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

[Econteachert205]

I’ll play devil’s advocate. Rose and Jackson belong in because their roles as villains serve so many purposes. They allow for others of questionable morals and ethics to finger wag. They are responsible for some of the best stories in the history of the game. They are modern day Shakespearean tragic figures and their fall is a direct reflection on the times they lived in. The hall itself has little moral authority to deny the greatness of these two men based on their transgressions. Let them in and clearly state what they have accomplished, good and bad. Then please do the same for everyone else.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

I’ll play devil’s advocate. Rose and Jackson belong in because their roles as villains serve so many purposes. They allow for others of questionable morals and ethics to finger wag. They are responsible for some of the best stories in the history of the game. They are modern day Shakespearean tragic figures and their fall is a direct reflection on the times they lived in. The hall itself has little moral authority to deny the greatness of these two men based on their transgressions. Let them in and clearly state what they have accomplished, good and bad. Then please do the same for everyone else.

I've often thought about how maligned Judas and Pilate are. Look what an essential role they played in the birth of Christianity.

[BobC]

Interesting facts, comments, and opinions all around. However, if you really want to have an honest and open discussion about this you have to remember that at the very core it comes down to some of the same basic things that seem to be the case whenever dealing with people.....greed and money!

Players back in Jackson's day didn't get paid so much that they didn't often have regular jobs during the offseason to make ends meet, they generally made more than the average worker of the day, but were by no means always well off. Baseball back then was totally controlled by the owners, who due to the way contracts were written and the reserve clauses they had, controlled players virtually for life. At best they were indentured servants, at worst, no more than.........!!! And having this power over the game, they often treated players unfairly, paying them as little as possible and probably breaking promises as to bonuses or rewards to players, and so on. Does anyone really think that the owners back then were not acting collusively to control the players so as to allow them to make as much money as possible for themselves? But at the same time, weren't they also granted a formal exemption from federal anti-trust laws stemming from a lawsuit with the defunct Federal League in the mid-teens? Believe that was finally formalized by the Supreme Court in 1922, even though it is crystal clear that they were doing what companies like Standard Oil and the American Tobacco Company were doing, yet baseball didn't get subjected to those anti-trust rules and regulation like those other major companies did from the laws that were in place. So in other words, owners had free reign to basically do to and treat players however they wanted. Also interesting how the date this exemption was formalized (1922) is right about the same time all this Black Sox activity and scandal was going on (1919-1920). Interestingly enough, there are actually some Senators in Congress today working on putting forth a bill to revoke major league baseball's anti-trust law exemption as we speak! Isn't it kind of ironic how still to this day major league baseball doesn't have to follow the same rules as everyone else?

Comiskey, the White Sox owner back then, was known to not always treat his players fairly and keep his promises to them, and so could be considered somewhat complicit in possibly pushing some of his players to talk with gamblers at the time, or at least make them more vulnerable to listening to them? Not saying he's totally at fault, but his and the other owners actions couldn't have helped. As has been stated, there were rumors and allegations of numerous other players and officials back then also being accused and linked to dealings with gamblers and the throwing of ball games, just that none of them ever got the same treatment that the Black Sox players got.

The fear at the time was that the American people would turn away from major league baseball if they began to think it was all fixed, and thus the owners would start losing money. So even after the Black Sox players were found innocent in a court pf law, the owners came up with the idea of an overall league commissioner to retroactively ban these Black Sox players that publicly stood up against the owners and baseball by looking to throw some games for money. And don't forget, MLB's rule 21(d)(2) regarding the ban on betting on games wasn't in place yet when this happened. And I dare even one of you to try arguing that the owners hadn't pre-arranged everything with Landis before they made him Commissioner and knew he would go back and ban them all as punishment. And to maybe more importantly send a message to every other ballplayer to keep their mouths shut and don't do or say anything that would damage the owners pocketbooks going forward, or let the public know how things really were. Can you imagine the public outcry if something like this was tried in today's environment by the baseball owners to retroactively do something and punish players after the fact, and how illegal those actions would be considered today?

By coming out like some of those Black Sox players did in admitting their actions, it put a black eye on major league baseball, and pushed the owners to punish them, not for the good of baseball, but for their own pocketbooks. But back then, given the contracts players were forced to live with and how they were treated, what else were major league players supposed to do? It could almost be considered a form of protest by the players, and maybe even compared to something like how college players are denied the ability to make any money by the NCAA today (And where is that going right now?).

Taking the baseball owners to court back then when the courts and the government were clearly siding with the owners (ie: the Supreme Court Anti-Trust exemption), would have clearly been fruitless, plus the players probably wouldn't have had the resources to afford to do it anyway. Of course they could have just decided not to play in the majors then and forego it to play in the minors or semi-pro leagues, which is what Joe Jackson did for a number of years under an assumed name if I remember correctly. But is that fair to them then? They either do, say and act as the owners want, or they can't play. Hmmm, we don't have anything like that still occurring nowadays in sports, do we? And funny how it all seems to come down to the same thing still......money for the owners!!!!!

