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

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Tabe

It was Babe Ruth who said he imitated Joe Jackson, not Cobb.

Well I read it was Cobb, but regardless of which one it was, the point has been well established that Joe Jackson had a great swing, and I doubt if there is anyone yet to be elected to the HOF that was or is a better player than Shoeless Joe.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Well I read it was Cobb, but regardless of which one it was, the point has been well established that Joe Jackson had a great swing, and I doubt if there is anyone yet to be elected to the HOF that was or is a better player than Shoeless Joe.

Barry Bonds, to name just one.

[Frank A]

Neither belong in. Both were aware of what they were doing and just went with it. Jackson I feel somewhat sorry for. Rose was always a wise guy and thought he could do anything he wanted. You follow the rules or else.

[Pat R]

For Jackson it depends on which of the many versions of the different stories you believe. Some accounts have said...

He refused the $5000 twice and teammate Lefty Williams threw it on the hotel room floor. He then tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but he refused to meet with him.

It was said that in his grand jury appearance he said he would muff balls and he would be slow and make short throws back to the infield but there are
no stenographic records of him saying that.

Years later the other seven players who were supposedly involved said he was never at any of the meetings.

He was acquitted by a grand jury

So if you believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty then Jackson does belong in the Hall of Fame.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

For Jackson it depends on which of the many versions of the different stories you believe. Some accounts have said...

He refused the $5000 twice and teammate Lefty Williams threw it on the hotel room floor. He then tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but he refused to meet with him.

It was said that in his grand jury appearance he said he would muff balls and he would be slow and make short throws back to the infield but there are
no stenographic records of him saying that.

Years later the other seven players who were supposedly involved said he was never at any of the meetings.

He was acquitted by a grand jury

So if you believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty then Jackson does belong in the Hall of Fame.

Roger Clemens was acquitted, in a verdict that essentially meant the jury didn't believe he used.

[Jim65]

Joe Jackson was charged with perjury after testifying in his civil trial against Comiskey. He was a proven liar who changed his story multiple times.

I think he probably played to win after he realized he was getting screwed out of his payoff money, but if he botched one play in the field or one AB on purpose, hes just as guilty as the rest.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Joe Jackson was charged with perjury after testifying in his civil trial against Comiskey. He was a proven liar who changed his story multiple times.

I think he probably played to win after he realized he was getting screwed out of his payoff money, but if he botched one play in the field or one AB on purpose, hes just as guilty as the rest.

Jackson was charged with perjury by his civil suite judge going against and AFTER the jury ruled in favor of Jackson in the case.

And the differing in testimony, if you are arguing for Jackson, between 1920 and 1924 you could say in 1920 he was without council and likely coached by Comiskey's lawyers...

Jackson is the most difficult of the 8 to try to understand his role. He obviously knew about it, was offered money, and kept money given to him debatable if he accepted it at first...testified it was thrown down in his room by Williams and that after the series he went to see Comiskey to ask about what to do with it and then again with Grabiner when he went to resign Jackson for the 1920 season to which Grabiner was indifferent and thus he and his wife kept it. Could he be making up things? Sure but still a lot of gray area around Jackson...Eddie Collins who was adamant about Weaver being guilty always had sympathy for only Jackson which mirrored many other players and managers of the time so there has to be something to that.

In the end this is all kind of moot as Landis had to treat them all the same regardless of levels of guilt, even Joe Gedeon who was banned bc he knew about the fix (and probably bet on it) but obviously didnt throw any games as he was on the Browns.

Jackson's knowledge and accepting money sealed his fate even though he had no idea what would happen and I feel if he did he would have handled things differently. Doesnt matter what he did on the field...honestly I believe his 1920 statements of playing to win which he never waivered on.

It would be interesting to actually hear his testimony in 1920 to get more context and meaning...or know exactly what he said and how he said what he did to Gandil...was he taking Gandil seriously and his reply a serious one or was it taken as a joke and Jackson's response a sarcastic/joking tone? Who knows.

It is worth noting that according to Edd Roush's graddaughter he told her that gamblers tried to bribe the Reds, specifically Hod Eller and he turned them down and when asked in a team meeting if anyone had been approached by gamblers Eller spoke up and told without hesitation...so while bribery and throwing games was a thing that happened honesty and integrity could still be leveled against such things.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Joe Jackson was charged with perjury after testifying in his civil trial against Comiskey. He was a proven liar who changed his story multiple times.

I think he probably played to win after he realized he was getting screwed out of his payoff money, but if he botched one play in the field or one AB on purpose, hes just as guilty as the rest.

If he was so guilty of perjury, why was he never prosecuted then? Even today people make lots of accusations that go nowhere. Also, if in trying to get through this he listens to different people, like the White Sox attorneys who were advising him at some point, and then others at different times, he's going to get thrown into a lot of different directions trying to do what everyone is telling him at that time. Not saying it is right, but his situation is a lot more gray than most of the others. Plus, hate to bring it up again, but there was no specific rule in place at the time of the 1919 scandal about what was done. Also, the actual trial wasn't about a specific law being broken, but about how the Black Sox players by throwing the World Series had cheated their their non-complicit teammates out of their share of the WS winning money. In fact, I believe teammate Shano Collins was named as the wronged party in the indictments, not baseball, the fans, or anyone else. Also heard that Comiskey supposedly went ahead and paid the difference in player's money earned between the winners and losers of the World Series to White Sox players not part of the scandal. So Collins and the others it seems were made whole and didn't suffer any financial loss after all. It is all very strange and confusing, and based on Comiskey's and the team's actions during all this has to make one wonder if they maybe had a bigger role in all this that they were trying to keep covered up.