Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

The players that didnt hit the 10 year mark I would assume are not eligible...sorry Buck Weaver fans, if his career continued it is very likely he would be a HOFer and the same could be argued for Lefty Williams and Hap Felsch and Lee Magee maybe.

Really to me there are only players on this list that are worthy of ballot placement and personally I think 2 are solid candidates and 1 is borderline

Good Chace
1. Rose
2. Jackson

Borderline
3. Cicotte

9 year players that should be considered if allowed but are Hall of Very Good Players
4. Buck Weaver - could argue Weaver is a borderline player
5. Chic Gandil - but he retired after 1919 so guess he wouldnt get any special consideration for a shortened career
6. Lee Magee

I personally would argue Cicotte is a HOFer as be basically invented the knuckleball and had solid peak years with a borderline win total and solid ERA...BUT he was a primary 1919 WS fixer that is not up for debate like Jackson's role is

What makes you say Weaver could be considered a borderline Hall of Fame player? Nothing about his stats scream Hall of Fame to me. If he hadn't been part of the Black Sox scandal and wrongly banned in the eyes of many, I'm not sure if anyone would even know who he was today (even if you gave him 5 or 6 more years as a player). He would likely just be another unknown player from 100 years ago.

[JamesGallo]

Horrible move but a weak commissioner. Rose should never be in and Jackson should have been in ages ago. The fact is that the still need to be voted in, which might not happen especially with Rose.

Also if they do get in it certainly would be a hypocritical move if the steroids guys dont get in. So to me it becomes all or nothing and recent years the steroids guys have been kept out. We will see if this changes.

I think all the other Black Sox values are certainly greatly increased by the scandal, will this ruling really matter, I don't think so. People didn't buy their cards because they were banned from baseball, they bought them because they were part of the scandal, which will not change.

I do think Jackson's values are inflated, however who knows what he stats would have been when the ball went live. Maybe he would have been Ruthian....

James G

[Ima Pseudonym]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Horrible move but a weak commissioner. Rose should never be in and Jackson should have been in ages ago.

I'm not sure how you reconcile this position. Both guys were alleged to have been involved in gambling activities that were clearly against the rules of the game at the time. In Rose's case, he bet *on* his team to win games in the regular season; while Jackson took money in a scheme designed to bet *against* his team and throw a world series.

If you're standing on personal principle alone, I'm not sure how you vote for Jackson, but not Rose. The allegation against Jackson is way more egregious.

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Also if they do get in it certainly would be a hypocritical move if the steroids guys dont get in.

Seems like apples and oranges to me. The steroid guys aren't technically even banned, the voters have simply decided not to vote for them for personal, cultural reasons. It's a completely different situation.

The only real hypocrisy was the league and sports writers turning a blind eye to the obvious steroid issue -- allowing Bonds, McGwire and Sosa to save their sinking league -- and then suddenly throwing them under the bus when they were done using them.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Ima Pseudonym

The only real hypocrisy was the league and sports writers turning a blind eye to the obvious steroid issue -- allowing Bonds, McGwire and Sosa to save their sinking league -- and then suddenly throwing them under the bus when they were done using them.

Well said! And they made a lot of money in doing so!

[ThomasL]

[QUOTE=Ima Pseudonym;2515809]I'm not sure how you reconcile this position. Both guys were alleged to have been involved in gambling activities that were clearly against the rules of the game at the time. In Rose's case, he bet *on* his team to win games in the regular season; while Jackson took money in a scheme designed to bet *against* his team and throw a world series.

If you're standing on personal principle alone, I'm not sure how you vote for Jackson, but not Rose. The allegation against Jackson is way more egregious.





I will play this game for the fun of it:
As most people familiar with Joe Jackson know there is tremendous gray areas and doubt to his culpability in the 1919 WS scandal
1. Jackson's 1919 WS stats were great
2. Admitted he played to win
3. Was given the money by a friend teammate and he didnt want to take it but did anyway
4. Later felt bad about it and tried to inform team management at some point after the fact

Against this is the fact Jackson did have guilty knowledge and did receive money, but Charles Comiskey and likely the whole team had guilty knowledge of the fix at some point during the series and Comiskey did not report it to League officials and even signed the accused players (save for Gandil) to new contracts in 1920...he is in the Hall of Fame.

Unlike other Black Sox Jackson was not accused of throwing games in 1920 season

Jackson and Weaver are the outliers of the 8 men out but Weaver is not in the convo bc he didnt play the min 10 years.

Also worth pointing out...it was not against the rules in 1919 to fix games. You might think this is a dumb point to make but several players had thrown games prior to this with little to no punishment, case in point Eddie Cicotte testified that he got the idea bc some of the Cubs threw the 1918 World Series. Had there been a set in stone punishment many of the 8 would not have even talked about it let alone done it. They were not banned until 1921 by a commissioner who was not even in authority when the 1919 WS was played.

Now contrast that to Pete Rose...who knew full well that any type of betting would result in a life time ban and he did it anyway...

Given this context yes one could very easily justify voting for Joe Jackson and not Pete Rose

[wagnerj03]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

I think all the other Black Sox values are certainly greatly increased by the scandal, will this ruling really matter, I don't think so. People didn't buy their cards because they were banned from baseball, they bought them because they were part of the scandal, which will not change.

James G

I agree that values will likely stay the same. I collect the Black Sox because I like collecting history and the scandal is such a big part of baseball history. Happy to pay a little premium for a piece of history. That won't change with any of this.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by jayshum

What makes you say Weaver could be considered a borderline Hall of Fame player? Nothing about his stats scream Hall of Fame to me. If he hadn't been part of the Black Sox scandal and wrongly banned in the eyes of many, I'm not sure if anyone would even know who he was today (even if you gave him 5 or 6 more years as a player). He would likely just be another unknown player from 100 years ago.

Fair Point, but he was regarded as the best defensive 3B of his era which only produced one HOF 3B (Baker)who was known for his batting, Weaver was regarded as one of the best at his position during his playing days and was getting a peak when he was banned. Unfortunately bc of the ban Weaver didnt get the 1920s live ball boost others would get...same for Jackson and Felsch.


to your last point...Frank Baker is largely an unknown from 100+ years ago as are all but probably 1-5 HOFers from that era