Cobb made the comment he would not deal with any more past scandals from the time before he was commissioner basically giving anyone prior to 1920 a free pass...which the 1919 WS would fall into so there is a big hypocrisy there in his ruling with the Black Sox.

On a side note...

Speaker and Gandil had very similar life paths prior to breaking into the league...both very rough tough hard nosed guys who cut their baseball teeth in areas that werent very far removed from the Old West. Would have loved to see their on the field fist fight in a game I believe during the 1919 season.

Rose, Jackson and all the roid squad members should be kept out. Let’s talk about whether Anson’s bust should be removed from the HOF for being the chief reason why the color barrier came about in baseball.

All of these guys definitely:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw

And then these guys have/had better careers, but I wouldn't necessarily say they were "better players" than Shoeless Joe
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Justin Verlander
Curt Schilling
Bob Caruthers
Adrian Beltre
Max Scherzer

Rose is an obvious HOFer.

I'm for letting both Jackson and Rose in the HOF. Joe Jackson could not have broken a rule that didn't exist until years later. (Rule 21 adopted 1927) Even after being found not guilty by the jury on Aug 2, 1921, it wasn't until the following day that Landis said that any player betting on baseball will be banned.
As for Rose I'm for letting him in for what he did as a player. I do believe he should be banned from baseball for betting as a manager.
JMHO

I don't understand how anyone could support Pete Rose for the HOF. He knew the price for betting on baseball was a permanent ban. He deserves his punishment.

Joe Jackson at least has a case because there was no rule. The facts are not clear his level of participation, but at a minimum he knew the fix was in and didn't try to prevent it.

It doesn't take a rule to know you can't take money to throw a World Series.

The argument that there was no law or baseball policy against taking bribes to throw games is a ridiculous way to excuse Jackson's conduct! Rose never threw a game and never would. Joe Jackson bears far more blame and greater consequences against himself than Pete Rose does simply because of his actions to undermine the game. Yes, they both did what they did for money, but Rose had an addiction besides having a monetary motive. As much as I hate to excuse a man's personal responsibility for his actions, those extenuating circumstances do foster some sympathy, at least in my opinion.

It's hard to compare pitchers to Shoeless Joe Jackson, but comparing the rest is laughable! The guy batted .382 at age 37 in a full season, with 20 triples. He batted .356 lifetime, and is credited with teaching Ty Cobb how to bat. Even in the deadball era, Jackson's OPS is better than anyone on your list except for the steroid abusers.

Rose is a Hall of Famer to me and that's all that counts.

I’ll play devil’s advocate. Rose and Jackson belong in because their roles as villains serve so many purposes. They allow for others of questionable morals and ethics to finger wag. They are responsible for some of the best stories in the history of the game. They are modern day Shakespearean tragic figures and their fall is a direct reflection on the times they lived in. The hall itself has little moral authority to deny the greatness of these two men based on their transgressions. Let them in and clearly state what they have accomplished, good and bad. Then please do the same for everyone else.

I've often thought about how maligned Judas and Pilate are. Look what an essential role they played in the birth of Christianity.

Interesting facts, comments, and opinions all around. However, if you really want to have an honest and open discussion about this you have to remember that at the very core it comes down to some of the same basic things that seem to be the case whenever dealing with people.....greed and money!

Players back in Jackson's day didn't get paid so much that they didn't often have regular jobs during the offseason to make ends meet, they generally made more than the average worker of the day, but were by no means always well off. Baseball back then was totally controlled by the owners, who due to the way contracts were written and the reserve clauses they had, controlled players virtually for life. At best they were indentured servants, at worst, no more than.........!!! And having this power over the game, they often treated players unfairly, paying them as little as possible and probably breaking promises as to bonuses or rewards to players, and so on. Does anyone really think that the owners back then were not acting collusively to control the players so as to allow them to make as much money as possible for themselves? But at the same time, weren't they also granted a formal exemption from federal anti-trust laws stemming from a lawsuit with the defunct Federal League in the mid-teens? Believe that was finally formalized by the Supreme Court in 1922, even though it is crystal clear that they were doing what companies like Standard Oil and the American Tobacco Company were doing, yet baseball didn't get subjected to those anti-trust rules and regulation like those other major companies did from the laws that were in place. So in other words, owners had free reign to basically do to and treat players however they wanted. Also interesting how the date this exemption was formalized (1922) is right about the same time all this Black Sox activity and scandal was going on (1919-1920). Interestingly enough, there are actually some Senators in Congress today working on putting forth a bill to revoke major league baseball's anti-trust law exemption as we speak! Isn't it kind of ironic how still to this day major league baseball doesn't have to follow the same rules as everyone else?

