OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?
 

It is being reported that there will be a decision tomorrow on whether or not Rob Manfred will reinstate Joe Jackson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybro...on-on-tuesday/

What do you guys think, will he be reinstated or not? Though I think he should be, I am guessing that it is not going to happen. I hope I'm wrong.

correction- title should have read "reinstatement", not HOF

I'm thinking.....
 

Thumbs :) Up! Reinstatement will be a "Yes"!

Say it is so Joe!

Peace, Mike

maybe the price of JJ cards will decrease if he is reinstated?????

LOL, maybe I can afford one then.

I'd like to think so but then again there should be stipulations.

#1 this isn't happening just to get Rose to be reinstated.
#2 the other 7 men will be reinstated mainly Cicotte, Williams, and Weaver.

This is an absolute joke. He needs to stay banned. If they want to reinstate someone from that group, they should reinstate Buck Weaver.

My guess is a "No". Then they would open a can of worms and have to reinstate Rose.

Why would MLB allow the Museum to make the announcement? They like their own glory.......

No it wouldn't. Joe Jackson has been banned for like 90 years, while rose has been for like 30.

+1

I don't really care one way or another. I am deeply passionate about baseball but there are a lot of players who are in who shouldn't be and, arguably, a few out who should be in. I will assure you it is worse from a popularity standpoint for Jackson to be in than it is for him to be out.

I would think Joe Jax's card values would go up if he were reinstated. There would be all of these HOF collectors that would then need to add a card of his to their collections if he were voted in.

If he is reinstated, then I predict the auction houses will be inundated with people who discovered signed photos of Joe Jackson that were stored in someone's attic or barn for the past century yet are miraculously in mint condition. And of course PSA will deem, if not all, then most authentic.

It was a "lifetime" ban...Jackson's life time ended in the 1950s. Reinstate all of them. Otherwise throw Speaker and Cobb out for their role in throwing a game.

This is the correct answer.

+3

You know, Cicotte, though a little light on wins, has pretty nice career numbers.

+1

My buddy Jim who sold me my awesome 1957 topps set is all about shoelessjoeinthehof. For his sake I hope it happens. Otherwise, if it helps Pete get in, then I am violently opposed.

Joe Jax
 

I 100% agree with Grant.
There is no way this decision is going to be announced by the Museum if the decision is to reinstate Jackson. That is a MLB call all the way.

They will drum up some free PR for the museum, that's all. Should be about as effective as a 2 dollar discount coupon in the weekly Nickel Ads.

As far as whether Joe gets reinstated, I also agree that his popularity will not increase much if any if allowed in. Some of his fame comes from him being a great player but <I> not </I>being in the Hall.

It will irritate HOF Collectors (like me) who have been able to avoid collecting his astronomically priced cards since he's not in the Hall of Fame. Voting purely with my wallet, I am in no rush to have him added to my WL :p

Yawn. No way it happens unless Manfred departs from 90 years of baseball and then the voters give him the nod. I don't see it at all. I think I have an equivalent chance to be elected, and that ain't ever gonna happen. Non-issue IMO. Hope I'm wrong, because that would make for fruitful discussion, but not seeing it.

IMO

Jackson shouldn't be reinstated. If Mountain Landis decided on that all these years ago, and the fact that Frick, Chandler and every commissioner after him didn't reinstate them, then it is obvious that they shouldn't be voted in.

~Owen

EDIT: And..... he's still banned

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/stor...-reinstatement

If Jackson is going to be considered to be reiinstated, then Rose should as well since both were banned for practically the same reason

I think Rose and Jackson should both stay banished but I don't think they were "banned for practically the same reason"

-Rose bet on baseball. Dealing with bookies is a no-no and every one from a kid in single A ball to a veteran like Rose knows betting on the game is instant expulsion

-Jackson took cash to throw the World Series.

Both admitted doing what they were accused of and both should stay banned.

And does anyone find it disturbing that MLB is supporting that Fan Duel betting racket?

Agreed.

Also, if reinstated I doubt he would be elected to the HOF

Interesting, I did not know that. In what way are they supporting it?

This is what I was thinking. Are his career stats even good enough for the hall?

The similiarities IMO are both were driven by cash.

What? His career average was .356 incl .408 in 1911.
If he is reinstated & doesn't make the Hall, it will be from the 1919 fix, not his career stats.

