Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[Casey2296]

-
Considering how Manfred & MLB have bent the knee and embraced gambling in their sport I see no reason these two should be kept out of the Hall for gambling, that horse has left the barn.
I'm ambivalent on Rose since he's not a very likeable human but Joe should definitely be in.
-

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
Considering how Manfred & MLB have bent the knee and embraced gambling in their sport I see no reason these two should be kept out of the Hall for gambling, that horse has left the barn.
I'm ambivalent on Rose since he's not a very likeable human but Joe should definitely be in.
-

I still see a difference between embracing gambling for non-participants and embracing players and coaches who bet on games that they can directly influence.

I embrace the stock market. I condemn insider trading.

I also see betting against your team as an order of magnitude worse than other forms of cheating that affect the integrity of the game. If winning is the primary objective of a team sport like baseball, then purposely losing is a cardinal sin. At least steroid users, bat corkers, spitballers, and players banging on trash cans did so with the goal of achieving the best possible outcome on the field. They should get an asterisk for gaining an unfair advantage, sure, but there's a special place in baseball hell for people who tank for money.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I still see a difference between embracing gambling for non-participants and embracing players and coaches who bet on games that they can directly influence.

I embrace the stock market. I condemn insider trading.

I also see betting against your team as an order of magnitude worse than other forms of cheating that affect the integrity of the game. If winning is the primary objective of a team sport like baseball, then purposely losing is a cardinal sin. At least steroid users, bat corkers, spitballers, and players banging on trash cans did so with the goal of achieving the best possible outcome on the field. They should get an asterisk for gaining an unfair advantage, sure, but there's a special place in baseball hell for people who tank for money.

I agree with you, but NBA teams purposely lose games toward the end of each season when they're out of contention, simply to try to get a better draft lottery position; and I'm sure the same thing is going on in the other pro sports. What about players on those teams?

Steve

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
Considering how Manfred & MLB have bent the knee and embraced gambling in their sport I see no reason these two should be kept out of the Hall for gambling, that horse has left the barn.
I'm ambivalent on Rose since he's not a very likeable human but Joe should definitely be in.
-

I’ve never understood the argument that MLB accepting advertising dollars from Gaming Companies somehow makes gambling within the sport a lesser offense. It’s pretty simple, every major sports entity both professional and amateur forbids sports wagering and the cardinal sin is beating on your own sport/team. It’s not an ethical dilemma without an answer. My company accepts advertising dollars from Liquor and Beer companies, that shouldn’t somehow morally protect me from action if I’m drinking on the job. I wouldn’t somehow be in some deep ethos predicament if Jeff in accounting was fired for pounding airplane bottles of Tito’s all day long just because we advertise InBev corp.

But really Jeff, you need to cool a bit. You aren’t fooling anyone.

[sbfinley]

Also I was today years old when I realized Sherry Magee and Lee Magee were not the same person.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

I’ve never understood the argument that MLB accepting advertising dollars from Gaming Companies somehow makes gambling within the sport a lesser offense. It’s pretty simple, every major sports entity both professional and amateur forbids sports wagering and the cardinal sin is beating on your own sport/team. It’s not an ethical dilemma without an answer. My company accepts advertising dollars from Liquor and Beer companies, that shouldn’t somehow morally protect me from action if I’m drinking on the job. I wouldn’t somehow be in some deep ethos predicament if Jeff in accounting was fired for pounding airplane bottles of Tito’s all day long just because we advertise InBev corp.

But really Jeff, you need to cool a bit. You aren’t fooling anyone.

-
We've come a long way from Bowie Kuhn, motivated by a desire to distance Major League Baseball from any trace of gambling, banned retired superstars Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle from working for both major league clubs and gambling casinos at the same time. And they were just shaking hands and kissing babies in their roles at the Casino.

The Black Sox and Joe Jackson were acquitted in a 1921 court, it was Chicago so you can't put a lot of stock in that decision but acquitted none the less. Kennesaw Mountain Landis chose to ban them to send a message to "Gambling" that baseball was off limits.

And now we have Sportsbooks in over a dozen Stadiums with more to come, owned by Fanatics, DraftKings, and FanDuel, to name a few, the same fine folks that lined the pockets of congress to change the gambling laws in this country.

MLB and Manfred have embraced gambling to the point that the ESPN commentators and play by play guys, are quoting betting lines.

It's insidious. Gambling ruins lives, families, and futures. There's a reason Kuhn and Landis took such a hard line on it.

I don't think gambling should be any part of baseball, including advertising, but if baseball is going to cozy up to the gamblers then Joe Jackson should by all means be the first voted in the Hall. Hell, they should retroactively induct him in the 1936 class and make it the first 6 instead of the first 5.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
We've come a long way from Bowie Kuhn, motivated by a desire to distance Major League Baseball from any trace of gambling, banned retired superstars Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle from working for both major league clubs and gambling casinos at the same time. And they were just shaking hands and kissing babies in their roles at the Casino.