Comiskey, the White Sox owner back then, was known to not always treat his players fairly and keep his promises to them, and so could be considered somewhat complicit in possibly pushing some of his players to talk with gamblers at the time, or at least make them more vulnerable to listening to them? Not saying he's totally at fault, but his and the other owners actions couldn't have helped. As has been stated, there were rumors and allegations of numerous other players and officials back then also being accused and linked to dealings with gamblers and the throwing of ball games, just that none of them ever got the same treatment that the Black Sox players got.

The fear at the time was that the American people would turn away from major league baseball if they began to think it was all fixed, and thus the owners would start losing money. So even after the Black Sox players were found innocent in a court pf law, the owners came up with the idea of an overall league commissioner to retroactively ban these Black Sox players that publicly stood up against the owners and baseball by looking to throw some games for money. And don't forget, MLB's rule 21(d)(2) regarding the ban on betting on games wasn't in place yet when this happened. And I dare even one of you to try arguing that the owners hadn't pre-arranged everything with Landis before they made him Commissioner and knew he would go back and ban them all as punishment. And to maybe more importantly send a message to every other ballplayer to keep their mouths shut and don't do or say anything that would damage the owners pocketbooks going forward, or let the public know how things really were. Can you imagine the public outcry if something like this was tried in today's environment by the baseball owners to retroactively do something and punish players after the fact, and how illegal those actions would be considered today?

By coming out like some of those Black Sox players did in admitting their actions, it put a black eye on major league baseball, and pushed the owners to punish them, not for the good of baseball, but for their own pocketbooks. But back then, given the contracts players were forced to live with and how they were treated, what else were major league players supposed to do? It could almost be considered a form of protest by the players, and maybe even compared to something like how college players are denied the ability to make any money by the NCAA today (And where is that going right now?).

Taking the baseball owners to court back then when the courts and the government were clearly siding with the owners (ie: the Supreme Court Anti-Trust exemption), would have clearly been fruitless, plus the players probably wouldn't have had the resources to afford to do it anyway. Of course they could have just decided not to play in the majors then and forego it to play in the minors or semi-pro leagues, which is what Joe Jackson did for a number of years under an assumed name if I remember correctly. But is that fair to them then? They either do, say and act as the owners want, or they can't play. Hmmm, we don't have anything like that still occurring nowadays in sports, do we? And funny how it all seems to come down to the same thing still......money for the owners!!!!!

Even in the article the one poster linked to regarding the White Sox 1920 season, it talks a lot about the evidence that the Black Sox players were still throwing games and all the in-fighting with their teammates. Interestingly though, it didn't mention Joe Jackson that much, other than some running mistakes and a muffed fly ball between two players, and I also didn't see where it says the clean White Sox teammates were actively accusing Jackson of throwing these games or starting fights with him like they appeared to do with some of the others. I've never read the source material so maybe there is much more evidence in there that does point to Jackson's involvement, I don't know. But if the point of this link was to prove that Jackson should not be in the HOF, that link doesn't make sense.

