Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[Blunder19]

Both are now HOF eligible. Good news for those who have their rookie cards... What is everyone's thoughts here...

[biggsdaddycool]

Hell hath frozen over!

Long overdue.

Too bad it happened after Pete passed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ullmandds]

i believe their cards are already HOF priced in!

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i believe their cards are already HOF priced in!

+1

[Bpm0014]

How can they let in a guy that took money to throw World's Series games?

[packs]

Does it even matter if MLB reinstated them? The Hall of Fame is independent of MLB and as far as I know makes their own rules about induction and eligibility.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by packs

Does it even matter if MLB reinstated them? The Hall of Fame is independent of MLB and as far as I know makes their own rules about induction and eligibility.

Based on current rules, no longer being on the permanently banned list should make them eligible for appearing on a Hall of Fame ballot. At this point, it would presumably be one of the Eras Committees.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by packs

Does it even matter if MLB reinstated them? The Hall of Fame is independent of MLB and as far as I know makes their own rules about induction and eligibility.

Yes, this only makes them eligible to be on the ballot. Whether they get in or not is another question.

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by packs

Does it even matter if MLB reinstated them? The Hall of Fame is independent of MLB and as far as I know makes their own rules about induction and eligibility.

The HOF *should* be independent, but they've always done whatever MLB says.

[jayshum]

At least there will be something else to write about Hall of Fame voting besides whether PEDs should keep someone out.

[BioCRN]

Evidently the reinstatement is now a new MLB policy that "ineligible ends at death"...it's not specifically for these 2 guys...though political pressure most likely is why this is happening.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

How can they let in a guy that took money to throw World's Series games?

Funny thing is, many on this board are perfectly willing to throw serious money at Shoeless Joe cards to get their Black Sox fix.

Brian

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

How can they let in a guy that took money to throw World's Series games?

Didn’t throw WS, check his stats for the series.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jcmtiger

Didn’t throw WS, check his stats for the series.

First four losses, he hit 4 for 16, with 3 of those hits in 1 game. It's easily arguable that his effort fluctuated with whether Chicago was trying to win or not.

[biggsdaddycool]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

i believe their cards are already HOF priced in!

Agreed.

A buddy and I were just texting about this. If I were either of their families I would tell the Hall to pound sand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brian Van Horn]

Stupidity.

[BioCRN]

Yeah, the dude who was hooking up with a 14-15 year old when he was a married 30-something year old can miss me with insisting she was 16 when it started and never crossed state lines and therefore it was legal and cool.

Good for Shoeless Joe, though.

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by biggsdaddycool

Hell hath frozen over!

Long overdue.

Too bad it happened after Pete passed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It only happened *because* Pete passed away. He took one for the proverbial team.

[biggsdaddycool]

No doubt MLB sees some sort of money making scheme in reinstating them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by biggsdaddycool

No doubt MLB sees some sort of money making scheme in reinstating them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Manfred met with Trump last month. In February Trump was tweeting about "pardoning" him. He's spoken about it between then and now. He'll probably have something to tweet about it sometime between now and tomorrow.

Manfred didn't become commish recently, nor is this a new subject of debate.

[BioCRN]

Full list of those impacted, fwiw...

Eddie Cicotte
Happy Felsch
Chick Gandil
Joe Jackson
Fred McMullin
Swede Risberg
Buck Weaver
Lefty Williams
Joe Gedeon
Gene Paulette
Benny Kauff
Lee Magee
Phil Douglas
Cozy Dolan
Jimmy O’Connell
William Cox (executive)
Pete Rose

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Full list of those impacted, fwiw...

Eddie Cicotte
Happy Felsch
Chick Gandil
Joe Jackson
Fred McMullin
Swede Risberg
Buck Weaver
Lefty Williams
Joe Gedeon
Gene Paulette
Benny Kauff
Lee Magee
Phil Douglas
Cozy Dolan
Jimmy O’Connell
William Cox (executive)
Pete Rose

Why would Hal Chase not be included?

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Why would Hal Chase not be included?

Commish office didn't exist. He technically may be HOF eligable under HOF (different org) rules now, though.

[Smanzari]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Full list of those impacted, fwiw...