He isn't being reinstated-

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...ng-reinstated/

Oops, forgot about that. I was looking at the totals line.. 1772 hits.

Rose and Jackson should both be in the HOF hands down

Odd that the commissioner's response was dated July 20, 2015. If so, the museum held the letter for over a month knowing full well the results but didn't share it publicly until a day after baiting the public into thinking that a reinstatement was possible.

Why did you call it a racket...Its just fantasy the same way you play for a season they just offer daily leagues. Its actually pretty fun. I am not a gambler (I understand the gray area of Fantasy) but have enjoyed the one day leagues very much.

Joe Jackson could have been voted in but he's only gotten 4 total votes the whole time.

This is one of the great things about baseball, the debates that can go on forever.

I appreciate both sides of this debate and side on the they were both great but they should not be in the Hall.

In my opinion one of the things that makes the Baseball Hall of Fame special is the ethics clause. While we all know that there are several rascals already in, it makes it more special in my mind that the quality of the human being matters.

I enjoy watching pro football but the Pro Football Hall of Fame (which I have visited) is not special in my opinion. From the Lawrence Taylors of the world to the Warren Sapps and Michael Irvins, these are just not quality human beings.

There are some players in Cooperstown that I have encountered that are beyond rude like Mays, Bench and now Randy Johnson. They may be rude but they have never injured anyone off the field that I know about?

Heck, if Lawrence Phillips could still run some NFL team would try to get him off this latest charge of killing his cell mate.

Once again, I appreciate everyone's dissenting opinions, this is a cool part of baseball.

He admitted himself to taking $5,000 from Lefty Williams. Whether he threw the series or not, he took money to throw it instead of reporting anything or doing anything to stop the fix. He deserves the ban in my opinion.

Yes, I do. I'm all for placing a bet, but the fact that the league and the players are allowed to sponsor gambling in this form is an issue. Particularly when players who sponsor the sites, like C.C. Sabathia, would likely be banned for utilizing them.

It's a far cry from when Kuhn suspended Mays and Mantle for being casino greeters

So if he took the money but didnt jeopardize the series he should still be banned??? Just curious but whats the logic behind that. Who cares if he took money. If he didnt throw the game then....

I agree. Rose visited Manfred July 14-15, and this letter was penned July 20. Sounds like Manfred spent that week reaffirming past decisions of former commissioners. Don't see any new ground here, non story.

What is your logic? Guy A offers Guy B money to throw the World Series. Guy B takes the money. His team loses. He keeps the money.

Did Guy B do nothing wrong? Even if you want to argue that Jackson played well, he took money to throw the World Series. The appropriate thing to do would have been to not take the money and alert the league. But he chose to take the money and keep his mouth shut until he was implicated, at which time he admitted to taking a bribe to throw the Series.

He did nothing to jeopardize the game right? So besides taking money then what did he do personally to keep him outta the HOF??? I get what youre saying but if he played his best and didnt purposely throw any games then he deserves to be in

He accepted a bribe to throw the World Series and admitted such in court. That is why he is banned from baseball. Seems cut and dry to me. If there is some honor in accepting a bribe, I am not aware of it.

Accepting a bribe is meaningless unless u do something personally to fulfill the terms of the bribe. If he didnt then theres no reason whatsoever why he shouldnt be in

That's a shame... obviously by judging his performance in the series... Joe didn't throw anything, but taking the money makes him guilty.

He'll never get in..... but he'll always be an iconic figure and his cards will always have significant value.

Jackson had 0 errors, 12 hits and a .375 batting average during the world series and he doesnt deserve to be in the HOF??? Come on

He accepted a bribe. His play doesn't matter and no one is going to ignore the fact that he took the money and his team then lost. His personal play doesn't mean as much as the moral implications of taking the money and being on the losing team, just like he was supposed to be.

You need to think about coercion and how it works. Either everyone is in, or no one is in. So just by accepting the money he told his teammates that he didn't object to losing the World Series on purpose. There's your ban.

I see what youre saying and i agree to a certain extent. But my own personal opinion is i could care less if he took a bribe. If looking at his personal achievements and stats he should be in. If he personally didnt jeopardize the game then to me he should be in. Theres all kinds of speculation about what really happened but jackson's stats dont lie and based on those itd far fetched to say he threw any games. Let him in

But how can you say he didn't jeopardize a game? You have no way of knowing that and you could easily view his play as a straw man tactic to alleviate suspicion.