OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?

[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!!

[JoeyFarino]

In that era who would be dumb enough to rat on the mob???? Arnold Rothstein was in business with luciano, lansky, etc youd be looking at a death sentence if you snitched..period

[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.