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

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by BobC

I know the Commissioners of all the major U.S. sports today get paid very well, but I don't think a one of them is making double what the highest paid athlete in their respective sport is getting paid. Hmmmmm?

“Very well” is a generous understatement.

The most disliked of all of them, Roger Goodell makes 40 million per year at last report. That places him tied for second with the list of highest paid NFL players behind only Mahomes. He would have been the highest paid easily at the signing of his current deal and makes more than 40 times the average NFL player.

[Snapolit1]

What I never understood about this debate is Rose and Bonds and Jackson ARE in the hall of fame. If you walk though the hall of fame you will find display material about Bonds and Rose's achievements. (Presume the same is true for Joe Jackson.) But what you wont see is them in the hall of plaques. They are technically not "in" the Hall of Fame, but it's not like they are ignored. I always figured there was no mention of them in the building, like they were lepers who had to be shunned. That's not the case.

I have no issue with their place in baseball being acknowledged and someone making a judgment call that their character is not of a kind that they should be held forth on the most esteemed level of the sport. If you had a hall of fame that didn't Bonds and Sosa and the hold they had on the sport that year that would just be stupid.

In my opinion the Baseball Hall of Fame is watered down now with players with mediocre accomplishments being voted in

Ron Petersen

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by rgpete

In my opinion the Baseball Hall of Fame is watered down now with players with mediocre accomplishments being voted in

Ron Petersen

Don't disagree that there are some players who prob don't deserve to be there, but I think the phenomenon you describe is more about how players who came on the scene when we are grown men often don't seem as mythical and as magical and as fantastic as the players we watched as star struck 12 year old boys. My dad would watch baseball game with me and tell me that the greatest outfielders today couldn't hold a candle to Carl Furillo and as Duke Snyder. Because they were his childhood heroes.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Don't disagree that there are some players who prob don't deserve to be there, but I think the phenomenon you describe is more about how players who came on the scene when we are grown men often don't seem as mythical and as magical and as fantastic as the players we watched as star struck 12 year old boys. My dad would watch baseball game with me and tell me that the greatest outfielders today couldn't hold a candle to Carl Furillo and as Duke Snyder. Because they were his childhood heroes.

Different times between the 50's 60's 70's 80's nothing mythical or magical just stats

[iwantitiwinit]

Because it seems as if rules don't matter anymore and everyone gets a free pass?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JustinD

“Very well” is a generous understatement.

The most disliked of all of them, Roger Goodell makes 40 million per year at last report. That places him tied for second with the list of highest paid NFL players behind only Mahomes. He would have been the highest paid easily at the signing of his current deal and makes more than 40 times the average NFL player.

LOL. Justin, that was my poor attempt at being sarcastic and mentioning how much they were willing to pay Landis right out of the gate with no experience or idea of what he would be doing at all. At least Goodell is involved in handling TV and other money generating contracts for the NFL and I believe also dealing with the player's union. Other than being sure to ban the Black Sox, what did Landis really do for MLB?

[BobC]

Thomas and Jay,

You are both right as to why Jackson would testify as to taking the money and then probably deny throwing games, does put him in the best light possible. I amend my thinking based on your comments. Still,you can't argue that Jackson had outstanding stats in the 1919 WS and 1920 season which make it very hard to really prove or believe he was lying about it. Plus it seems when there is the testimony and stories about who supposedly did what questionable things to throw games, it usually seems to be someone other than Jackson. And as Thomas mentioned in an earlier post, even Comiskey seemed to have some faith in Jackson, as evidenced by not bothering to have him watched by private detectives during the 1920 season.

I really think Jackson got sucked into this by teammates who were likely pressured by Rothstein and his gambling cronies to bring Jackson in on the fix so they were assured it would work. I can see Gandil, Cicotte and whomever, being told that they had to have Jackson in on this or else no one would get any money. And if that is the case, then Jackson was caught in a no-win situation. Of course you can point to his teammates, Collins and Schalk especially, who were not in the fix and wonder why him. I don't know the answer, but did Collins and Schalk really not have direct knowledge of the fix and only surmised what was going on initially, or did either of them get asked to join in and they simply refused? Thanks.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thomas and Jay,

You are both right as to why Jackson would testify as to taking the money and then probably deny throwing games, does put him in the best light possible. I amend my thinking based on your comments. Still,you can't argue that Jackson had outstanding stats in the 1919 WS and 1920 season which make it very hard to really prove or believe he was lying about it. Plus it seems when there is the testimony and stories about who supposedly did what questionable things to throw games, it usually seems to be someone other than Jackson. And as Thomas mentioned in an earlier post, even Comiskey seemed to have some faith in Jackson, as evidenced by not bothering to have him watched by private detectives during the 1920 season.

I really think Jackson got sucked into this by teammates who were likely pressured by Rothstein and his gambling cronies to bring Jackson in on the fix so they were assured it would work. I can see Gandil, Cicotte and whomever, being told that they had to have Jackson in on this or else no one would get any money. And if that is the case, then Jackson was caught in a no-win situation. Of course you can point to his teammates, Collins and Schalk especially, who were not in the fix and wonder why him. I don't know the answer, but did Collins and Schalk really not have direct knowledge of the fix and only surmised what was going on initially, or did either of them get asked to join in and they simply refused? Thanks.

While Jackson's batting average during the 1919 World Series was over .300, he did exhibit some very questionable fielding during the types of plays he normally made cleanly. That, I believe, more than his batting is what has served as evidence against him. And of course he tried to return the money after the Series, which only compounded his guilt in the matter.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by robw1959

While Jackson's batting average during the 1919 World Series was over .300, he did exhibit some very questionable fielding during the types of plays he normally made cleanly. That, I believe, more than his batting is what has served as evidence against him. And of course he tried to return the money after the Series, which only compounded his guilt in the matter.

No argument, but it wasn't just over .300, I think it was something like .385. And yes, i'd heard of some questionable fielding, but I was including his play going through the 1920 season as well. No way to tell for sure if he was or wasn't trying to tank it on any specific play. Problem is, and I'd said this previously, once he admitted to originally taking the money, even if he had batted 1.000 and hadn't made a single error, there would still be people saying he had done things to throw games.