Even in the article the one poster linked to regarding the White Sox 1920 season, it talks a lot about the evidence that the Black Sox players were still throwing games and all the in-fighting with their teammates. Interestingly though, it didn't mention Joe Jackson that much, other than some running mistakes and a muffed fly ball between two players, and I also didn't see where it says the clean White Sox teammates were actively accusing Jackson of throwing these games or starting fights with him like they appeared to do with some of the others. I've never read the source material so maybe there is much more evidence in there that does point to Jackson's involvement, I don't know. But if the point of this link was to prove that Jackson should not be in the HOF, that link doesn't make sense.

Let's try looking at this whole thing from another point of view also then. Oftentimes when talking of sports, guys especially, will refer to military type euphemisms in regards to their teammates and their sports like, "going to war", "in the trenches", and "someone you would want to be in a foxhole with". These all convey a certain level of comradery, loyalty and trust, which is certainly thought by many to be the most admirable of qualities. Or to possibly put it another, more basic way, "don't be a snitch or a rat"!!! From everything I've ever heard or seen about Joe Jackson, he was a nice, friendly guy who loved to play baseball, and also was a very simple, not overly educated person, who couldn't even read and write. So here is Jackson playing on a major league team and some teammates come to him and ask him to participate in a plan to get back at Comiskey and to make themselves a little money in doing so that they feel they were due. He's a simple country guy who wants to be friendly and get along with everyone. People like Comiskey don't really know or interact with him, other than is necessary to make money off of him, and Jackson has seen and heard how he treats his own players. So what is he going to do, turn into a snitch and rat out his playing friends, his teammates in the trenches, brothers in the foxholes, and possibly garner the scorn of other baseball players in the sport who then hear of it and put his ability to play with them in the future in dire jeopardy? Or do you just shut up and go along so you don't upset your friends and teammates and hope nothing bad ever comes of it? Remember, there were a lot of allegations and rumors of players being involved with gamblers back then, but no actual league rule against betting, and no one else had previously been condemned for it (ie: Hal Chase among others). From all I've heard, including Jackson's own admissions, he seems to be honest about his involvement when asked and wasn't the instigator of the whole affair, and appears to be more of someone who got caught in the middle of all this and forced to make a choice that had bad consequences for him whichever side he ended up choosing. Plus, he didn't seem to continue throwing games like has been argued for some of the others. Just look at his 1920 stat line. Played in 146 games, 649 plate appearances, .382 BA, led the majors with 20 triples, hit most homers of his career with 12, had 121 RBIs (by far the most he ever had in his career), only had 14 strike outs, OBP of .444, and OPS of 1.033. Don't know about any of you, but that doesn't appear to be the stat line of someone looking to throw some games. And if I remember correctly, his stats in the 1919 World Series weren't too shabby either. Truth is, even if Jackson had batted 1.000 in the World Series or for the entire 1920 season, and had never made an error in either, there will always be someone that will still say he was involved in throwing games.

And just look at baseball still today, biggest issues still out there have to do with cheating and affecting the outcomes of games as we speak. However, the only big difference between how Joe Jackson and Pete Rose get treated, and all the other cheaters out there are treated, is that Jackson and Rose are vilified for supposedly trying to lose games, whereas everyone else is accused of trying to win games. That is a sad commentary on the state of the general public, even today, in that if you cheat to try and win we'll let it go and somewhat forgive you, just don't let us catch you at it to begin with. Isn't cheating cheating, whether you do it to win or lose? So why is one treated so much differently than the other?

And yet, isn't it also funny how today gambling is so pervasive in our society and with major sports that basically all of them have embraced it? And why is that, because all the major sports, including MLB, recognize that the public is actually for it and wants it. And because they also have come to realize that a big reason a lot of people still follow their sport is almost solely because of gambling and nothing else. So they now embrace gambling for one reason alone, to make money of course. All the major sports owners are still trying to figure out how they can get a bigger piece of the gambling pie for themselves, but heaven forbid any of their players or others directly involved get a piece of that pie for fear it will impact the way gamblers look at their sport and lower potential revenue the owners can possibly make off those gambling activities. Again, it is all about the money and the hypocritical owners that are in professional sports. For example, wasn't there a big stink once when Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays got in trouble for acting as greeters or something at some casino years back, long after they were both out of major league baseball as players? Don't remember exactly, but didn't MLB talk about suspending them or something, and it was only after an uproar from the public that they were forgiven? And yet today, you have some sports trying to see if they can get gambling concessions installed right in their own arenas/parks/stadiums so fans can come and gamble in person, and of course give a cut of the action to the owners if they can get it. Nah, not hypocritical at all!!!!!

And think about this also, in some ways gambling has kind of been treated like the liquor industry and Prohibition. After enacting Prohibition it was soon learned that you weren't going to stop people from drinking, and they finally had to bring it back, only now more controlled by the government so they could get their tax slice of the industry. Has taken much longer, but a similar evolution has been going on with the gambling industry, and the government has finally realized, if you can't beat them, then legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of them. So the one good thing today about more legalized gambling is that for someone to make a whole lot of money, it will likely get recorded and reported to the IRS. And with what MLB players make today, there's a lot less chance they'll jeopardize their careers to win a few bucks from throwing a game.