Eddie Cicotte
Happy Felsch
Chick Gandil
Joe Jackson
Fred McMullin
Swede Risberg
Buck Weaver
Lefty Williams
Joe Gedeon
Gene Paulette
Benny Kauff
Lee Magee
Phil Douglas
Cozy Dolan
Jimmy O’Connell
William Cox (executive)
Pete Rose

I wonder what this means for Hal Chase - IIRC he was never formally banned, but it was assumed because of his gambling history. (see this was answered above, but still leaving)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Smanzari

I wonder what this means for Hal Chase - IIRC he was never formally banned, but it was assumed because of his gambling history. (see this was answered above, but still leaving)

He of the 23.0 WAR?

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Full list of those impacted, fwiw...

Eddie Cicotte
Happy Felsch
Chick Gandil
Joe Jackson
Fred McMullin
Swede Risberg
Buck Weaver
Lefty Williams
Joe Gedeon
Gene Paulette
Benny Kauff
Lee Magee
Phil Douglas
Cozy Dolan
Jimmy O’Connell
William Cox (executive)
Pete Rose

Things get a little tricky now.
They are all eligible to be on the ballot but
1.how many are really have a chance based on their career numbers? Espcially that many of them lost many years of their career that do not exist for their stats? would they have gone up or down? are they short on years of eligibility of 10 years etc?
2. Even though all are eligible how do the people on the committee view what they did. Ie Rose is accused of gambling on games vs Jackson and the others of throwing actual games and in a world series at that while William Cox was banned for trying to pay a player to throw a game.
Also Rose is current and many seen him play while others no one knows are seen them play

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Things get a little tricky now.
They are all eligible to be on the ballot but
1.how many are really have a chance based on their career numbers? Espcially that many of them lost many years of their career that do not exist for their stats? would they have gone up or down? are they short on years of eligibility of 10 years etc?
2. Even though all are eligible how do the people on the committee view what they did. Ie Rose is accused of gambling on games vs Jackson and the others of throwing actual games and in a world series at that while William Cox was banned for trying to pay a player to throw a game.
Also Rose is current and many seen him play while others no one knows are seen them play

I don't think it's that tricky. Other than Rose and Jackson, who else really has an argument that they're Hall of Fame level? Maybe Cicotte, but he's borderline at best. The rest you can look at their stats and figure out they don't need to be considered for the ballot. It doesn't matter what they might have done if they hadn't been banned. They were banned so their stats are their stats.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Things get a little tricky now.
They are all eligible to be on the ballot but
1.how many are really have a chance based on their career numbers? Espcially that many of them lost many years of their career that do not exist for their stats? would they have gone up or down? are they short on years of eligibility of 10 years etc?
2. Even though all are eligible how do the people on the committee view what they did. Ie Rose is accused of gambling on games vs Jackson and the others of throwing actual games and in a world series at that while William Cox was banned for trying to pay a player to throw a game.
Also Rose is current and many seen him play while others no one knows are seen them play

The players that didnt hit the 10 year mark I would assume are not eligible...sorry Buck Weaver fans, if his career continued it is very likely he would be a HOFer and the same could be argued for Lefty Williams and Hap Felsch and Lee Magee maybe.

Really to me there are only players on this list that are worthy of ballot placement and personally I think 2 are solid candidates and 1 is borderline

Good Chace
1. Rose
2. Jackson

Borderline
3. Cicotte

9 year players that should be considered if allowed but are Hall of Very Good Players
4. Buck Weaver - could argue Weaver is a borderline player
5. Chic Gandil - but he retired after 1919 so guess he wouldnt get any special consideration for a shortened career
6. Lee Magee

I personally would argue Cicotte is a HOFer as be basically invented the knuckleball and had solid peak years with a borderline win total and solid ERA...BUT he was a primary 1919 WS fixer that is not up for debate like Jackson's role is

[Johnny T]

Personally, I'm glad they are both in. Pete was my childhood idol...loved the way he played ("a try hard" as my kids call people like him) and since I was an average to an above average, I tried harder than others to excel.

Of course, later on in life, I learned Pete was not the greatest person in the world...far from it. I walked by the store he used to sign in Vegas and didn't give it much thought to bother to walk in and see him...but none of how I felt about him as an adult changed the way I felt about Pete as a player. Other than Cobb, I'm not sure any player wanted to win more.

None of us are old enough to remember what it was like seeing Jackson play, but I always felt like he got a raw deal more so than Rose. They say Jackson wasn't educated, was probably taken advantage of financially by Comiskey and my guess is that in the end, he didn't curtail his play based on his stats in the WS.

So better or worse, I'm glad they are both eligible...If they get in the Hall, great...they certainly deserve it based on their play.

Let's face it...we all have our skeletons....

