Although I believe Cicotte has HOF worthy numbers, the bigger issue is whether his acts in helping throw the World Series constitute such reprehensible moral turpitude, that either he should not be eligible for the HOF or that it is sufficient for voters to refrain from electing him.
“This is terrible for my family,” Cicotte said. “My poor kids – oh, why did I do it? I’ve lived a terrible year in the last 12 months.”
“He admitted that the whole plan was his idea. “I refused to pitch a ball until I got the money. It [the $10,000 in cash] was placed under my pillow in the hotel the night before the first game of the Series. Every one [of the players] was paid individually, and the same scheme was used to deliver it.”
“Cicotte admitted to deliberately hitting the leadoff batter in Game 1 and that in Game 4, he purposefully intercepted a throw from Jackson in the outfield that would have caught a Reds player, and made a wild throw to first, both resulting in two runs for the Reds, who won 2-0. He said he and fellow pitcher Williams also ignored pitch signals given by catcher Ray Schalk, who was not in on the scam.”
“For the Series, the Sox’s so-called ace Cicotte yielded 19 hits and 9 runs (7 earned) in 21 2/3rd innings, with one win (game 6) and two losses (games 1 and 4).”
https://themobmuseum.org/blog/the-bl...0-years-later/
So given that many players who were later elected to the HOF with a checkered past and morally reprehensible conduct, what standard should be used for the voters? Should it be a personal one or an objective standard that we can all determine?
For me, this is the issue.