Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson Reinstated by MLB

[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