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

[riggs336]

Let's take all the racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, bullies, gamblers, drunks, womanisers, liars, cheats, felons, tax-evaders, horse-whippers, agnostics and pet abusers out of the Hall of Fame and create a building where we can go stare at a statue of Christy Mathewson.

Contrasting opinions will be briefly considered.

[FrankWakefield]

Read The Fix Is In, by Daniel Ginsburg.

After reading that, I doubt that you think Joe should get in; and I'd be surprised if you think Pete should get in.

Ginsburg's book isn't shooting from the hip with emotion and feeling, it's a scholarly work that I found to be well researched.

I saw Pete play several times, saw the Cobb passing hit against the Padres while I was in law school, and had heard of Judge Norbert Nadel a few years before he acquired and then ruled on the Rose case. Rose would be among the most focused, tenacious, and capable of competitors ever to lace up spikes for a ball game. But he doesn't belong in the Hall.

[G1911]

The difference is that "racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, bullies, gamblers, drunks, womanisers, liars, cheats, felons, tax-evaders, horse-whippers, agnostics and pet abusers" have little to do with baseball, except the cheats possibly. Gamblers is an odd inclusion on the list as that is quite literally what Rose did and for why some people don't want him enshrined.

Joe Jackson probably accepted money to throw games, at the least. Pete Rose broke the number 1 rule. Not measuring up to contemporary social standards of morality is different, cheating on ones taxes or wife is different, whipping horses is different, agnosticism (are we really saying those who do not think they can know if there is a God are guilty of some moral wrong?) is different.

The people who think Jackson and Rose do not belong think they do not belong because they broke the biggest rule in Baseball, not because any moral transgression in one's life should block one from enshrinement. They are not making an argument with no context. Further, unlike a normal "cheat", Jackson broke a rule to try and lose.

I'm agnostic on if Rose should be allowed in. I am probably against Jackson being allowed in.

EDIT: The Fix Is In is an excellent book

[JustinD]

The lifetime Rose ban is simply silly and a bitter pissing contest between himself and Giamatti which has trickled down to his contemporaries as anger for just never being able to shut up.

There is no proof in existence of him betting against his own team nor changing any game plan or play to influence games. He was an addict and unlike the greatest basketball player of all time with a far worse addiction he couldn’t just shut up and switch sports for several years as a punishment.

It’s a joke, it’s been 30+ years, and it should just be over.

[robw1959]

I am all for Pete being enshrined, but am against Joe's inclusion.

Joe, as a player, accepted $300 to throw the World Series, and even though he tried to give it back remorsefully, the damage was done to our national pastime. Nobody who accepts a bribe(s) to lose games in any sport is HOF-worthy because it undermines the integrity of the game.

Pete, as a manager, bet on the Reds to win. His bets were the manifestation of a gambling addiction - not an effort to undermine the game in any way.

[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/.

[jp1216]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Pete, as a manager, bet on the Reds to win. His bets were the manifestation of a gambling addiction - not an effort to undermine the game in any way.

Did Pete bet on the Reds to win all 162 games? On days he doesn't bet on his team to win - doesn't that imply he expects them to lose?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by jp1216

Did Pete bet on the Reds to win all 162 games? On days he doesn't bet on his team to win - doesn't that imply he expects them to lose?

Not just that, but if you bet on your team to win, then you go all out to win that game even if it's not in the best interest of your team. Overusing a closer for instance. It's a long season, going all out to win a game in June because you have money on it creates MASSIVE issues.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Pete, as a manager, bet on the Reds to win. His bets were the manifestation of a gambling addiction - not an effort to undermine the game in any way.

When you bet on the team you manage on SOME games, but not others, you are setting up a personal conflict. For example, if your starters need a rest here and there throughout the season, you are much more likely to rest them on games you are not betting on. If your light-hitting backup catcher needs a little work, he will get it in a game you are not betting on. Even if your best relief pitchers are a little tired, you will be more likely to use them in a game you are betting on.

And so on, and so forth. People say "Pete never bet against his own team..." Well, I would argue that if he's betting on them in some games, but not others, he effectively was.

Baseball doesn't ask a lot of its players, coaches, and managers, but after 1920 so severely damaged the National Pastime, baseball does demand one thing: Don't gamble on baseball, especially games where you can affect the outcome, and certainly, managers have that power. You can drink, cheat on your wife, rob a bank, misspell the word "Damn," and do all sorts of other things the world frowns on.

But don't bet on baseball. So Pete, a student of the game and its history, looks at that and says to himself, "Dam, I'm going to bet on baseball."

[obcbobd]

No to both. Reasons are obvious, so there's no need to rehash them here

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by JustinD

The lifetime Rose ban is simply silly and a bitter pissing contest between himself and Giamatti which has trickled down to his contemporaries as anger for just never being able to shut up.

There is no proof in existence of him betting against his own team nor changing any game plan or play to influence games. He was an addict and unlike the greatest basketball player of all time with a far worse addiction he couldn’t just shut up and switch sports for several years as a punishment.

It’s a joke, it’s been 30+ years, and it should just be over.

This is by far the most accurate comment...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

This is by far the most accurate comment...

+1

[iwantitiwinit]

Everyone knows the rules.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by JustinD

The lifetime Rose ban is simply silly and a bitter pissing contest between himself and Giamatti which has trickled down to his contemporaries as anger for just never being able to shut up.

There is no proof in existence of him betting against his own team nor changing any game plan or play to influence games. He was an addict and unlike the greatest basketball player of all time with a far worse addiction he couldn’t just shut up and switch sports for several years as a punishment.

It’s a joke, it’s been 30+ years, and it should just be over.