I'll leave you with this thought. If back in the day MLB owners like Comiskey could have figured out a way to make more money for themselves off the gambling that was going on around their sport, do you think they would have been so much against it? I'm betting (pun intended) if they were able to make money from the gambling somehow you wouldn't have ended up with the 1919 Black Sox scandal and Shoeless Joe would be in the HOF today. As for Pete Rose, the rule was in place by then against gambling and even though I doubt think he ever played or managed any game to consciously lose, he knew he wasn't supposed to do it, but did it anyway. Of course there are many that will also now argue that he was/is subject to a gambling addiction and that is a type of mental disease that we are now discriminating against him because of. And honestly there is merit to that argument. He was/is outspoken and arrogant about it though and instead of admitting and really doing something about it, never did, and MLB has been punishing him ever since. I've often felt that MLB will wait till after he is gone and then finally relent and let him in the HOF. And because of that, MLB couldn't go back and let Jackson in the HOF before then either because then they'd have to let Rose in. Time will tell.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by robw1959

It's hard to compare pitchers to Shoeless Joe Jackson, but comparing the rest is laughable! The guy batted .382 at age 37 in a full season, with 20 triples. He batted .356 lifetime, and is credited with teaching Ty Cobb how to bat. Even in the deadball era, Jackson's OPS is better than anyone on your list except for the steroid abusers.

Joe Jackson was 32 when he played his last game. Ty Cobb came up years before him.

[Case12]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

Rose is an obvious HOFer.

He will never need a plaque. His baseball record is written in stone for all history.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

The hall itself has little moral authority to deny the greatness of these two men based on their transgressions. Let them in and clearly state what they have accomplished, good and bad. Then please do the same for everyone else.

It is not the HOF that has judged the players, but rather MLB. If MLB revoked both Rose and Jackson's ban, then they would be eligible for the HOF and would then be judged by the voters as to their worthiness of admission to the Hall.

[darwinbulldog]

Times like these I wonder what we'd spent our time arguing about on the internet if we weren't so committed to believing in some supernatural version of free will wherein people's choices were not caused by the laws of the physical universe.

[clydepepper]

Rose's penalty should be that if he ever gets in, it should be posthumously.

I'll NEVER believe he deserves any better than that.


I would put Bart Giamatti in first!

...along with the three Cubans: Minoso, Tiant & Oliva.


.

[sreader3]

I would like to see the Hall live up to its name — fame not just stats minus the guys they don’t like.

So Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose in, Fred Lindstrom and Rick Ferrell out.

Honestly, I would rather see a Barry Bonds exhibit than a George Kell exhibit.

Just provide the relevant context.

[Casey2296]

Well said Bob, history should always be viewed in context.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by jiw98

As for Rose I'm for letting him in for what he did as a player. I do believe he should be banned from baseball for betting as a manager.

He bet on games as a player.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Joe Jackson was 32 when he played his last game. Ty Cobb came up years before him.

Sorry to mess up on the math, but Cobb has been quoted as saying that he owed much of his batting prowess to imitating the batting swing of Joe Jackson.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by robw1959

The argument that there was no law or baseball policy against taking bribes to throw games is a ridiculous way to excuse Jackson's conduct! Rose never threw a game and never would. Joe Jackson bears far more blame and greater consequences against himself than Pete Rose does simply because of his actions to undermine the game. Yes, they both did what they did for money, but Rose had an addiction besides having a monetary motive. As much as I hate to excuse a man's personal responsibility for his actions, those extenuating circumstances do foster some sympathy, at least in my opinion.

1. You are right but miss the point of you cant break a rule that doesnt exist. It is not a "ridiculous way" but a very technical way.
2. You are assuming that Jackson's conduct was throwing games of which that is very debatable.
3. No way Jackson has more responsibility than Rose. BC the World series was simply an exhibition game at that time and not nearly as prominent as it is seen now and the White Sox, who just won one in 1917, could have seen it simply as on the same level as the City Post Season series they had with the Cubs at the time.
4. This is the plain truth and my point you are attacking. There was no real consequences for the Black Sox prior to them taking their actions (not saying it is ok but simply pointing out historical fact), Rose knew what he was doing, knew the consequences, didnt care, did it anyway, and tried for decades to lie about it. AND yes he was a player and manager doing it.

Jackson, who IMO played to win and didnt throw a game...is not even close to Rose.

What about Jackson's extenuating circumstances...he couldn't read or write...how about that when it comes to his confession in 1920 and going in front of a grand jury without council...or talking with Gandil about making extra money with or with out you prior to the Series in 1919?

[ThomasL]

Rose, an active bettor, by not acting and betting on his team to win is catamount to him tipping off gamblers that he, the best player and manager of the Reds, did not think the Reds would win and thus from a betting perspective is on the same level as a player throwing a game. He didnt throw a game but instead basically said my team isnt likely to win this game...same thing and that's the point

[Bartholomew_Bump_Bailey]

Originally Posted by egri

I’m not very familiar with Joe Jackson, and had always thought he should be in, but this article changed my mind: https://sabr.org/journal/article/pla...-1920-pennant/.

I think you/the article just helped change my mind as well, thanks for sharing.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Well said Bob, history should always be viewed in context.

