OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?

[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.

[EvilKing00]

So when is this desition happening? Or did it happen today already?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Does everyone in the hobby that supports Rose forget the shady stuff he did hobbywise? Stuff that comes very close to fraud if not being fraud and sometimes only because it's so hard to prove?

Selling loads of game used bats - Sketchy when he was using a new bat for what seemed like every pitch. Not illegal, but still a little questionable for the era.

Selling multiple bats from the same milestone hit. - Hard to prove he did that, harder still to prove that's exactly what he claimed at the time. sort of dueling stories, and the buyers could have been interpreting his claims. Sort of "this bat is from the at bat where I got the hit" which gets taken as "this is the bat I got the hit with" In the buyers mind - instead of the more truthful "this is the bat I hit the foul with a couple pitches before" (Not sure of the exact at bats/hits , just a for instance)

He did some other stuff too. I'd have to really dig for the old magazines that have the details.

As for Jackson, I agree that taking the money and playing well but keeping quiet is wrong, and I'm confident in thinking that Landis viewed it as being just as bad. Plus, as others have pointed out, there's a lot of subtle stuff a great athlete could do that wouldn't be obvious from the stats. While it might be trackable now with the video all teams have of other teams in detail. At the time there was no way to track stuff like not getting a good jump on maybe one particular ball so it falls in, or not taking a base, or taking a strike in a certain situation.

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't care about Pete Rose's personal shortcomings or hobby activities. By sheer force of will he made himself into the all-time hit leader and a superstar. He was the consummate competitor, and obviously raised the level of play of his teammates. His work ethic was unmatched.

As Sports Illustrated put it, even in the stands, his will to win could be felt.

As Rose himself put it, in one of the greatest of all baseball quotes, "I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball."

Yeah he gambled, but he's paid for that with purgatory for decades. He is clearly a Hall of Famer.

[packs]

Nope. He refused to admit what he did until it was undeniable. At any time, if he did in fact never bet against his own team, he could have admitted as such. So after all those lies he told when faced with the truth, you really believe him and believe he has enough integrity to be telling the truth this one time?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Nope. He refused to admit what he did until it was undeniable. At any time, if he did in fact never bet against his own team, he could have admitted as such. So after all those lies he told when faced with the truth, you really believe him and believe he has enough integrity to be telling the truth this one time?

Given how fiercely competitive he was, I doubt he bet against his own team.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by steve B

Does everyone in the hobby that supports Rose forget the shady stuff he did hobbywise? Stuff that comes very close to fraud if not being fraud and sometimes only because it's so hard to prove?

Selling loads of game used bats - Sketchy when he was using a new bat for what seemed like every pitch. Not illegal, but still a little questionable for the era.

Selling multiple bats from the same milestone hit. - Hard to prove he did that, harder still to prove that's exactly what he claimed at the time. sort of dueling stories, and the buyers could have been interpreting his claims. Sort of "this bat is from the at bat where I got the hit" which gets taken as "this is the bat I got the hit with" In the buyers mind - instead of the more truthful "this is the bat I hit the foul with a couple pitches before" (Not sure of the exact at bats/hits , just a for instance)

He did some other stuff too. I'd have to really dig for the old magazines that have the details.

As for Jackson, I agree that taking the money and playing well but keeping quiet is wrong, and I'm confident in thinking that Landis viewed it as being just as bad. Plus, as others have pointed out, there's a lot of subtle stuff a great athlete could do that wouldn't be obvious from the stats. While it might be trackable now with the video all teams have of other teams in detail. At the time there was no way to track stuff like not getting a good jump on maybe one particular ball so it falls in, or not taking a base, or taking a strike in a certain situation.

Steve B

All that stuff has NOTHING to do with what he accomplished on the field without any help. Who cares if he sold bats..how does that affect anything he did as a player? The HOF is based on numbers and what you accomplished as a player. The bat issues can be dealt in another way. He deserves to be in no question about it

[jiw98]

In 1920 Jackson batted .382. This is the year after the 1919 series. Landis announced his rule against throwing a game Aug. 3, 1921. This is almost two years after the 1919 series.
So here's my question. How can you be suspended for life for breaking a rule that hasn't been written yet? Wouldn't that be like getting a speeding ticket for driving 70 mph on a highway that was two years later changed to 55 mph?

Now for the life time suspension. Wasn't Steve Howe given like 7 life time suspensions? If I remember it right, each "life time" suspension was for one year.

Just sayin....

[Bigdaddy]

Joe took money to throw a World Series. Landis had to set a hard example to keep organized gambling out of the game and instill the public's trust that the games were not fixed going forward. Joe and the others were the example. Time does not change what he and the others did.

As for Pete, and I'm a big Reds fan and loved Pete the player, I cannot believe a word that comes out of that man's mouth. He has lied from the day he was investigated, only fessing up to whatever evidence is on the table that he cannot deny. He agreed to a lifetime ban and that is what he deserves.

Now if the Hall of Fame wanted to induct either of these gentlemen, it could change their own rule and take out the part about being banned from baseball - remember being banned from baseball and not being eligible for the HoF are two independent issues.

[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.

[mybuddyinc]

You can do a lot of things and not get banned from Baseball. But gambling or taking money has always been THE BIG NO-NO.

Jim Devlin, George Hall, Al Nichols and Bill Craver of the Louisville Grays were banned in 1877. They were, late in the season, 27-13, but went 8-12 in the last games. All but Craver admitted throwing games.

I've always felt these guys set the "unbreakable" rule in Baseball that has held up for all these years.

Rose, Jackson, Weaver, NO.

[Iron Horse]

They both get my vote to be in. In my opinion their career numbers should determine their entry to the HOF.
The only ones i don't want in are the ones we know 100% used PED.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by Iron Horse

They both get my vote to be in. In my opinion their career numbers should determine their entry to the HOF.
The only ones i don't want in are the ones we know 100% used PED.

Totally agree

[Dan Carson]

NO!!

[edjs]

Originally Posted by mybuddyinc

You can do a lot of things and not get banned from Baseball. But gambling or taking money has always been THE BIG NO-NO.

Jim Devlin, George Hall, Al Nichols and Bill Craver of the Louisville Grays were banned in 1877. They were, late in the season, 27-13, but went 8-12 in the last games. All but Craver admitted throwing games.

I've always felt these guys set the "unbreakable" rule in Baseball that has held up for all these years.

Rose, Jackson, Weaver, NO.

I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by edjs

I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

Some historians state that Weaver was present at three separate meetings when the fix was being planned. He was more than just some naive innocent.

Remember, Asinof's Eight Men Out took a lot of artistic license with the story and should be read with caution when seeking out historical fact.

[packs]

When MLB looked at Weaver's case again they found that he definitively participated in at least two meetings, one in New York City and one in Cincinnati. He discussed throwing the series with his teammates. He told no one and did nothing when they did throw the series.

[mybuddyinc]

Originally Posted by edjs

I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

Same with Louisville Craver. He never admitted to taking money. Later in life, trying to be reinstated, he adamantly denied it. He was included, in association, like Weaver, for not coming forward.

Arguably more minor, but others would argue the opposite.