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

[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.