Thanks Phil,

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people, and there are a lot more layers and nuances to this than most want to think about and consider. I've heard all the arguments and stories before that everyone was bringing up in their posts, and wanted to take the time to maybe get some people to finally realize there may be other points of view and circumstances that they hadn't thought of or were aware of before. To some it will always be cut and dried as to Jackson's guilt, even though there was no rule in MLB against what he did. And remember, he admitted under oath to a grand jury to taking the gambler's money, but also testified he played his best and didn't through any games, which statistics tend to show was true. Why would he be honest and admit to one thing, and then lie about the other?

It seems the ongoing issues and rumors and player complaints regarding certain Black Sox players during the 1920 season is what really got MLB to act and put Landis in place to deal with problem. Had there not been any continuing issues with suspected games being thrown by players in 1920, I wouldn't have been surprised if MLB just let the 1919 WS scandal blow over and continued as it had been. But with the continuing rumors and issues in 1920, the owners likely figured they had to do something. And since MLB and the authorities apparently couldn't do anything to stop the gamblers, they came down hard on those same 8 players to use them to set an example for the rest of major league baseball, Jackson may have never done anything to actually throw a game, but MLB to set their example had to suddenly show zero tolerance and throw all 8 players out to get their point across and scare the rest of the MLB players from even thinking about talking to any gamblers going forward.

Just look at how many sports related issues have changed over the years due to evolving knowledge and thinking, like the eventual breaking of the color barriers in sports, the change in the Olympics from being purely amateurs to now allowing all professionals to compete, the forthcoming changes to the question of earnings for college athletes, to even the recent inclusion of Negro League stats as recognized MLB stats. Thinking and knowledge all seem to change over time, and we sometimes need to look at things in a new light because of it and keep an open mind.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew_Bump_Bailey

I think you/the article just helped change my mind as well, thanks for sharing.

Only damning thing for Jackson in there is a 32yo not being able to steal a base and a colorful reporter describing that.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks Phil,

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people, and there are a lot more layers and nuances to this than most want to think about and consider. I've heard all the arguments and stories before that everyone was bringing up in their posts, and wanted to take the time to maybe get some people to finally realize there may be other points of view and circumstances that they hadn't thought of or were aware of before. To some it will always be cut and dried as to Jackson's guilt, even though there was no rule in MLB against what he did. And remember, he admitted under oath to a grand jury to taking the gambler's money, but also testified he played his best and didn't through any games, which statistics tend to show was true. Why would he be honest and admit to one thing, and then lie about the other?

It seems the ongoing issues and rumors and player complaints regarding certain Black Sox players during the 1920 season is what really got MLB to act and put Landis in place to deal with problem. Had there not been any continuing issues with suspected games being thrown by players in 1920, I wouldn't have been surprised if MLB just let the 1919 WS scandal blow over and continued as it had been. But with the continuing rumors and issues in 1920, the owners likely figured they had to do something. And since MLB and the authorities apparently couldn't do anything to stop the gamblers, they came down hard on those same 8 players to use them to set an example for the rest of major league baseball, Jackson may have never done anything to actually throw a game, but MLB to set their example had to suddenly show zero tolerance and throw all 8 players out to get their point across and scare the rest of the MLB players from even thinking about talking to any gamblers going forward.

Just look at how many sports related issues have changed over the years due to evolving knowledge and thinking, like the eventual breaking of the color barriers in sports, the change in the Olympics from being purely amateurs to now allowing all professionals to compete, the forthcoming changes to the question of earnings for college athletes, to even the recent inclusion of Negro League stats as recognized MLB stats. Thinking and knowledge all seem to change over time, and we sometimes need to look at things in a new light because of it and keep an open mind.

Very well put! Couldnt agree more

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Rose, an active bettor, by not acting and betting on his team to win is catamount to him tipping off gamblers that he, the best player and manager of the Reds, did not think the Reds would win and thus from a betting perspective is on the same level as a player throwing a game. He didnt throw a game but instead basically said my team isnt likely to win this game...same thing and that's the point

So what? Back in those times MLB didn't want fans to think the games were somehow rigged so they'd end up losing interest, not come to the ballpark, and the owners would lose money. Who gives a rat's ass if some gambler didn't see Rose bet on his team that day? So what if that gambler figured that meant he had a better chance to win if he bet against Rose's team then. As long as Rose didn't purposely try to lose the game, he didn't really break the spirit of the rule against gambling. What you're implying is that the rule is there in Rose's case so that one gambler doesn't have inside info that another gambler has. At that time MLB couldn't have cared less about gamblers as they supposedly had nothing to do with gambling and didn't want to be associated with it. Your argument makes it seem MLB was concerned with unfairness to gamblers. What they were afraid of was fans finding out and the perception that maybe Rose was purposely throwing games and therefore they weren't legit. How about this, what if instead of Rose betting on only certain games to win he had bet on his team winning every game. That would nullify your argument about gamblers having inside information when he didn't bet on his team, which would somehow be tantmount to Rose throwing the games he wasn't betting on, according to you. Think about it this way, you're Rose and it is late in the season and your #5 starter is going up against the staff ace from another team that is in the heat of a pennant race. I wouldn't bet on my team either in that case, and neither would anyone else unless they were stupid or they got some ridiculous odds. I'm tired of hearing that lame argument aganst Rose's claim he only bet on his team to win, and therefore never purposely threw a game. The problem is when the fanbase finds out about his gambling on baseball if anyone then thinks he could possibly be throwing games to win bets, not that it somehow gives certain gamblers inside info for betting purposes. And that is what is likely the funniest thing about all this. For all the people who know of Pete Rose and his character as a player and competitor, even though they know he bet on baseball, they pretty much can't see him ever betting against himself or ever losing on purpose. That is probabably the main reason there are so many people that think he should be in the HOF. Now if it could be shown that he did purposely try to throw games for his own economic gain, I think we'd see a huge change in the number of people who currently feel he should be in the HOF.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Everyone knows the rules.