Let's try looking at this whole thing from another point of view also then. Oftentimes when talking of sports, guys especially, will refer to military type euphemisms in regards to their teammates and their sports like, "going to war", "in the trenches", and "someone you would want to be in a foxhole with". These all convey a certain level of comradery, loyalty and trust, which is certainly thought by many to be the most admirable of qualities. Or to possibly put it another, more basic way, "don't be a snitch or a rat"!!! From everything I've ever heard or seen about Joe Jackson, he was a nice, friendly guy who loved to play baseball, and also was a very simple, not overly educated person, who couldn't even read and write. So here is Jackson playing on a major league team and some teammates come to him and ask him to participate in a plan to get back at Comiskey and to make themselves a little money in doing so that they feel they were due. He's a simple country guy who wants to be friendly and get along with everyone. People like Comiskey don't really know or interact with him, other than is necessary to make money off of him, and Jackson has seen and heard how he treats his own players. So what is he going to do, turn into a snitch and rat out his playing friends, his teammates in the trenches, brothers in the foxholes, and possibly garner the scorn of other baseball players in the sport who then hear of it and put his ability to play with them in the future in dire jeopardy? Or do you just shut up and go along so you don't upset your friends and teammates and hope nothing bad ever comes of it? Remember, there were a lot of allegations and rumors of players being involved with gamblers back then, but no actual league rule against betting, and no one else had previously been condemned for it (ie: Hal Chase among others). From all I've heard, including Jackson's own admissions, he seems to be honest about his involvement when asked and wasn't the instigator of the whole affair, and appears to be more of someone who got caught in the middle of all this and forced to make a choice that had bad consequences for him whichever side he ended up choosing. Plus, he didn't seem to continue throwing games like has been argued for some of the others. Just look at his 1920 stat line. Played in 146 games, 649 plate appearances, .382 BA, led the majors with 20 triples, hit most homers of his career with 12, had 121 RBIs (by far the most he ever had in his career), only had 14 strike outs, OBP of .444, and OPS of 1.033. Don't know about any of you, but that doesn't appear to be the stat line of someone looking to throw some games. And if I remember correctly, his stats in the 1919 World Series weren't too shabby either. Truth is, even if Jackson had batted 1.000 in the World Series or for the entire 1920 season, and had never made an error in either, there will always be someone that will still say he was involved in throwing games.

And just look at baseball still today, biggest issues still out there have to do with cheating and affecting the outcomes of games as we speak. However, the only big difference between how Joe Jackson and Pete Rose get treated, and all the other cheaters out there are treated, is that Jackson and Rose are vilified for supposedly trying to lose games, whereas everyone else is accused of trying to win games. That is a sad commentary on the state of the general public, even today, in that if you cheat to try and win we'll let it go and somewhat forgive you, just don't let us catch you at it to begin with. Isn't cheating cheating, whether you do it to win or lose? So why is one treated so much differently than the other?

And yet, isn't it also funny how today gambling is so pervasive in our society and with major sports that basically all of them have embraced it? And why is that, because all the major sports, including MLB, recognize that the public is actually for it and wants it. And because they also have come to realize that a big reason a lot of people still follow their sport is almost solely because of gambling and nothing else. So they now embrace gambling for one reason alone, to make money of course. All the major sports owners are still trying to figure out how they can get a bigger piece of the gambling pie for themselves, but heaven forbid any of their players or others directly involved get a piece of that pie for fear it will impact the way gamblers look at their sport and lower potential revenue the owners can possibly make off those gambling activities. Again, it is all about the money and the hypocritical owners that are in professional sports. For example, wasn't there a big stink once when Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays got in trouble for acting as greeters or something at some casino years back, long after they were both out of major league baseball as players? Don't remember exactly, but didn't MLB talk about suspending them or something, and it was only after an uproar from the public that they were forgiven? And yet today, you have some sports trying to see if they can get gambling concessions installed right in their own arenas/parks/stadiums so fans can come and gamble in person, and of course give a cut of the action to the owners if they can get it. Nah, not hypocritical at all!!!!!

And think about this also, in some ways gambling has kind of been treated like the liquor industry and Prohibition. After enacting Prohibition it was soon learned that you weren't going to stop people from drinking, and they finally had to bring it back, only now more controlled by the government so they could get their tax slice of the industry. Has taken much longer, but a similar evolution has been going on with the gambling industry, and the government has finally realized, if you can't beat them, then legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of them. So the one good thing today about more legalized gambling is that for someone to make a whole lot of money, it will likely get recorded and reported to the IRS. And with what MLB players make today, there's a lot less chance they'll jeopardize their careers to win a few bucks from throwing a game.