[oldjudge]

I'm really glad that Pete and Jackson are now eligible. In the mid-1990s I took my daughter to a card show in central Connecticut and we were in line to get Pete's autograph. She was about 7 at the time which was the same age as Pete's daughter. He told my daughter that he had a daughter about the same age as her, stopped all his signing to get his suitcase that was under the table, opened it and pulled out a picture of his daughter to show her. I thought it was an incredible moment and I have admired the guy ever since.
As for Jackson, I think his scarcer cards, like some M101s, will explode in value if he is elected to the HOF.

[Apple_Robert]

I say continue to keep them out of the HoF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Apple_Robert

I say continue to keep them out of the HoF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They will never get in!!

[biggsdaddycool]

Honestly, isn’t some of the current value in most of the Black Sox that they were banned?

Takes a little of the infamy out of their names.

Certainly will be interesting going forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Blunder19

Both are now HOF eligible. Good news for those who have their rookie cards... What is everyone's thoughts here...

I can see why you would presume so, but my guess is it's bad news for those who have their rookie cards.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I can see why you would presume so, but my guess is it's bad news for those who have their rookie cards.

Why?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I can see why you would presume so, but my guess is it's bad news for those who have their rookie cards.

Originally Posted by 4815162342

Why?

If they were priced as if they were Hall of Famers and they don't get in now, prices could go down.

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by jayshum

If they were priced as if they were Hall of Famers and they don't get in now, prices could go down.

If Jackson and Rose don't get it, nothing will change. Collectors will continue to view them as persecuted individuals within the sport.

Anyone with any sense in their head understands that both of them absolutely deserve to be first ballot HOFers based on their statistical careers.

This is publicity, any way it turns out, and can't possibly be bad for the value of their cards. At least, I can't see how it would be.

[Belfast1933]

So much to say but Leon politely reminds us to avoid politics so I’ll just say, disappointed in the news today for my game of baseball and leave it at that.

[Mark17]

Jackson and Weaver were always gray area but Cicotte plunking Morrie Rath to start the Series (and the fix) should never be pardoned in any way.

[refz]

I think this great and good for baseball right now.

[Casey2296]

-
Considering how Manfred & MLB have bent the knee and embraced gambling in their sport I see no reason these two should be kept out of the Hall for gambling, that horse has left the barn.
I'm ambivalent on Rose since he's not a very likeable human but Joe should definitely be in.
-

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
Considering how Manfred & MLB have bent the knee and embraced gambling in their sport I see no reason these two should be kept out of the Hall for gambling, that horse has left the barn.
I'm ambivalent on Rose since he's not a very likeable human but Joe should definitely be in.
-

I still see a difference between embracing gambling for non-participants and embracing players and coaches who bet on games that they can directly influence.

I embrace the stock market. I condemn insider trading.

I also see betting against your team as an order of magnitude worse than other forms of cheating that affect the integrity of the game. If winning is the primary objective of a team sport like baseball, then purposely losing is a cardinal sin. At least steroid users, bat corkers, spitballers, and players banging on trash cans did so with the goal of achieving the best possible outcome on the field. They should get an asterisk for gaining an unfair advantage, sure, but there's a special place in baseball hell for people who tank for money.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I still see a difference between embracing gambling for non-participants and embracing players and coaches who bet on games that they can directly influence.

I embrace the stock market. I condemn insider trading.

I also see betting against your team as an order of magnitude worse than other forms of cheating that affect the integrity of the game. If winning is the primary objective of a team sport like baseball, then purposely losing is a cardinal sin. At least steroid users, bat corkers, spitballers, and players banging on trash cans did so with the goal of achieving the best possible outcome on the field. They should get an asterisk for gaining an unfair advantage, sure, but there's a special place in baseball hell for people who tank for money.

I agree with you, but NBA teams purposely lose games toward the end of each season when they're out of contention, simply to try to get a better draft lottery position; and I'm sure the same thing is going on in the other pro sports. What about players on those teams?

Steve

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
Considering how Manfred & MLB have bent the knee and embraced gambling in their sport I see no reason these two should be kept out of the Hall for gambling, that horse has left the barn.
I'm ambivalent on Rose since he's not a very likeable human but Joe should definitely be in.
-

I’ve never understood the argument that MLB accepting advertising dollars from Gaming Companies somehow makes gambling within the sport a lesser offense. It’s pretty simple, every major sports entity both professional and amateur forbids sports wagering and the cardinal sin is beating on your own sport/team. It’s not an ethical dilemma without an answer. My company accepts advertising dollars from Liquor and Beer companies, that shouldn’t somehow morally protect me from action if I’m drinking on the job. I wouldn’t somehow be in some deep ethos predicament if Jeff in accounting was fired for pounding airplane bottles of Tito’s all day long just because we advertise InBev corp.

