OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?

[packs]

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.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

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

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

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

To all: Don't think for ONE minute that Joe Jackson didn't do anything to "throw" the 1919 World Series. True, his statistics do not warrant that notion. However, when Christy Mathewson joined iconic sports reporter and good friend Grantland Rice to cover the 1919 series, Matty was appalled at the number of balls that were falling safely between and in front of Jackson and Felsh (CF). Matty insisted something was terribly wrong, especially considering Jackson's world class fielding reputation. Jackson may not have been charged with any "official" errors, but he played a "careless" left field "at least" the first 5 games. Also attributing to Jackson's .300+ series average was his performances in game 6 and 7 (when he hit his one series homer) after the Sox were down 4 games to 1. Rothstein had not paid the players what he promised them, thus enticing the players (including Jackson) to revolt and play hard to win those 2 games. Unfortunately, after Lefty Williams' wife was threatened after the Sox closed the series to 4 games to 3, Williams didn't make it out of the first inning in game#8, ultimately leading to the Red's series victory.

Bottom line: Jackson was a guilty as "Original Sin"! He has no business being in Cooperstown and neither does Pete Rose.

JoeT.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

To all: Don't think for ONE minute that Joe Jackson didn't do anything to "throw" the 1919 World Series. True, his statistics do not warrant that notion. However, when Christy Mathewson joined iconic sports reporter and good friend Grantland Rice to cover the 1919 series, Matty was appalled at the number of balls that were falling safely between and in front of Jackson and Felsh (CF). Matty insisted something was terribly wrong, especially considering Jackson's world class fielding reputation. Jackson may not have been charged with any "official" errors, but he played a "careless" left field "at least" the first 5 games. Also attributing to Jackson's .300+ series average was his performances in game 6 and 7 (when he hit his one series homer) after the Sox were down 4 games to 1. Rothstein had not paid the players what he promised them, thus enticing the players (including Jackson) to revolt and play hard to win those 2 games. Unfortunately, after Lefty Williams' wife was threatened after the Sox closed the series to 4 games to 3, Williams didn't make it out of the first inning in game#8, ultimately leading to the Red's series victory.

Bottom line: Jackson was a guilty as "Original Sin"! He has no business being in Cooperstown and neither does Pete Rose.

JoeT.

Agree to disagree.

[bbsports]

About 15 years ago I met Bob Feller at a card show in Florida. He told me it takes more than stats to be in the baseball Hall of Fame. You must be a member in good standing to the game as part of the qualifications. As great a baseball player as Rose & Jackson were, they were not members of baseball in good standing & therefore they should be banned forever of entering the baseball Hall of Fame.

[Joshwesley]

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.

[JoeyFarino]

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

[packs]

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.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

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

[packs]

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.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

No youre right i dont know but looking at his world series stats if he did he sure did a horrible job..lol

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

In that case why pay him at all to be in on it? He didn't have to be paid extra to play well.

PS At this point Rose has paid the price. I would reinstate him, unless there is evidence he bet against his own team and I don't believe there is.

[arc2q]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

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

While a timeless debate, I don't see your side of it really. I think romanticism has clouded our judgement of what occurred.

I thought Manfred's letter was perfectly worded. What do we know now that Landis did not know in 1921? Likely nothing. Therefore Manfred has to respect that decision. Only if new, substantive evidence emerges that changes the fact that Jackson admitted under oath to accepting money from a person he knew to be paying him and his teammates to throw the World Series should baseball even consider re-looking at the case in its entirety.

Authoritative decisions like banning a player must be respected by future generations and future commissioners for the punishment to have merit and for the authority to be considered inviolable. You cannot rewrite history out of nostalgia. While it may have seemed harsh, the decision was final in Jackson's life and should remain so now unless new evidence emerges.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by arc2q

While a timeless debate, I don't see your side of it really. I think romanticism has clouded our judgement of what occurred.

I thought Manfred's letter was perfectly worded. What do we know now that Landis did not know in 1921? Likely nothing. Therefore Manfred has to respect that decision. Only if new, substantive evidence emerges that changes the fact that Jackson admitted under oath to accepting money from a person he knew to be paying him and his teammates to throw the World Series should baseball even consider re-looking at the case in its entirety.

Authoritative decisions like banning a player must be respected by future generations and future commissioners for the punishment to have merit and for the authority to be considered inviolable. You cannot rewrite history out of nostalgia. While it may have seemed harsh, the decision was final in Jackson's life and should remain so now unless new evidence emerges.

I see both sides and respect people's opinions but personally i feel like he should be in along with pete rose. Thatll never change but like you said itll always be a timeless debate.

[howard38]

[QUOTE=Joshwesley;1448233]That's a shame... obviously by judging his performance in the series... Joe didn't throw anything, but taking the money makes him guilty.

That isn't necessarily so. The Sox weren't trying to throw every game and in the three they won (and in which Jackson was presumably doing his best) he batted .545. In the five losses he batted only .286 and most have that production (HR, 2B, 3 RBI) came in the final game when they were already getting blown out. That isn't proof of any wrongdoing but neither is his overall BA of .375 proof of innocence.