I'll leave you with this thought. If back in the day MLB owners like Comiskey could have figured out a way to make more money for themselves off the gambling that was going on around their sport, do you think they would have been so much against it? I'm betting (pun intended) if they were able to make money from the gambling somehow you wouldn't have ended up with the 1919 Black Sox scandal and Shoeless Joe would be in the HOF today. As for Pete Rose, the rule was in place by then against gambling and even though I doubt think he ever played or managed any game to consciously lose, he knew he wasn't supposed to do it, but did it anyway. Of course there are many that will also now argue that he was/is subject to a gambling addiction and that is a type of mental disease that we are now discriminating against him because of. And honestly there is merit to that argument. He was/is outspoken and arrogant about it though and instead of admitting and really doing something about it, never did, and MLB has been punishing him ever since. I've often felt that MLB will wait till after he is gone and then finally relent and let him in the HOF. And because of that, MLB couldn't go back and let Jackson in the HOF before then either because then they'd have to let Rose in. Time will tell.

Joe Jackson was 32 when he played his last game. Ty Cobb came up years before him.

He will never need a plaque. His baseball record is written in stone for all history.

It is not the HOF that has judged the players, but rather MLB. If MLB revoked both Rose and Jackson's ban, then they would be eligible for the HOF and would then be judged by the voters as to their worthiness of admission to the Hall.

Times like these I wonder what we'd spent our time arguing about on the internet if we weren't so committed to believing in some supernatural version of free will wherein people's choices were not caused by the laws of the physical universe.

Rose's penalty should be that if he ever gets in, it should be posthumously.

I'll NEVER believe he deserves any better than that.


I would put Bart Giamatti in first!

...along with the three Cubans: Minoso, Tiant & Oliva.


.

I would like to see the Hall live up to its name — fame not just stats minus the guys they don’t like.

So Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose in, Fred Lindstrom and Rick Ferrell out.

Honestly, I would rather see a Barry Bonds exhibit than a George Kell exhibit.

Just provide the relevant context.

Well said Bob, history should always be viewed in context.

He bet on games as a player.

Sorry to mess up on the math, but Cobb has been quoted as saying that he owed much of his batting prowess to imitating the batting swing of Joe Jackson.

1. You are right but miss the point of you cant break a rule that doesnt exist. It is not a "ridiculous way" but a very technical way.
2. You are assuming that Jackson's conduct was throwing games of which that is very debatable.
3. No way Jackson has more responsibility than Rose. BC the World series was simply an exhibition game at that time and not nearly as prominent as it is seen now and the White Sox, who just won one in 1917, could have seen it simply as on the same level as the City Post Season series they had with the Cubs at the time.
4. This is the plain truth and my point you are attacking. There was no real consequences for the Black Sox prior to them taking their actions (not saying it is ok but simply pointing out historical fact), Rose knew what he was doing, knew the consequences, didnt care, did it anyway, and tried for decades to lie about it. AND yes he was a player and manager doing it.

Jackson, who IMO played to win and didnt throw a game...is not even close to Rose.

What about Jackson's extenuating circumstances...he couldn't read or write...how about that when it comes to his confession in 1920 and going in front of a grand jury without council...or talking with Gandil about making extra money with or with out you prior to the Series in 1919?

Rose, an active bettor, by not acting and betting on his team to win is catamount to him tipping off gamblers that he, the best player and manager of the Reds, did not think the Reds would win and thus from a betting perspective is on the same level as a player throwing a game. He didnt throw a game but instead basically said my team isnt likely to win this game...same thing and that's the point

I think you/the article just helped change my mind as well, thanks for sharing.

