Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...

[G1911]

The difference is that "racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, bullies, gamblers, drunks, womanisers, liars, cheats, felons, tax-evaders, horse-whippers, agnostics and pet abusers" have little to do with baseball, except the cheats possibly. Gamblers is an odd inclusion on the list as that is quite literally what Rose did and for why some people don't want him enshrined.

Joe Jackson probably accepted money to throw games, at the least. Pete Rose broke the number 1 rule. Not measuring up to contemporary social standards of morality is different, cheating on ones taxes or wife is different, whipping horses is different, agnosticism (are we really saying those who do not think they can know if there is a God are guilty of some moral wrong?) is different.

The people who think Jackson and Rose do not belong think they do not belong because they broke the biggest rule in Baseball, not because any moral transgression in one's life should block one from enshrinement. They are not making an argument with no context. Further, unlike a normal "cheat", Jackson broke a rule to try and lose.

I'm agnostic on if Rose should be allowed in. I am probably against Jackson being allowed in.

EDIT: The Fix Is In is an excellent book

[JustinD]

The lifetime Rose ban is simply silly and a bitter pissing contest between himself and Giamatti which has trickled down to his contemporaries as anger for just never being able to shut up.

There is no proof in existence of him betting against his own team nor changing any game plan or play to influence games. He was an addict and unlike the greatest basketball player of all time with a far worse addiction he couldn’t just shut up and switch sports for several years as a punishment.

It’s a joke, it’s been 30+ years, and it should just be over.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by JustinD

The lifetime Rose ban is simply silly and a bitter pissing contest between himself and Giamatti which has trickled down to his contemporaries as anger for just never being able to shut up.

There is no proof in existence of him betting against his own team nor changing any game plan or play to influence games. He was an addict and unlike the greatest basketball player of all time with a far worse addiction he couldn’t just shut up and switch sports for several years as a punishment.

It’s a joke, it’s been 30+ years, and it should just be over.

This is by far the most accurate comment...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

This is by far the most accurate comment...

+1

[iwantitiwinit]

Everyone knows the rules.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Everyone knows the rules.

This

[markf31]

The argument that there was no official rule in place in MLB against betting at the time of the 1919 World Series is irrelevant. At least 38 players had been quietly dismissed or asked to leave MLB as a result of gambling or game fixing prior to 1919. I believe this is stated in the book Eight Men Out but the specific number does not matter as there was precedent for players being banned for betting and game fixing prior to 1919. Additionally, Landis made use of a recent precedent that had previously seen Babe Borton, Harl Maggert, Gene Dale, and Bill Rumler banned from the Pacific Coast League for fixing games in 1919.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by JustinD

The lifetime Rose ban is simply silly and a bitter pissing contest between himself and Giamatti which has trickled down to his contemporaries as anger for just never being able to shut up.

There is no proof in existence of him betting against his own team nor changing any game plan or play to influence games. He was an addict and unlike the greatest basketball player of all time with a far worse addiction he couldn’t just shut up and switch sports for several years as a punishment.

It’s a joke, it’s been 30+ years, and it should just be over.

The rule is and was pretty clear:
Rule 21(d)(2). Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Permanently ineligible. Period. Full Stop.

The rule does not differentiate between betting for your own team or against your own team so any arguments based on that have no merit.

[darwinbulldog]

Independent of the issue of whether or not they should be eligible, there are already several better players who are eligible and haven't yet been inducted.

[brianclat11]

In the case of Shoeless Joe and Pete, I believe both should be in. Rules were meant to be changed and enough is enough. Back when Joe played, these guys could hardly make ends meat. For both of them, being kicked out of the game and time served should be enough. We all know about the hazards of gambling addiction, and it is not the worst offense that some of these guys in the hall have committed. How many things are still the same from 1920. Lets reevaluate what is fair and just. Pete has done his time and Joe needs to be recognized by being enshrined.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Independent of the issue of whether or not they should be eligible, there are already several better players who are eligible and haven't yet been inducted.

So? What does that have to do with THESE players and their situations??

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Independent of the issue of whether or not they should be eligible, there are already several better players who are eligible and haven't yet been inducted.

Interesting . . . can you name any better players than Joe Jackson that have yet to be inducted?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Interesting . . . can you name any better players than Joe Jackson that have yet to be inducted?