This

[markf31]

The argument that there was no official rule in place in MLB against betting at the time of the 1919 World Series is irrelevant. At least 38 players had been quietly dismissed or asked to leave MLB as a result of gambling or game fixing prior to 1919. I believe this is stated in the book Eight Men Out but the specific number does not matter as there was precedent for players being banned for betting and game fixing prior to 1919. Additionally, Landis made use of a recent precedent that had previously seen Babe Borton, Harl Maggert, Gene Dale, and Bill Rumler banned from the Pacific Coast League for fixing games in 1919.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by BobC

So what?

So what...a major argument people hold up for Rose is the "he never bet against his team" and the act of not betting is the same as betting against and if you cant see that point well I cant help you. If true he didnt bet against his team, it in the end does not matter and betting on your team is still against the rules and the same as betting against in the eyes of the MLB since basically 1926/27 when that rule came into being. Go read the original rule, it is very clear on this point.

Who cares... obviously since it carried the most extreme punishment if someone broke it I would say a lot of people cared.

The point is it does not matter if he bet on his team to win or lose and that is a moot point...simply betting on baseball was the crime and he did it and knew the consequences that were well established.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by markf31

The argument that there was no official rule in place in MLB against betting at the time of the 1919 World Series is irrelevant. At least 38 players had been quietly dismissed or asked to leave MLB as a result of gambling or game fixing prior to 1919. I believe this is stated in the book Eight Men Out but the specific number does not matter as there was precedent for players being banned for betting and game fixing prior to 1919. Additionally, Landis made use of a recent precedent that had previously seen Babe Borton, Harl Maggert, Gene Dale, and Bill Rumler banned from the Pacific Coast League for fixing games in 1919.

I dont think it is irrelevant at all. Most players rumored to have been involved in fixing games were simply traded...Hal Chase a perfect example. The leagues treatment of Chase is a major reason why the Black Sox thought they could get away with it. Chase was also a former teammate of some of the Sox as well.

The PCL stuff was happening in tandem with the White Sox scandal and cant be used as an example of them knowing what would happen to them for fixing games as the Sox planned their fix in Aug-Sept of 1919 (if not sooner). The only high profile banned players for fixing was the 1877 Louisville Grays which no active players would likely have been aware of.

(PS Asinof gets a lot of facts wrong)

And Landis didnt totally take his punishment from the PCL case as Rumler was let back into baseball's good graces.

[ThomasL]

Also a counter to that is this...Comiskey and the Sox management basically knew about the fix as it was happening if not heard the rumors before the World Series and told a member of the National Commission in John Heydler...and what did they do to the suspected players? Nothing.

Comiskey also spent a lot of money hiring private investigators to look into several of the suspected players (Jackson was not one of them by the way) in the off season and what did he do? Tried to trade a few including Felsch and then signed every single one back save for Gandil who didnt want to come back. And I believe every one of them got a raise in salary as well.

The most blatant and obvious game fixing scandal didnt result in suspected players being "quietly let go" or washed out and Comiskey had the opportunity to do that with I think all of them as their contracts were up. This was what was typical of how owners and MLB handled these things prior to Landis. The idea that the players thought there was no real consequences for fixing games is a major reason why they did it and cant be irrelevant in trying to understand the Black Sox scandal.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Sorry to mess up on the math, but Cobb has been quoted as saying that he owed much of his batting prowess to imitating the batting swing of Joe Jackson.

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

[glchen]

IMO, both of them should be inducted into the HOF. It's only a matter of time before you see MLB sponsorships w/ the casinos and gambling entities like DraftKings like the other major sports, and then you'll realize how hypocritical baseball is on this matter. There should definitely be a punishment, similar to PEDS, such as first strike is 80 game suspension without pay, etc. However, after that, they should leave it to the voters or Veterans Committee on whether to vote the player in.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

So what...a major argument people hold up for Rose is the "he never bet against his team" and the act of not betting is the same as betting against and if you cant see that point well I cant help you. If true he didnt bet against his team, it in the end does not matter and betting on your team is still against the rules and the same as betting against in the eyes of the MLB since basically 1926/27 when that rule came into being. Go read the original rule, it is very clear on this point.

Who cares... obviously since it carried the most extreme punishment if someone broke it I would say a lot of people cared.

The point is it does not matter if he bet on his team to win or lose and that is a moot point...simply betting on baseball was the crime and he did it and knew the consequences that were well established.

Really Thomas?!?!?!?!

Go back and read what you originally posted about looking at the Rose gambling issue "from a betting perspective", your words, not mine.