Thanks Phil,

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people, and there are a lot more layers and nuances to this than most want to think about and consider. I've heard all the arguments and stories before that everyone was bringing up in their posts, and wanted to take the time to maybe get some people to finally realize there may be other points of view and circumstances that they hadn't thought of or were aware of before. To some it will always be cut and dried as to Jackson's guilt, even though there was no rule in MLB against what he did. And remember, he admitted under oath to a grand jury to taking the gambler's money, but also testified he played his best and didn't through any games, which statistics tend to show was true. Why would he be honest and admit to one thing, and then lie about the other?

It seems the ongoing issues and rumors and player complaints regarding certain Black Sox players during the 1920 season is what really got MLB to act and put Landis in place to deal with problem. Had there not been any continuing issues with suspected games being thrown by players in 1920, I wouldn't have been surprised if MLB just let the 1919 WS scandal blow over and continued as it had been. But with the continuing rumors and issues in 1920, the owners likely figured they had to do something. And since MLB and the authorities apparently couldn't do anything to stop the gamblers, they came down hard on those same 8 players to use them to set an example for the rest of major league baseball, Jackson may have never done anything to actually throw a game, but MLB to set their example had to suddenly show zero tolerance and throw all 8 players out to get their point across and scare the rest of the MLB players from even thinking about talking to any gamblers going forward.

Just look at how many sports related issues have changed over the years due to evolving knowledge and thinking, like the eventual breaking of the color barriers in sports, the change in the Olympics from being purely amateurs to now allowing all professionals to compete, the forthcoming changes to the question of earnings for college athletes, to even the recent inclusion of Negro League stats as recognized MLB stats. Thinking and knowledge all seem to change over time, and we sometimes need to look at things in a new light because of it and keep an open mind.

Only damning thing for Jackson in there is a 32yo not being able to steal a base and a colorful reporter describing that.

Very well put! Couldnt agree more

So what? Back in those times MLB didn't want fans to think the games were somehow rigged so they'd end up losing interest, not come to the ballpark, and the owners would lose money. Who gives a rat's ass if some gambler didn't see Rose bet on his team that day? So what if that gambler figured that meant he had a better chance to win if he bet against Rose's team then. As long as Rose didn't purposely try to lose the game, he didn't really break the spirit of the rule against gambling. What you're implying is that the rule is there in Rose's case so that one gambler doesn't have inside info that another gambler has. At that time MLB couldn't have cared less about gamblers as they supposedly had nothing to do with gambling and didn't want to be associated with it. Your argument makes it seem MLB was concerned with unfairness to gamblers. What they were afraid of was fans finding out and the perception that maybe Rose was purposely throwing games and therefore they weren't legit. How about this, what if instead of Rose betting on only certain games to win he had bet on his team winning every game. That would nullify your argument about gamblers having inside information when he didn't bet on his team, which would somehow be tantmount to Rose throwing the games he wasn't betting on, according to you. Think about it this way, you're Rose and it is late in the season and your #5 starter is going up against the staff ace from another team that is in the heat of a pennant race. I wouldn't bet on my team either in that case, and neither would anyone else unless they were stupid or they got some ridiculous odds. I'm tired of hearing that lame argument aganst Rose's claim he only bet on his team to win, and therefore never purposely threw a game. The problem is when the fanbase finds out about his gambling on baseball if anyone then thinks he could possibly be throwing games to win bets, not that it somehow gives certain gamblers inside info for betting purposes. And that is what is likely the funniest thing about all this. For all the people who know of Pete Rose and his character as a player and competitor, even though they know he bet on baseball, they pretty much can't see him ever betting against himself or ever losing on purpose. That is probabably the main reason there are so many people that think he should be in the HOF. Now if it could be shown that he did purposely try to throw games for his own economic gain, I think we'd see a huge change in the number of people who currently feel he should be in the HOF.

This

The argument that there was no official rule in place in MLB against betting at the time of the 1919 World Series is irrelevant. At least 38 players had been quietly dismissed or asked to leave MLB as a result of gambling or game fixing prior to 1919. I believe this is stated in the book Eight Men Out but the specific number does not matter as there was precedent for players being banned for betting and game fixing prior to 1919. Additionally, Landis made use of a recent precedent that had previously seen Babe Borton, Harl Maggert, Gene Dale, and Bill Rumler banned from the Pacific Coast League for fixing games in 1919.