All of these guys definitely:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw

And then these guys have/had better careers, but I wouldn't necessarily say they were "better players" than Shoeless Joe
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Justin Verlander
Curt Schilling
Bob Caruthers
Adrian Beltre
Max Scherzer

[BRoberts]

Rose is an obvious HOFer.

[jiw98]

I'm for letting both Jackson and Rose in the HOF. Joe Jackson could not have broken a rule that didn't exist until years later. (Rule 21 adopted 1927) Even after being found not guilty by the jury on Aug 2, 1921, it wasn't until the following day that Landis said that any player betting on baseball will be banned.
As for Rose I'm for letting him in for what he did as a player. I do believe he should be banned from baseball for betting as a manager.
JMHO

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

All of these guys definitely:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw

And then these guys have/had better careers, but I wouldn't necessarily say they were "better players" than Shoeless Joe
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Justin Verlander
Curt Schilling
Bob Caruthers
Adrian Beltre
Max Scherzer

It's hard to compare pitchers to Shoeless Joe Jackson, but comparing the rest is laughable! The guy batted .382 at age 37 in a full season, with 20 triples. He batted .356 lifetime, and is credited with teaching Ty Cobb how to bat. Even in the deadball era, Jackson's OPS is better than anyone on your list except for the steroid abusers.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by markf31

The rule is and was pretty clear:
Rule 21(d)(2). Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Permanently ineligible. Period. Full Stop.

The rule does not differentiate between betting for your own team or against your own team so any arguments based on that have no merit.

So then based on this rule, both Cobb and Speaker (and possibly others) should be kicked out of the HOF.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

So then based on this rule, both Cobb and Speaker (and possibly others) should be kicked out of the HOF.

The difference is Cobb and Speaker were accused by a single person who was unable to provide any evidence. The evidence that Rose bet is undeniable, that Jackson took a payoff at least is pretty strong.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

So then based on this rule, both Cobb and Speaker (and possibly others) should be kicked out of the HOF.

It's been a while since I read anything on the Cobb and Speaker scandal but from what I remember the two letters that Leonard used as evidence to back up his accusations specifically cleared Cobb of laying down a bet, and they did not mention Speaker at all.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by markf31

It's been a while since I read anything on the Cobb and Speaker scandal but from what I remember the two letters that Leonard used as evidence to back up his accusations did not have any word of a fix, they specifically cleared Cobb of laying down a bet, and they did not mention Speaker at all.

Though the letters don't speak of a fix, they do speak of the intent to gamble on a game they were involved in. Cobb and Speaker were temporarily suspended, and then reinstated under dubious circumstances amid a political tug-of-war between Ban Johnson and Judge Landis. Hard to know the real truth with the passage of time and minimal concrete proof.

I guess my wider point is it's so difficult to draw the line on everything from gambling (which supposedly many players did in the teens and twenties) to PEDs (steroids vs greenies being popped like candy). It just seems more than a little hypocritical of the Hall to use certain arguments when convenient and ignore them other times.

All hail Christy Mathewson!

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

Though the letters don't speak of a fix, they do speak of the intent to gamble on a game they were involved in. Cobb and Speaker were temporarily suspended, and then reinstated under dubious circumstances amid a political tug-of-war between Ban Johnson and Judge Landis. Hard to know the real truth with the passage of time and minimal concrete proof.

I guess my wider point is it's so difficult to draw the line on everything from gambling (which supposedly many players did in the teens and twenties) to PEDs (steroids vs greenies being popped like candy). It just seems more than a little hypocritical of the Hall to use certain arguments when convenient and ignore them other times.

All hail Christy Mathewson!

But in the case of Rose, he admitted to gambling on the team he managed. And for Jackson, he confessed in sworn grand jury testimony to having accepted $5,000 cash from the gamblers. Those are not arguments of convenience.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by markf31

The rule is and was pretty clear:
Rule 21(d)(2). Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Permanently ineligible. Period. Full Stop.

The rule does not differentiate between betting for your own team or against your own team so any arguments based on that have no merit.

This is by far the most accurate comment...


Also, being banned by baseball and being ineligible for induction into the HOF are linked, but only by a rule of the HOF. Should the HOF want to eliminate that rule, it is their prerogative. Then it would be strictly up to the voters, just as the PED users are being considered.