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

[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.

[steve B]

It's always interesting how people in a baseball collecting hobby support Rose, who did some pretty crummy things to damage the hobby itself.

Like selling multiple bats as "the bat" from a landmark hit.

And less seriously, but a glimpse of things to come

Sold loads of "game used" bats etc that were only used for one AB or part of one AB.

And amazingly he gets a pass on all that.
Seriously Rose supporters- His card already gets the price it "should" there won't be any big bump if they drop all standards and let him in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGoMCJ8bKtk

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's always interesting how people in a baseball collecting hobby support Rose, who did some pretty crummy things to damage the hobby itself.

Like selling multiple bats as "the bat" from a landmark hit.

And less seriously, but a glimpse of things to come

Sold loads of "game used" bats etc that were only used for one AB or part of one AB.

And amazingly he gets a pass on all that.
Seriously Rose supporters- His card already gets the price it "should" there won't be any big bump if they drop all standards and let him in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGoMCJ8bKtk

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers than Rose and Jackson? Are you also an Oscar voter?

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers than Rose and Jackson? Are you also an Oscar voter?

+1000 ...the premise is laughable

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers than Rose and Jackson? Are you also an Oscar voter?

He didn't say that Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers. He said they were better players.

And he's right.

People's fascination with hitting a lot of singles over a (by far) record number of plate appearances never ceases to amaze me. Especially with someone who barely hit .300, had a career OPS under .800, and was a horrible base stealer hitting at the top of the lineup (in an era where your table setter was counted on to always be on the move). Not to mention a subpar outfielder.

But hey, he tried really hard.

Edit: I didn't notice Jackson mentioned there too. Naturally I'm only referring to Rose

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

That's inaccurate IMO

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

I think this is a good point. Look at the price gap between Jackson and Speaker. Was Jackson a better player? No, they are very similar bats through their age 32 seasons (when Jackson's career ends) plus Tris was a legendary glove. Look at Cicotte vs. Vic Willis or any other similar pitcher. Gandil far outsells his talent level too. Being the villain appears to do more for one's prices than being the good guy. I'm not sure why; I'd chalk it up to "any name recognition is good" except these guys outsell other famous players (anyone buying Jackson knows Collins well) and HOFers every collector knows.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think this is a good point. Look at the price gap between Jackson and Speaker. Was Jackson a better player? No, they are very similar bats through their age 32 seasons (when Jackson's career ends) plus Tris was a legendary glove. Look at Cicotte vs. Vic Willis or any other similar pitcher. Gandil far outsells his talent level too. Being the villain appears to do more for one's prices than being the good guy. I'm not sure why; I'd chalk it up to "any name recognition is good" except these guys outsell other famous players (anyone buying Jackson knows Collins well) and HOFers every collector knows.

Look at how popular Hal Chase is, even among many on this forum. The guy was more despicable than any of the Black Sox, or Pete Rose.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

Dutch Leonard produced two letters as evidence of his allegation to the commissioner, one letter written by Cobb to Leonard and another written by Joe Wood to Leonard.

In the Cobb letter, Cobb mentions that they were too late in pulling their money together and that the bookies were no longer interested. "Wood and myself were considerably disappointed in our business proposition, as we had $2,000 to put into it, and the other side quoted us $1,400, and when we finally secured that much money it was about 2 o’clock and they refused to deal with us, as they had men in Chicago to take up the matter with and they had no time."

The Wood letter states that "Cobb did not get up a cent. He told us that and I believed him."

Neither letter mentions Speaker at all. Leonard supposedly testified that Speaker was involved, but Leonard later denied ever naming Speaker.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

Cobb hated Dutch Leonard, said he was one of the only guys he spiked intentionally, and essentially ended Leonard's career in his managing years. Speaker, an old friend then passed on signing Leonard.

Leonard went to Ban Johnson in 1926 and told him that he, Cobb and Joe Wood had conspired to bet on a game in 1919, and that Speaker had agreed to lose it. The Tigers won. Leonard produced 2 very vague letters from Cobb and Speaker that reference a bet, though what it is on is never fully stated. Johnson summoned Leonard to come answer questions about the allegation, Leonard refused to do so. Kennesaw Mountain Landis then publicly cleared Cobb and Speaker in early 1927, as the only source was a man who was angry at both of them, produced no real evidence, and refused to answer questions.

I believe the SABR bio of Dutch Leonard has a pretty good summation of the affair, from memory.

If they were guilty, they should be treated the same as Jackson and Rose when it comes to honors. I've never seen any real evidence they were guilty, much less a preponderance

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

A lot of players bet on and threw games...Cobb and Speaker according to HOF writer Fred Lieb the evidence was pretty damnable and listen to Joe Wood's Glory of Their Times interview...pretty damning as well.

Bill Veck in his book The Hustler's Handbook references Harry Grabiner's diary as 1918 World Series and Cubs games being fixed. Also mentions Pete Alexander and Rabbit Maranville as being involved in fixing games. Pete Alexander also friends with 1919 WS fixer Billy Maharg. Other Cubs involved in game fixes were Claude Hendrix and Lee Magee. Cicotte also said they got the idea by hearing the Cubs got money for throwing the 1918 WS.

It is pretty obvious that many players were betting on and throwing games and not being really punished for it (traded off seems to be the move that was made) and the White Sox knew this and thought they could make some easy money.

Landis in 1926/27 in regards to Speaker and Cobb made the comment he would not deal with any more past scandals from the time before he was commissioner basically giving anyone prior to 1920 a free pass...which the 1919 WS would fall into so there is a big hypocrisy there in his ruling with the Black Sox.