But really Jeff, you need to cool a bit. You aren’t fooling anyone.

[sbfinley]

Also I was today years old when I realized Sherry Magee and Lee Magee were not the same person.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

I’ve never understood the argument that MLB accepting advertising dollars from Gaming Companies somehow makes gambling within the sport a lesser offense. It’s pretty simple, every major sports entity both professional and amateur forbids sports wagering and the cardinal sin is beating on your own sport/team. It’s not an ethical dilemma without an answer. My company accepts advertising dollars from Liquor and Beer companies, that shouldn’t somehow morally protect me from action if I’m drinking on the job. I wouldn’t somehow be in some deep ethos predicament if Jeff in accounting was fired for pounding airplane bottles of Tito’s all day long just because we advertise InBev corp.

But really Jeff, you need to cool a bit. You aren’t fooling anyone.

-
We've come a long way from Bowie Kuhn, motivated by a desire to distance Major League Baseball from any trace of gambling, banned retired superstars Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle from working for both major league clubs and gambling casinos at the same time. And they were just shaking hands and kissing babies in their roles at the Casino.

The Black Sox and Joe Jackson were acquitted in a 1921 court, it was Chicago so you can't put a lot of stock in that decision but acquitted none the less. Kennesaw Mountain Landis chose to ban them to send a message to "Gambling" that baseball was off limits.

And now we have Sportsbooks in over a dozen Stadiums with more to come, owned by Fanatics, DraftKings, and FanDuel, to name a few, the same fine folks that lined the pockets of congress to change the gambling laws in this country.

MLB and Manfred have embraced gambling to the point that the ESPN commentators and play by play guys, are quoting betting lines.

It's insidious. Gambling ruins lives, families, and futures. There's a reason Kuhn and Landis took such a hard line on it.

I don't think gambling should be any part of baseball, including advertising, but if baseball is going to cozy up to the gamblers then Joe Jackson should by all means be the first voted in the Hall. Hell, they should retroactively induct him in the 1936 class and make it the first 6 instead of the first 5.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
We've come a long way from Bowie Kuhn, motivated by a desire to distance Major League Baseball from any trace of gambling, banned retired superstars Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle from working for both major league clubs and gambling casinos at the same time. And they were just shaking hands and kissing babies in their roles at the Casino.

The Black Sox and Joe Jackson were acquitted in a 1921 court, it was Chicago so you can't put a lot of stock in that decision but acquitted none the less. Kennesaw Mountain Landis chose to ban them to send a message to "Gambling" that baseball was off limits.

And now we have Sportsbooks in over a dozen Stadiums with more to come, owned by Fanatics, DraftKings, and FanDuel, to name a few, the same fine folks that lined the pockets of congress to change the gambling laws in this country.

MLB and Manfred have embraced gambling to the point that the ESPN commentators and play by play guys, are quoting betting lines.

It's insidious. Gambling ruins lives, families, and futures. There's a reason Kuhn and Landis took such a hard line on it.

I don't think gambling should be any part of baseball, including advertising, but if baseball is going to cozy up to the gamblers then Joe Jackson should by all means be the first voted in the Hall. Hell, they should retroactively induct him in the 1936 class and make it the first 6 instead of the first 5.

Yes, and it's really sad to see a whole cohort of younger fans who literally cannot enjoy a game without making at least one bet from their mobile phones.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
Joe Jackson should by all means be the first voted in the Hall. Hell, they should retroactively induct him in the 1936 class and make it the first 6 instead of the first 5.

Dunno that Jackson was better than Lajoie or Speaker who made the second class. I think his notoriety has made him perhaps greater in people's minds than his actual numbers.

[Mountaineer1999]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno that Jackson was better than Lajoie or Speaker who made the second class. I think his notoriety has made him perhaps greater in people's minds than his actual numbers.

Checked. His actual numbers are pretty damn good.

[luciobar1980]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno that Jackson was better than Lajoie or Speaker who made the second class. I think his notoriety has made him perhaps greater in people's minds than his actual numbers.

I absolutely agree with this. Field of Dreams, cool nickname, Black Sox, legends and hearsay.. all those things have blown Jackson out of proportion in the hobby. Yes he was good, but his card prices arent in line with what he actually did on the field, IMO.