So what...a major argument people hold up for Rose is the "he never bet against his team" and the act of not betting is the same as betting against and if you cant see that point well I cant help you. If true he didnt bet against his team, it in the end does not matter and betting on your team is still against the rules and the same as betting against in the eyes of the MLB since basically 1926/27 when that rule came into being. Go read the original rule, it is very clear on this point.

Who cares... obviously since it carried the most extreme punishment if someone broke it I would say a lot of people cared.

The point is it does not matter if he bet on his team to win or lose and that is a moot point...simply betting on baseball was the crime and he did it and knew the consequences that were well established.

I dont think it is irrelevant at all. Most players rumored to have been involved in fixing games were simply traded...Hal Chase a perfect example. The leagues treatment of Chase is a major reason why the Black Sox thought they could get away with it. Chase was also a former teammate of some of the Sox as well.

The PCL stuff was happening in tandem with the White Sox scandal and cant be used as an example of them knowing what would happen to them for fixing games as the Sox planned their fix in Aug-Sept of 1919 (if not sooner). The only high profile banned players for fixing was the 1877 Louisville Grays which no active players would likely have been aware of.

(PS Asinof gets a lot of facts wrong)

And Landis didnt totally take his punishment from the PCL case as Rumler was let back into baseball's good graces.

Also a counter to that is this...Comiskey and the Sox management basically knew about the fix as it was happening if not heard the rumors before the World Series and told a member of the National Commission in John Heydler...and what did they do to the suspected players? Nothing.

Comiskey also spent a lot of money hiring private investigators to look into several of the suspected players (Jackson was not one of them by the way) in the off season and what did he do? Tried to trade a few including Felsch and then signed every single one back save for Gandil who didnt want to come back. And I believe every one of them got a raise in salary as well.

The most blatant and obvious game fixing scandal didnt result in suspected players being "quietly let go" or washed out and Comiskey had the opportunity to do that with I think all of them as their contracts were up. This was what was typical of how owners and MLB handled these things prior to Landis. The idea that the players thought there was no real consequences for fixing games is a major reason why they did it and cant be irrelevant in trying to understand the Black Sox scandal.

It was Babe Ruth who said he imitated Joe Jackson, not Cobb.

IMO, both of them should be inducted into the HOF. It's only a matter of time before you see MLB sponsorships w/ the casinos and gambling entities like DraftKings like the other major sports, and then you'll realize how hypocritical baseball is on this matter. There should definitely be a punishment, similar to PEDS, such as first strike is 80 game suspension without pay, etc. However, after that, they should leave it to the voters or Veterans Committee on whether to vote the player in.

Really Thomas?!?!?!?!

Go back and read what you originally posted about looking at the Rose gambling issue "from a betting perspective", your words, not mine.

Quote: "Rose, an active bettor, by not acting and betting on his team to win is catamount to him tipping off gamblers that he, the best player and manager of the Reds, did not think the Reds would win and thus from a betting perspective is on the same level as a player throwing a game. He didnt throw a game but instead basically said my team isnt likely to win this game...same thing and that's the point"

You actually said that by Rose not betting on his team to win was basically the same as a player throwing a game. Please read that as many times as you have to, to let that sink in. Oh wait, that's right, you said this comment and logic was "from a betting perspective". And that is exactly why I was making the "So what" and Who cares" comments. They were in regard to the idea that this issue is important because of the gambling aspect where people use that as an argument against the claim that Rose never bet against his own team so that he wasn't purposely throwing ballgames, and therefore the gambling rule shouldn't really apply to him. I actually agree with you and the fact that him betting on his team only to win is still wrong and against the rule, which I have in fact read. What I was trying to convey was that the argument you, and many others, put forth to counter that "he only bet to win" claim is unnecessary.

