Shoeless Joe in the HOF...and his cards?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Jim65

The jury acquitted them all, does that mean they were all innocent of taking money and throwing games?

I don't know. Do you?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I don't know. Do you?

I don't think we will ever know positively about Jackson but the fact that a jury acquitted him is really irrelevant is the point I was trying to make.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I don't think we will ever know positively about Jackson but the fact that a jury acquitted him is really irrelevant is the point I was trying to make.

No, actually its not. You made what essentially seems like a guilt by association argument, i.e., that somebody threw the series so it doesn't matter if Jackson did or not. That's the Buck Weaver argument and I personally think its a load of crap. Always have. Do you rat out your buddies whenever they do something you don't approve of or think is wrong?

The jury heard the evidence and he and the others were acquitted. If you want to argue that the trial was tainted, OK. Some are, either way. For every OJ, I can probably name someone who sat on death row for years before being exonerated because the prosecutors cheated by withholding exculpatory evidence. Juries most often get it right IMO, but sometimes they don't. The system isn't perfect but it generally works.

But it was Landis (who was a federal judge), not the process, who said that whether or not he did it didn't matter. Jackson didn't have a Court of Appeals he could ask to review his ban. Landis was it. That's rather unfair too, since Landis was a creation of the owners, including Comiskey, and Jackson's alleged actions took place before he had any jurisdiction. On other occasions, Landis used that very fact to duck having to make a decision.

I don't know whether Jackson was involved or not, although the stuff I've read has me leaning a little bit toward probably not. At this point, its a court of public perception issue as much as anything, which probably also screws Jackson since his guilt has been assumed for so long. But the answer to the first question I asked is still that no one knows what Jackson did. That matters. How can you decide whether someone is HOF worthy if you don't even know whether they did what is clearly keeping them out?

[ullmandds]

Whether JJ is ever inducted into the HOF...or not...there is already tremendous "value" currently built into JJ period cards...as has been noted...due to scarcity and mystique due to the "celebrity" status of JJ...imo.

Sure if all of a sudden JJ were in the HOF...there are some HOF collectors who would now "need" a card of his...and this could drive up prices.

But what ultimately determines values is what the "collectors" will pay for an item. And despite all the BAD SHIT happening in the hobby at the moment...there are a lot of people out there with a lot of $$$$$$...along with the supply of a lot of once common older cards has virtually dried up.

So at any given moment in time...any given card can and will sell for whatever someone with the $$$$ thinks it's worth to them...or what the AH pushing the item thinks the buyer should pay for it!!!!

So imo there is as good a chance of JJ items going up in value/price...as there is going down.

[Bigdaddy]

To the OP's question, I believe that for high profile players who are no-question Hall-of-Famers, then the price of their cards already reflects their inevitable election. However for guys that are on the edge, for whatever reason, then their election will provide a bump in the prices of their cards/autographs/etc.

For a recent example, look at Ted Simmons. I don't have any numbers, but I would believe that his RC, at least in higher grades, got a bump. Same with his autograph as the demand from HOF collectors increased. His more common cards, probably not so much.

With Jackson, and the very limited supply of his cards, I can see a bump should he be elected.

The question as to him being on a HOF ballot is (and always has) been purely up to the HOF, not MLB. And should his name appear on a ballot, then his election is up to the appropriate committee members. And while his actions/statistics/guilt/innocence has not changed one bit in the last 100 years, his eligibility to be elected to the HOF has.

The bottom line is that MLB has essentially washed it's hands of HOF eligibility of Jackson and others and left the decision in the hands of the HOF.

[Snapolit1]

Only way I could conceive of the HOF putting someone in after their death who had been otherwise barred would be maybe some hypothetical situation where a black player was run out of baseball on some criminal charge that was obviously trumped up and based on some horribly racist law of 100 years ago. In such a case I could see it happening for symbolic purposes. And I don't know of any situation like that.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

No, actually its not. You made what essentially seems like a guilt by association argument, i.e., that somebody threw the series so it doesn't matter if Jackson did or not. That's the Buck Weaver argument and I personally think its a load of crap. Always have. Do you rat out your buddies whenever they do something you don't approve of or think is wrong?

The jury heard the evidence and he and the others were acquitted. If you want to argue that the trial was tainted, OK. Some are, either way. For every OJ, I can probably name someone who sat on death row for years before being exonerated because the prosecutors cheated by withholding exculpatory evidence. Juries most often get it right IMO, but sometimes they don't. The system isn't perfect but it generally works.

But it was Landis (who was a federal judge), not the process, who said that whether or not he did it didn't matter. Jackson didn't have a Court of Appeals he could ask to review his ban. Landis was it. That's rather unfair too, since Landis was a creation of the owners, including Comiskey, and Jackson's alleged actions took place before he had any jurisdiction. On other occasions, Landis used that very fact to duck having to make a decision.

I don't know whether Jackson was involved or not, although the stuff I've read has me leaning a little bit toward probably not. At this point, its a court of public perception issue as much as anything, which probably also screws Jackson since his guilt has been assumed for so long. But the answer to the first question I asked is still that no one knows what Jackson did. That matters. How can you decide whether someone is HOF worthy if you don't even know whether they did what is clearly keeping them out?

This jury got it wrong about Gandil, Cicotte, Risberg, Williams, etc. Did they get it right about Jackson? I have no idea but I can't assume he's innocent because the jury says when they were wrong about the others.

I never decided whether anyone is HOF worthy or not, Landis saw enough evidence to ban him, agree or disagree, he was banned. I've never seen enough evidence to overturn that ban.

This is just my opinion but I believe Jackson probably tried to win after he realized he got stiffed for the money. But if he blew one play or made one out intentionally while batting, then he's just as guilty as the others no matter how hard he played after that.

[packs]

We're not talking about a crime. We’re talking about the rules of baseball. Baseball determines its own rulings and it ruled against them. Nothing has changed in the 100 years since as far as I can tell.

[PowderedH2O]

Jackson is a player that I have always wondered what would have happened if had kept playing. He clearly was still great in 1920. But he was 33 back when 33 was getting old. How many more years could he played at that level? Two or three? Then maybe he hangs on for a few more years. The ball got livlier, so maybe that bumps his numbers some. My guess is that his average drops ten to fifteen points and he doesn't reach 3000 hits. Would he have Tris Speaker type values then?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by packs

We are not talking about a crime. We’re talking about the rules of baseball. Baseball determines its own rulings and it rules against them. Nothing has changed in the 100 years since as far as I can tell.

Yes, and unfortunately, it enforces them selectively, and chooses to punish some, and not others, selectively. That was particularly true of Landis, the Czar of baseball, who enforced "unwritten" rules that didn't exist and ignored others that did, if that was to his benefit. I'm not a fan of his for a multitude of reasons.

[Republicaninmass]

We need lawsuits or it never happened.


I think prices baked in. In fact, this revelation would justify the run up on them in the last few years. Theyve gone a little nuts