The Black Sox and Joe Jackson were acquitted in a 1921 court, it was Chicago so you can't put a lot of stock in that decision but acquitted none the less. Kennesaw Mountain Landis chose to ban them to send a message to "Gambling" that baseball was off limits.

And now we have Sportsbooks in over a dozen Stadiums with more to come, owned by Fanatics, DraftKings, and FanDuel, to name a few, the same fine folks that lined the pockets of congress to change the gambling laws in this country.

MLB and Manfred have embraced gambling to the point that the ESPN commentators and play by play guys, are quoting betting lines.

It's insidious. Gambling ruins lives, families, and futures. There's a reason Kuhn and Landis took such a hard line on it.

I don't think gambling should be any part of baseball, including advertising, but if baseball is going to cozy up to the gamblers then Joe Jackson should by all means be the first voted in the Hall. Hell, they should retroactively induct him in the 1936 class and make it the first 6 instead of the first 5.

Yes, and it's really sad to see a whole cohort of younger fans who literally cannot enjoy a game without making at least one bet from their mobile phones.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
Joe Jackson should by all means be the first voted in the Hall. Hell, they should retroactively induct him in the 1936 class and make it the first 6 instead of the first 5.

Dunno that Jackson was better than Lajoie or Speaker who made the second class. I think his notoriety has made him perhaps greater in people's minds than his actual numbers.

[Mountaineer1999]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno that Jackson was better than Lajoie or Speaker who made the second class. I think his notoriety has made him perhaps greater in people's minds than his actual numbers.

Checked. His actual numbers are pretty damn good.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999

Checked. His actual numbers are pretty damn good.

Who said they weren't? It's still my belief his valuations which have gone off the charts reflect his notoriety as well as his player value. Had he been plain old Joe Jackson and not Shoeless Joe, and had he just sustained a career ending injury in 1920 and not been part of the Black Sox, I don't think you would see the astronomical numbers.

Bill James, for example, rates him 66 (and that's as of 2003 so would be much lower now presumably).

[Mountaineer1999]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who said they weren't? It's still my belief his valuations which have gone off the charts reflect his notoriety as well as his player value. Had he been plain old Joe Jackson and not Shoeless Joe, and had he just sustained a career ending injury in 1920 and not been part of the Black Sox, I don't think you would see the astronomical numbers.

Bill James, for example, rates him 66 (and that's as of 2003 so would be much lower now presumably).

I agree with this 1st paragraph. The Bill James list is just ripe for debate though.

[sacentaur]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill James, for example, rates him 66 (and that's as of 2003 so would be much lower now presumably).

The Sporting News rated Shoeless Joe Jackson as 35 way back in 1998.

[luciobar1980]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno that Jackson was better than Lajoie or Speaker who made the second class. I think his notoriety has made him perhaps greater in people's minds than his actual numbers.

I absolutely agree with this. Field of Dreams, cool nickname, Black Sox, legends and hearsay.. all those things have blown Jackson out of proportion in the hobby. Yes he was good, but his card prices arent in line with what he actually did on the field, IMO.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno that Jackson was better than Lajoie or Speaker who made the second class. I think his notoriety has made him perhaps greater in people's minds than his actual numbers.

162 game averages

Jackson 106 R 216 H 37 2B 20 3B 7 HR 96 RBI 25 SB .356/.423/.517 OPS+170
WAR 7.6
Collins 104 R 190 H 25 2B 11 3B 3 HR 74 RBI 42 SB .333/.424/.429 OPS+142
WAR 7.1
Lajoie 98 R 212 H 43 2B 11 3B 5 HR 104 RBI 25 SB .338/.380/.466 OPS+150
WAR 7.0

It looks pretty clear that Jackson was better than Collins and Lajoie. With the introduction of livelier balls, Jackson would have benefited with his superior power. You can say what if he was injured, but he played in independent and semi-pro leagues into the 1930s. I don't know if he should be part of the 1936 class, but he would have definitely been elected no later than 1937 if not for the Black Sox.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

162 game averages

Jackson 106 R 216 H 37 2B 20 3B 7 HR 96 RBI 25 SB .356/.423/.517 OPS+170
WAR 7.6
Collins 104 R 190 H 25 2B 11 3B 3 HR 74 RBI 42 SB .333/.424/.429 OPS+142
WAR 7.1
Lajoie 98 R 212 H 43 2B 11 3B 5 HR 104 RBI 25 SB .338/.380/.466 OPS+150
WAR 7.0

It looks pretty clear that Jackson was better than Collins and Lajoie. With the introduction of livelier balls, Jackson would have benefited with his superior power. You can say what if he was injured, but he played in independent and semi-pro leagues into the 1930s. I don't know if he should be part of the 1936 class, but he would have definitely been elected no later than 1937 if not for the Black Sox.