Quote: "Rose, an active bettor, by not acting and betting on his team to win is catamount to him tipping off gamblers that he, the best player and manager of the Reds, did not think the Reds would win and thus from a betting perspective is on the same level as a player throwing a game. He didnt throw a game but instead basically said my team isnt likely to win this game...same thing and that's the point"

You actually said that by Rose not betting on his team to win was basically the same as a player throwing a game. Please read that as many times as you have to, to let that sink in. Oh wait, that's right, you said this comment and logic was "from a betting perspective". And that is exactly why I was making the "So what" and Who cares" comments. They were in regard to the idea that this issue is important because of the gambling aspect where people use that as an argument against the claim that Rose never bet against his own team so that he wasn't purposely throwing ballgames, and therefore the gambling rule shouldn't really apply to him. I actually agree with you and the fact that him betting on his team only to win is still wrong and against the rule, which I have in fact read. What I was trying to convey was that the argument you, and many others, put forth to counter that "he only bet to win" claim is unnecessary.

Think about this, what if Rose didn't bet on every single game he was ever involved in? OK, so he bet on some games when he had a good feeling his team would win. Did he ever say or does anyone really know if he bet on every single game like that though? What if he got tied up and couldn't get a hold of his bookie in time to place a bet? What if he only placed a bet when he felt his team had a decided advantage to win, and didn't bet if he thought it was only a 50/50 chance or something like that. We don't know, so to make a statement that gamblers thought it was the same as him throwing a game when he didn't bet on his team seems to be a bit of a reach. And another thing, if I'm the bookie Rose calls to make his bets so I know when he does and doesn't bet on his team, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to keep that theoretical inside info to myself to take advantage of rather than tell the whole world about it? MLB didn't care if someone did end up making money off Rose's activity from illegal gambling, what they didn't want was the public thinking Rose might be doing it so that he may be compromising the supposed integrity of the games themselves. So the gambling aspect itself isn't what counters the "he didn't bet to lose" argument, it is the fact that he gambled at all and that could be perceived by fans that he was lying about only betting on games to win and that he could have been betting against his own team at times and actively trying to throw those games after all, just to win money. No one ever needed to come up with the argument about what it may have meant when he didn't bet on his team, it wasn't necessary, is useless and completely unprovable one way or the other.

Still, how can you argue that Rose's bookie knowing when he didn't bet on his team was the same as him trying to throw the game? Betting to win and actively trying to lose games you don't bet on are totally unrelated. I can understand the argument by some that Rose's gambling activity could possibly have an effect on his decision making in a game to maybe pull a pitcher early or not bring in a reliever to use them in a later game where he may think he has a better chance to win, but pretty much every MLB manager does that over the course of a season in trying to win as many games as possible. You let it go in games you don't think you have a good chance to win, and try to improve the chances of the ones you think are more winnable then. Again, it is the perception that he could be gambling and trying to lose games to win bets that causes the issue, not what games he does or doesn't bet on.

So do you understand now what my point was? I'm actually in agreement with you regarding Rose being wrong. By the way, please look up what "catamount" means. I laughed when I first read your post and assumed it was a spellcheck error or something like that. Thanks.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Also a counter to that is this...Comiskey and the Sox management basically knew about the fix as it was happening if not heard the rumors before the World Series and told a member of the National Commission in John Heydler...and what did they do to the suspected players? Nothing.

Comiskey also spent a lot of money hiring private investigators to look into several of the suspected players (Jackson was not one of them by the way) in the off season and what did he do? Tried to trade a few including Felsch and then signed every single one back save for Gandil who didnt want to come back. And I believe every one of them got a raise in salary as well.

The most blatant and obvious game fixing scandal didnt result in suspected players being "quietly let go" or washed out and Comiskey had the opportunity to do that with I think all of them as their contracts were up. This was what was typical of how owners and MLB handled these things prior to Landis. The idea that the players thought there was no real consequences for fixing games is a major reason why they did it and cant be irrelevant in trying to understand the Black Sox scandal.

Thomas, you are absolutely right! Baseball was big business and the owners did everything they could not to upset the money making ventures they ran. I was trying to give them (MLB and the owners) the benefit of the doubt in maybe not knowing as much about the gambling activities and all that were going on back then, but it seems fairly obvious that they at least suspected, if not in some cases actually supported (and maybe even profited off of) the activities that were going on. Like anything else in business, the idea is to keep interest and activity as high as possible, and by secretively supporting the gambling side of things to boost the game's popularity, it wouldn't entirely surprise me.

