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

[robw1959]

I am all for Pete being enshrined, but am against Joe's inclusion.

Joe, as a player, accepted $300 to throw the World Series, and even though he tried to give it back remorsefully, the damage was done to our national pastime. Nobody who accepts a bribe(s) to lose games in any sport is HOF-worthy because it undermines the integrity of the game.

Pete, as a manager, bet on the Reds to win. His bets were the manifestation of a gambling addiction - not an effort to undermine the game in any way.

[egri]

I’m not very familiar with Joe Jackson, and had always thought he should be in, but this article changed my mind: https://sabr.org/journal/article/pla...-1920-pennant/.

[Bartholomew_Bump_Bailey]

Originally Posted by egri

I’m not very familiar with Joe Jackson, and had always thought he should be in, but this article changed my mind: https://sabr.org/journal/article/pla...-1920-pennant/.

I think you/the article just helped change my mind as well, thanks for sharing.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew_Bump_Bailey

I think you/the article just helped change my mind as well, thanks for sharing.

Only damning thing for Jackson in there is a 32yo not being able to steal a base and a colorful reporter describing that.

[jp1216]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Pete, as a manager, bet on the Reds to win. His bets were the manifestation of a gambling addiction - not an effort to undermine the game in any way.

Did Pete bet on the Reds to win all 162 games? On days he doesn't bet on his team to win - doesn't that imply he expects them to lose?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jp1216

Did Pete bet on the Reds to win all 162 games? On days he doesn't bet on his team to win - doesn't that imply he expects them to lose?

Not just that, but if you bet on your team to win, then you go all out to win that game even if it's not in the best interest of your team. Overusing a closer for instance. It's a long season, going all out to win a game in June because you have money on it creates MASSIVE issues.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Pete, as a manager, bet on the Reds to win. His bets were the manifestation of a gambling addiction - not an effort to undermine the game in any way.

When you bet on the team you manage on SOME games, but not others, you are setting up a personal conflict. For example, if your starters need a rest here and there throughout the season, you are much more likely to rest them on games you are not betting on. If your light-hitting backup catcher needs a little work, he will get it in a game you are not betting on. Even if your best relief pitchers are a little tired, you will be more likely to use them in a game you are betting on.

And so on, and so forth. People say "Pete never bet against his own team..." Well, I would argue that if he's betting on them in some games, but not others, he effectively was.

Baseball doesn't ask a lot of its players, coaches, and managers, but after 1920 so severely damaged the National Pastime, baseball does demand one thing: Don't gamble on baseball, especially games where you can affect the outcome, and certainly, managers have that power. You can drink, cheat on your wife, rob a bank, misspell the word "Damn," and do all sorts of other things the world frowns on.

But don't bet on baseball. So Pete, a student of the game and its history, looks at that and says to himself, "Dam, I'm going to bet on baseball."

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Baseball doesn't ask a lot of its players, coaches, and managers, but after 1920 so severely damaged the National Pastime, baseball does demand one thing: Don't gamble on baseball, especially games where you can affect the outcome, and certainly, managers have that power. You can drink, cheat on your wife, rob a bank, misspell the word "Damn," and do all sorts of other things the world frowns on.

But don't bet on baseball. So Pete, a student of the game and its history, looks at that and says to himself, "Dam, I'm going to bet on baseball."

That is what it all boils down to. There really is no debate.

Does his exclusion suck for his fans and fans of the game who enjoyed his play on the field? Absolutely, hence why many clamor for him to be included in the Hall still.

But if he is that stupid to do the one thing that every clubhouse has a sign saying NOT TO DO...then he made his bed.