Think about this, what if Rose didn't bet on every single game he was ever involved in? OK, so he bet on some games when he had a good feeling his team would win. Did he ever say or does anyone really know if he bet on every single game like that though? What if he got tied up and couldn't get a hold of his bookie in time to place a bet? What if he only placed a bet when he felt his team had a decided advantage to win, and didn't bet if he thought it was only a 50/50 chance or something like that. We don't know, so to make a statement that gamblers thought it was the same as him throwing a game when he didn't bet on his team seems to be a bit of a reach. And another thing, if I'm the bookie Rose calls to make his bets so I know when he does and doesn't bet on his team, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to keep that theoretical inside info to myself to take advantage of rather than tell the whole world about it? MLB didn't care if someone did end up making money off Rose's activity from illegal gambling, what they didn't want was the public thinking Rose might be doing it so that he may be compromising the supposed integrity of the games themselves. So the gambling aspect itself isn't what counters the "he didn't bet to lose" argument, it is the fact that he gambled at all and that could be perceived by fans that he was lying about only betting on games to win and that he could have been betting against his own team at times and actively trying to throw those games after all, just to win money. No one ever needed to come up with the argument about what it may have meant when he didn't bet on his team, it wasn't necessary, is useless and completely unprovable one way or the other.

Still, how can you argue that Rose's bookie knowing when he didn't bet on his team was the same as him trying to throw the game? Betting to win and actively trying to lose games you don't bet on are totally unrelated. I can understand the argument by some that Rose's gambling activity could possibly have an effect on his decision making in a game to maybe pull a pitcher early or not bring in a reliever to use them in a later game where he may think he has a better chance to win, but pretty much every MLB manager does that over the course of a season in trying to win as many games as possible. You let it go in games you don't think you have a good chance to win, and try to improve the chances of the ones you think are more winnable then. Again, it is the perception that he could be gambling and trying to lose games to win bets that causes the issue, not what games he does or doesn't bet on.

So do you understand now what my point was? I'm actually in agreement with you regarding Rose being wrong. By the way, please look up what "catamount" means. I laughed when I first read your post and assumed it was a spellcheck error or something like that. Thanks.

Thomas, you are absolutely right! Baseball was big business and the owners did everything they could not to upset the money making ventures they ran. I was trying to give them (MLB and the owners) the benefit of the doubt in maybe not knowing as much about the gambling activities and all that were going on back then, but it seems fairly obvious that they at least suspected, if not in some cases actually supported (and maybe even profited off of) the activities that were going on. Like anything else in business, the idea is to keep interest and activity as high as possible, and by secretively supporting the gambling side of things to boost the game's popularity, it wouldn't entirely surprise me.

With all the anti-trust activity and the lawsuit stemming from the Federal League still going on at the time of the 1919 scandal and during the 1920 season, I can see where the owners may have started getting worried about the rumors and concerns from the seemingly ever increasing stories and activities surrounding baseball, it's players, and their interactions with gamblers. These owners were not stupid and with the ongoing anti-trust suit would have made sure that their activities would not be recorded to show their collusive activity in controlling the players and the game itself. As was noted in the earlier post about the 18 or so players who were more or less quietly removed from the game prior to Landis banishing the 8 Black Sox players from MLB, as stated, it was done quietly and in such a manner that most people didn't ever know or even think about it and why these players were gone. But that was part of the owner's doing in trying to keep the public's perception of MLB being on the up and up. The problem for baseball now was that Comiskey still wanted to win and make money, and even though the 1919 scandal was past, he purposely kept the Black Sox players together as for the most part they were still great players that would more often than not win, and therefore make money for him. If instead he had broken them up, and not re-signed the most obvious offenders in the scandal, it is possible that there never would have been the need to appoint a Commissioner to ban those players back then, and Joe Jackson gets in the HOF. I can imagine the other MLB owners basically telling Comiskey behind closed doors what they were going to make him do because he didn't properly take care of this potential problem internally himself. He was putting them all at risk for losing money because of his actions, and I'm guessing they didn't stand for it and told him what they were going to do, whether her liked it or not. If it had only been a player or two on his team possibly involved in some gambling rumors and scandals, the public (and other MLB owners) probably wouldn't have been so concerned. But having 8 prominent and integral team players involved was likely too much to hide and likely a big reason the other MLB owners decided to act and install Landis to ban the Black Sox. It was possibly a pre-emptive move on the part of the owners to make sure it didn't ruin MLB in the eyes of the fans and have them thinking all the teams may be controlled by gamblers.