With all the anti-trust activity and the lawsuit stemming from the Federal League still going on at the time of the 1919 scandal and during the 1920 season, I can see where the owners may have started getting worried about the rumors and concerns from the seemingly ever increasing stories and activities surrounding baseball, it's players, and their interactions with gamblers. These owners were not stupid and with the ongoing anti-trust suit would have made sure that their activities would not be recorded to show their collusive activity in controlling the players and the game itself. As was noted in the earlier post about the 18 or so players who were more or less quietly removed from the game prior to Landis banishing the 8 Black Sox players from MLB, as stated, it was done quietly and in such a manner that most people didn't ever know or even think about it and why these players were gone. But that was part of the owner's doing in trying to keep the public's perception of MLB being on the up and up. The problem for baseball now was that Comiskey still wanted to win and make money, and even though the 1919 scandal was past, he purposely kept the Black Sox players together as for the most part they were still great players that would more often than not win, and therefore make money for him. If instead he had broken them up, and not re-signed the most obvious offenders in the scandal, it is possible that there never would have been the need to appoint a Commissioner to ban those players back then, and Joe Jackson gets in the HOF. I can imagine the other MLB owners basically telling Comiskey behind closed doors what they were going to make him do because he didn't properly take care of this potential problem internally himself. He was putting them all at risk for losing money because of his actions, and I'm guessing they didn't stand for it and told him what they were going to do, whether her liked it or not. If it had only been a player or two on his team possibly involved in some gambling rumors and scandals, the public (and other MLB owners) probably wouldn't have been so concerned. But having 8 prominent and integral team players involved was likely too much to hide and likely a big reason the other MLB owners decided to act and install Landis to ban the Black Sox. It was possibly a pre-emptive move on the part of the owners to make sure it didn't ruin MLB in the eyes of the fans and have them thinking all the teams may be controlled by gamblers.

In fact, here's a wild theory, totally without proof. Would it be too much of a stretch to suspect there may have been some political input into the decision to put in place a baseball Commissioner and have the Black Sox banned for life? Don't forget that all right around this same time, Prohibition went into effect on 1/16/1920, and the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote was ratified a little later that year on 8/18/1920. The women's movement at that time was a huge factor in the passing of Prohibition and with women now having the right to vote, I can easily see politicians of the day scrambling to maybe try to clean things up that would be looked down upon by the women's movement, including gambling and baseball. Baseball was huge back then, likely more so than ever today. it wasn't called America's pastime for nothing. And it was also mostly a male dominated and followed sport. So women hearing about the potential influence of gambling and gamblers in that sport would probably not be well thought of by the newly ratified voters of the time. I can see politicians of the time also putting a little pressure on MLB owners to clean up their act so they wouldn't be forced to. So, is it a coincidence that MLB officially elected Landis as their first Commissioner on 1/12/1921, and then on 8/3/1921 Landis permanently banned the Black Sox 8 the day after they were acquitted in their trial, only to be followed by the U.S. Supreme Court on 5/29/1922 confirming that MLB was exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act? I could possibly see the anti-trust exemption as being a sort of thank you or pay back to MLB for taking care of their issues and not involving politicians.

And here is a little more food for thought as to why this all might not be so squeaky clean as we'd like to think. This Supreme Court ruling in 1922 was actually the final culmination of a case brought by the then newly formed Federal League back in 1914, basically accusing MLB of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. That is the same Act that broke up the American Tobacco Company in a 1911 ruling and likely put an end to the T206 set, along with several others. Well, guess which federal judge was put in charge of that original 1914 case brought by the Federal League? Lo and behold, it was none other than Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Landis was a known, huge baseball fan who lived in Chicago and followed both the White Sox and Cubs supposedly. It was rumored that he deliberately delayed the case until after the Federal League went belly-up in 1915 as he did not want to see any damage to MLB. So what an absolutely surprising coincidence then that MLB selects him to become their first ever Baseball Commissioner just a few short years later, right? I even read somewhere that Landis initially accepted the Commissioner's job with the understanding that he would retain his position as a federal judge also, at least for a while. But being the fine, upstanding and totally independent person he was, he insisted that the $50,000 a year salary MLB was going to pay him as Commissioner be reduced by the $7,500 a year salary he would still be getting as a federal judge. So, does anyone know of any ballplayer making even close to $50,000 a year in 1921? I believe that Cobb was MLB's highest paid player in 1921, and he got $25,000. I know the Commissioners of all the major U.S. sports today get paid very well, but I don't think a one of them is making double what the highest paid athlete in their respective sport is getting paid. Hmmmmm?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by BobC

I know the Commissioners of all the major U.S. sports today get paid very well, but I don't think a one of them is making double what the highest paid athlete in their respective sport is getting paid. Hmmmmm?

“Very well” is a generous understatement.

The most disliked of all of them, Roger Goodell makes 40 million per year at last report. That places him tied for second with the list of highest paid NFL players behind only Mahomes. He would have been the highest paid easily at the signing of his current deal and makes more than 40 times the average NFL player.

[Snapolit1]

What I never understood about this debate is Rose and Bonds and Jackson ARE in the hall of fame. If you walk though the hall of fame you will find display material about Bonds and Rose's achievements. (Presume the same is true for Joe Jackson.) But what you wont see is them in the hall of plaques. They are technically not "in" the Hall of Fame, but it's not like they are ignored. I always figured there was no mention of them in the building, like they were lepers who had to be shunned. That's not the case.

I have no issue with their place in baseball being acknowledged and someone making a judgment call that their character is not of a kind that they should be held forth on the most esteemed level of the sport. If you had a hall of fame that didn't Bonds and Sosa and the hold they had on the sport that year that would just be stupid.

