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

[riggs336]

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.

[FrankWakefield]

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.

[G1911]

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

[JustinD]

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.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.

This is by far the most accurate comment...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

This is by far the most accurate comment...

+1

[markf31]

Originally Posted by JustinD

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.

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.

[darwinbulldog]

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.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by markf31

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.

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

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by markf31

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.

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.

[robw1959]

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.

[egri]

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/.

[Bartholomew_Bump_Bailey]

Originally Posted by egri

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/.

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

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew_Bump_Bailey

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

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

[jp1216]

Originally Posted by robw1959

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.

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?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jp1216

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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by robw1959

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.

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."

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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."

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.

[obcbobd]

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

[scmavl]

Originally Posted by riggs336

...create a building where we can go stare at a statue of Christy Mathewson.

That made me laugh out loud.

[ThomasL]

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?

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

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?

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.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by robw1959

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.

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?

[ThomasL]

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

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

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

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.