In fact, here's a wild theory, totally without proof. Would it be too much of a stretch to suspect there may have been some political input into the decision to put in place a baseball Commissioner and have the Black Sox banned for life? Don't forget that all right around this same time, Prohibition went into effect on 1/16/1920, and the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote was ratified a little later that year on 8/18/1920. The women's movement at that time was a huge factor in the passing of Prohibition and with women now having the right to vote, I can easily see politicians of the day scrambling to maybe try to clean things up that would be looked down upon by the women's movement, including gambling and baseball. Baseball was huge back then, likely more so than ever today. it wasn't called America's pastime for nothing. And it was also mostly a male dominated and followed sport. So women hearing about the potential influence of gambling and gamblers in that sport would probably not be well thought of by the newly ratified voters of the time. I can see politicians of the time also putting a little pressure on MLB owners to clean up their act so they wouldn't be forced to. So, is it a coincidence that MLB officially elected Landis as their first Commissioner on 1/12/1921, and then on 8/3/1921 Landis permanently banned the Black Sox 8 the day after they were acquitted in their trial, only to be followed by the U.S. Supreme Court on 5/29/1922 confirming that MLB was exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? I could possibly see the anti-trust exemption as being a sort of thank you or pay back to MLB for taking care of their issues and not involving politicians.

And here is a little more food for thought as to why this all might not be so squeaky clean as we'd like to think. This Supreme Court ruling in 1922 was actually the final culmination of a case brought by the then newly formed Federal League back in 1914, basically accusing MLB of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. That is the same Act that broke up the American Tobacco Company in a 1911 ruling and likely put an end to the T206 set, along with several others. Well, guess which federal judge was put in charge of that original 1914 case brought by the Federal League? Lo and behold, it was none other than Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Landis was a known, huge baseball fan who lived in Chicago and followed both the White Sox and Cubs supposedly. It was rumored that he deliberately delayed the case until after the Federal League went belly-up in 1915 as he did not want to see any damage to MLB. So what an absolutely surprising coincidence then that MLB selects him to become their first ever Baseball Commissioner just a few short years later, right? I even read somewhere that Landis initially accepted the Commissioner's job with the understanding that he would retain his position as a federal judge also, at least for a while. But being the fine, upstanding and totally independent person he was, he insisted that the $50,000 a year salary MLB was going to pay him as Commissioner be reduced by the $7,500 a year salary he would still be getting as a federal judge. So, does anyone know of any ballplayer making even close to $50,000 a year in 1921? I believe that Cobb was MLB's highest paid player in 1921, and he got $25,000. I know the Commissioners of all the major U.S. sports today get paid very well, but I don't think a one of them is making double what the highest paid athlete in their respective sport is getting paid. Hmmmmm?

“Very well” is a generous understatement.

The most disliked of all of them, Roger Goodell makes 40 million per year at last report. That places him tied for second with the list of highest paid NFL players behind only Mahomes. He would have been the highest paid easily at the signing of his current deal and makes more than 40 times the average NFL player.

What I never understood about this debate is Rose and Bonds and Jackson ARE in the hall of fame. If you walk though the hall of fame you will find display material about Bonds and Rose's achievements. (Presume the same is true for Joe Jackson.) But what you wont see is them in the hall of plaques. They are technically not "in" the Hall of Fame, but it's not like they are ignored. I always figured there was no mention of them in the building, like they were lepers who had to be shunned. That's not the case.

I have no issue with their place in baseball being acknowledged and someone making a judgment call that their character is not of a kind that they should be held forth on the most esteemed level of the sport. If you had a hall of fame that didn't Bonds and Sosa and the hold they had on the sport that year that would just be stupid.