In my opinion the Baseball Hall of Fame is watered down now with players with mediocre accomplishments being voted in

Ron Petersen

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by rgpete

In my opinion the Baseball Hall of Fame is watered down now with players with mediocre accomplishments being voted in

Ron Petersen

Don't disagree that there are some players who prob don't deserve to be there, but I think the phenomenon you describe is more about how players who came on the scene when we are grown men often don't seem as mythical and as magical and as fantastic as the players we watched as star struck 12 year old boys. My dad would watch baseball game with me and tell me that the greatest outfielders today couldn't hold a candle to Carl Furillo and as Duke Snyder. Because they were his childhood heroes.

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Don't disagree that there are some players who prob don't deserve to be there, but I think the phenomenon you describe is more about how players who came on the scene when we are grown men often don't seem as mythical and as magical and as fantastic as the players we watched as star struck 12 year old boys. My dad would watch baseball game with me and tell me that the greatest outfielders today couldn't hold a candle to Carl Furillo and as Duke Snyder. Because they were his childhood heroes.

Different times between the 50's 60's 70's 80's nothing mythical or magical just stats

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by BobC

Thanks Phil,

This is a touchy subject for a lot of people, and there are a lot more layers and nuances to this than most want to think about and consider. I've heard all the arguments and stories before that everyone was bringing up in their posts, and wanted to take the time to maybe get some people to finally realize there may be other points of view and circumstances that they hadn't thought of or were aware of before. To some it will always be cut and dried as to Jackson's guilt, even though there was no rule in MLB against what he did. And remember, he admitted under oath to a grand jury to taking the gambler's money, but also testified he played his best and didn't through any games, which statistics tend to show was true. Why would he be honest and admit to one thing, and then lie about the other?

Admitting to taking money but lying about throwing games portrays himself in the best possible light so it definitely makes sense that he would be honest about taking the money (since I think there was evidence or other testimony to prove it so lying wouldn't have helped anyway) but he would then lie and say he always played his best and didn't help throw games. I'm not saying he did or didn't throw games, just that I can see why he would lie about it if he did.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Admitting to taking money but lying about throwing games portrays himself in the best possible light so it definitely makes sense that he would be honest about taking the money (since I think there was evidence or other testimony to prove it so lying wouldn't have helped anyway) but he would then lie and say he always played his best and didn't help throw games. I'm not saying he did or didn't throw games, just that I can see why he would lie about it if he did.

Jackson was the 2nd person to testify in front of the grand jury (Cicotte was first) and did so under the guidance and instruction of the White Sox/Comiskey's lawyer. There was really no other story out specifically about him to try to slant at the time he went up to testify. You could still be right in that he said what he did to make himself look better or seem better but dont think it was to correct a story or change a previous narrative.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by JustinD

“Very well” is a generous understatement.

The most disliked of all of them, Roger Goodell makes 40 million per year at last report. That places him tied for second with the list of highest paid NFL players behind only Mahomes. He would have been the highest paid easily at the signing of his current deal and makes more than 40 times the average NFL player.

LOL. Justin, that was my poor attempt at being sarcastic and mentioning how much they were willing to pay Landis right out of the gate with no experience or idea of what he would be doing at all. At least Goodell is involved in handling TV and other money generating contracts for the NFL and I believe also dealing with the player's union. Other than being sure to ban the Black Sox, what did Landis really do for MLB?

[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.

[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.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by glchen

IMO, both of them should be inducted into the HOF. It's only a matter of time before you see MLB sponsorships w/ the casinos and gambling entities like DraftKings like the other major sports, and then you'll realize how hypocritical baseball is on this matter. There should definitely be a punishment, similar to PEDS, such as first strike is 80 game suspension without pay, etc. However, after that, they should leave it to the voters or Veterans Committee on whether to vote the player in.

I can see some merit in this, but there is a vast difference between betting on a team and taking bribes to throw games.

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by robw1959

I can see some merit in this, but there is a vast difference between betting on a team and taking bribes to throw games.

No not really, because in both instances the player/manager is perceived to be purposely trying to lose games. In Jackson's case he took money from gamblers to throw games he played in. The gamblers would bet on those games for Jackson's team to lose and the money they paid him would come out of their winnings. In Rose's case he was a player/manager in games that he personally bet on himself, the bets weren't placed by separate gamblers. The perception then is that if Rose bet against his own team that he would do something to throw the game so he would win the bet and collect the money himself. In either case, the issue and bottom line with both Jackson and Rose is them making money off gambling by them doing something to purposely lose games. It doesn't matter if Rose said he never bet against his team or not, because the perception is that if he tried to make money gambling then why wouldn't he be doing it by purposely losing some games as well as through winning some.

The issue isn't the gambling, it is the fans thinking that the players aren't always trying to win games and baseball turning into the WWE.

[esd10]

Based on statistics rose and Jackson are hofers and I believe both should be enshrined in the hof.

[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.

[ThomasL]

Honestly there is so much gray area about Jackson and his involvement I dont think he is a fair comparison with Rose in these HOF debates.

I think Eddie Cicotte or Hal Chase are better for these debates. Both would be HOFers and their guilt, like Rose, is pretty black and white.

Ya I think Cicotte is a HOFer, better record and ERA than HOFers and as Cummings is in basically bc he was the first real effective curveball pitcher (if not inventor) the same can be said about Cicotte and the knuckleball.

Chase was considered the greatest 1B to play by many even well into Lou Gehrig's career in the 1930s.