You did not include Speaker. His 162 game average WAR was 7.8, higher than Jackson. No doubt at all Jackson was a very great player. But my question is whether, that said, his card values are based solely on his player value.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by rats60

162 game averages

Jackson 106 R 216 H 37 2B 20 3B 7 HR 96 RBI 25 SB .356/.423/.517 OPS+170
WAR 7.6
Collins 104 R 190 H 25 2B 11 3B 3 HR 74 RBI 42 SB .333/.424/.429 OPS+142
WAR 7.1
Lajoie 98 R 212 H 43 2B 11 3B 5 HR 104 RBI 25 SB .338/.380/.466 OPS+150
WAR 7.0

It looks pretty clear that Jackson was better than Collins and Lajoie. With the introduction of livelier balls, Jackson would have benefited with his superior power. You can say what if he was injured, but he played in independent and semi-pro leagues into the 1930s. I don't know if he should be part of the 1936 class, but he would have definitely been elected no later than 1937 if not for the Black Sox.

The problem with comparing Jackson's 162 game averages with those of Lajoie and Collins is that Jackson was banned from the majors before he really started declining. Lajoie was a regular until he was 41 and Collins until he was 39; Jackson was 32 in 1920.

WAR/162 games thru age 32:
Jackson 7.6
Collins 8.0
Lajoie 8.3
Speaker 8.4

And both Collins and Lajoie aged unusually well. It's possible Jackson would have aged as well as them but by no means certain.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by rats60

162 game averages

Jackson 106 R 216 H 37 2B 20 3B 7 HR 96 RBI 25 SB .356/.423/.517 OPS+170
WAR 7.6
Collins 104 R 190 H 25 2B 11 3B 3 HR 74 RBI 42 SB .333/.424/.429 OPS+142
WAR 7.1
Lajoie 98 R 212 H 43 2B 11 3B 5 HR 104 RBI 25 SB .338/.380/.466 OPS+150
WAR 7.0

It looks pretty clear that Jackson was better than Collins and Lajoie. With the introduction of livelier balls, Jackson would have benefited with his superior power. You can say what if he was injured, but he played in independent and semi-pro leagues into the 1930s. I don't know if he should be part of the 1936 class, but he would have definitely been elected no later than 1937 if not for the Black Sox.

Even with the livelier ball, his 162 game averages would probably have come down some if he played into his late 30s or early 40s.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Even with the livelier ball, his 162 game averages would probably have come down some if he played into his late 30s or early 40s.

Jackson probably would have played until 1928-1930 much like Tris Speaker who I have always felt was a good comp for Jackson...

There is a book where the author tries to determine what the 8 men out would have done had they played full careers "It Ain't So" by Michael Lynch Jr. He goes into great detail. He has Jackson's career ending after the 1929 season with career 3457 hits, .351 ave, 1564 RBI and used Speaker as a predictor for Jackson

It is a fun book to read and a lot of work went into it...yes it is all conjecture but still fun to read...he has Lefty Williams winning 300+ games and Felsch being a HOFer...he has Weaver on the HOF bubble with his 2,900+ hits and .290 career ave. that ended in 1928.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
We've come a long way from Bowie Kuhn, motivated by a desire to distance Major League Baseball from any trace of gambling, banned retired superstars Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle from working for both major league clubs and gambling casinos at the same time. And they were just shaking hands and kissing babies in their roles at the Casino.

The Black Sox and Joe Jackson were acquitted in a 1921 court, it was Chicago so you can't put a lot of stock in that decision but acquitted none the less. Kennesaw Mountain Landis chose to ban them to send a message to "Gambling" that baseball was off limits.

And now we have Sportsbooks in over a dozen Stadiums with more to come, owned by Fanatics, DraftKings, and FanDuel, to name a few, the same fine folks that lined the pockets of congress to change the gambling laws in this country.

MLB and Manfred have embraced gambling to the point that the ESPN commentators and play by play guys, are quoting betting lines.

It's insidious. Gambling ruins lives, families, and futures. There's a reason Kuhn and Landis took such a hard line on it.

I don't think gambling should be any part of baseball, including advertising, but if baseball is going to cozy up to the gamblers then Joe Jackson should by all means be the first voted in the Hall. Hell, they should retroactively induct him in the 1936 class and make it the first 6 instead of the first 5.

I agree wholeheartedly with all of this!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Hell, they should retroactively induct him in the 1936 class and make it the first 6 instead of the first 5.

Joe was already on the ballot, receiving 2 votes in 1936. And then 2 more in 1946.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

I’ve never understood the argument that MLB accepting advertising dollars from Gaming Companies somehow makes gambling within the sport a lesser offense. It’s pretty simple, every major sports entity both professional and amateur forbids sports wagering and the cardinal sin is beating on your own sport/team. It’s not an ethical dilemma without an answer. My company accepts advertising dollars from Liquor and Beer companies, that shouldn’t somehow morally protect me from action if I’m drinking on the job. I wouldn’t somehow be in some deep ethos predicament if Jeff in accounting was fired for pounding airplane bottles of Tito’s all day long just because we advertise InBev corp.

So should we assume that accepting those ads from liquor and beer companies can be seen as compromising your company's integrity? Because that's certainly the situation with MLB cozying up to the gambling industry.