OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?

[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.

[Kenny Cole]

I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

Very interesting...im sure we'll never know the real truth on what occured. But looking at Jackson's stats and what hes confessed about the world series i dont believe he personally jeopardized any game. But the debate will go on.....thanks for sharing what you learned.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

Kinda like Bud Selig and PEDs eh?

[steve B]

A question then for those saying it's all about what someone did on the field and that off the field stuff should have nothing to do with it

Are you then against the current practice in pretty much all sports of suspending players for stuff they do that's off field and unrelated to their sport? Adrian Peterson? Michael Vick? Delmon Young?

And should the PED users be sanctioned? Many of them did stuff before MLB had any specific rule or testing program.


Steve B

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by steve B

A question then for those saying it's all about what someone did on the field and that off the field stuff should have nothing to do with it

Are you then against the current practice in pretty much all sports of suspending players for stuff they do that's off field and unrelated to their sport? Adrian Peterson? Michael Vick? Delmon Young?

And should the PED users be sanctioned? Many of them did stuff before MLB had any specific rule or testing program.


Steve B

No i feel that the fact that he took a bribe shouldve been dealt in a different way and seperately. It should in no way keep him out of the HOF. Everything he accomplished on the field proves he deserves to be in. Now if youre using PED's you dont deserve to be in based on the fact you used something to enhance the results you got on the field. Jackson's numbers speak for themselves. The fact that he took a bribe didnt enhance his game or been proven that it made him lose any games either.

Same with pete rose. Who the hell cares if he bet on games. How does that affect anything he did on the field. He played his ass off without PED's and has some insane numbers. How can anyone justify not letting him in. I understand theres a rule but unless he had his team throw any games to benefit him then he deserves to be in. The fact that he bet on games is a seperate issue. Firing him takes care of that. Maybe a fine too but keeping him out of something he clearly belongs in is excessive

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Same with pete rose. Who the hell cares if he bet on games. How does that affect anything he did on the field. He played his ass off without PED's and has some insane numbers. How can anyone justify not letting him in. I understand theres a rule but unless he had his team throw any games to benefit him then he deserves to be in. The fact that he bet on games is a seperate issue. Firing him takes care of that. Maybe a fine too but keeping him out of something he clearly belongs in is excessive

Are amphetamines PED's? Rose admitted to using them on David Letterman in 2010, but "only to lose weight". He is not banned from baseball for amphetamines, but your contention that Charlie Hustle played without the aid of PED's is false.

[packs]

I also disagree that the fact that Rose bet on games is a separate issue. He was betting on games while being on the field. That is one and the same. Ban him for life.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pariah1107

Are amphetamines PED's? Rose admitted to using them on David Letterman in 2010, but "only to lose weight". He is not banned from baseball for amphetamines, but your contention that Charlie Hustle played without the aid of PED's is false.

Mays and Aaron used greenies.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Now if youre using PED's you dont deserve to be in based on the fact you used something to enhance the results you got on the field.

Sort of like taking greenies in the '60s and '70s, right?