The rule is and was pretty clear:
Rule 21(d)(2). Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Permanently ineligible. Period. Full Stop.

The rule does not differentiate between betting for your own team or against your own team so any arguments based on that have no merit.

[darwinbulldog]

Independent of the issue of whether or not they should be eligible, there are already several better players who are eligible and haven't yet been inducted.

[brianclat11]

In the case of Shoeless Joe and Pete, I believe both should be in. Rules were meant to be changed and enough is enough. Back when Joe played, these guys could hardly make ends meat. For both of them, being kicked out of the game and time served should be enough. We all know about the hazards of gambling addiction, and it is not the worst offense that some of these guys in the hall have committed. How many things are still the same from 1920. Lets reevaluate what is fair and just. Pete has done his time and Joe needs to be recognized by being enshrined.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by markf31

The rule is and was pretty clear:
Rule 21(d)(2). Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Permanently ineligible. Period. Full Stop.

The rule does not differentiate between betting for your own team or against your own team so any arguments based on that have no merit.

So then based on this rule, both Cobb and Speaker (and possibly others) should be kicked out of the HOF.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Independent of the issue of whether or not they should be eligible, there are already several better players who are eligible and haven't yet been inducted.

So? What does that have to do with THESE players and their situations??

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

So then based on this rule, both Cobb and Speaker (and possibly others) should be kicked out of the HOF.

The difference is Cobb and Speaker were accused by a single person who was unable to provide any evidence. The evidence that Rose bet is undeniable, that Jackson took a payoff at least is pretty strong.

[scmavl]

Originally Posted by riggs336

...create a building where we can go stare at a statue of Christy Mathewson.

That made me laugh out loud.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

So then based on this rule, both Cobb and Speaker (and possibly others) should be kicked out of the HOF.

It's been a while since I read anything on the Cobb and Speaker scandal but from what I remember the two letters that Leonard used as evidence to back up his accusations specifically cleared Cobb of laying down a bet, and they did not mention Speaker at all.

[Ray Van]

Originally Posted by markf31

It's been a while since I read anything on the Cobb and Speaker scandal but from what I remember the two letters that Leonard used as evidence to back up his accusations did not have any word of a fix, they specifically cleared Cobb of laying down a bet, and they did not mention Speaker at all.

Though the letters don't speak of a fix, they do speak of the intent to gamble on a game they were involved in. Cobb and Speaker were temporarily suspended, and then reinstated under dubious circumstances amid a political tug-of-war between Ban Johnson and Judge Landis. Hard to know the real truth with the passage of time and minimal concrete proof.

I guess my wider point is it's so difficult to draw the line on everything from gambling (which supposedly many players did in the teens and twenties) to PEDs (steroids vs greenies being popped like candy). It just seems more than a little hypocritical of the Hall to use certain arguments when convenient and ignore them other times.

All hail Christy Mathewson!

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Ray Van

Though the letters don't speak of a fix, they do speak of the intent to gamble on a game they were involved in. Cobb and Speaker were temporarily suspended, and then reinstated under dubious circumstances amid a political tug-of-war between Ban Johnson and Judge Landis. Hard to know the real truth with the passage of time and minimal concrete proof.

I guess my wider point is it's so difficult to draw the line on everything from gambling (which supposedly many players did in the teens and twenties) to PEDs (steroids vs greenies being popped like candy). It just seems more than a little hypocritical of the Hall to use certain arguments when convenient and ignore them other times.

All hail Christy Mathewson!

But in the case of Rose, he admitted to gambling on the team he managed. And for Jackson, he confessed in sworn grand jury testimony to having accepted $5,000 cash from the gamblers. Those are not arguments of convenience.

[steve B]

It's always interesting how people in a baseball collecting hobby support Rose, who did some pretty crummy things to damage the hobby itself.

Like selling multiple bats as "the bat" from a landmark hit.

And less seriously, but a glimpse of things to come

Sold loads of "game used" bats etc that were only used for one AB or part of one AB.

And amazingly he gets a pass on all that.
Seriously Rose supporters- His card already gets the price it "should" there won't be any big bump if they drop all standards and let him in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGoMCJ8bKtk

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by steve B

It's always interesting how people in a baseball collecting hobby support Rose, who did some pretty crummy things to damage the hobby itself.

Like selling multiple bats as "the bat" from a landmark hit.

And less seriously, but a glimpse of things to come

Sold loads of "game used" bats etc that were only used for one AB or part of one AB.

And amazingly he gets a pass on all that.
Seriously Rose supporters- His card already gets the price it "should" there won't be any big bump if they drop all standards and let him in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGoMCJ8bKtk

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by markf31

The rule is and was pretty clear:
Rule 21(d)(2). Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


Permanently ineligible. Period. Full Stop.

The rule does not differentiate between betting for your own team or against your own team so any arguments based on that have no merit.

This is by far the most accurate comment...


Also, being banned by baseball and being ineligible for induction into the HOF are linked, but only by a rule of the HOF. Should the HOF want to eliminate that rule, it is their prerogative. Then it would be strictly up to the voters, just as the PED users are being considered.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Independent of the issue of whether or not they should be eligible, there are already several better players who are eligible and haven't yet been inducted.

Interesting . . . can you name any better players than Joe Jackson that have yet to be inducted?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers than Rose and Jackson? Are you also an Oscar voter?

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Baseball doesn't ask a lot of its players, coaches, and managers, but after 1920 so severely damaged the National Pastime, baseball does demand one thing: Don't gamble on baseball, especially games where you can affect the outcome, and certainly, managers have that power. You can drink, cheat on your wife, rob a bank, misspell the word "Damn," and do all sorts of other things the world frowns on.

But don't bet on baseball. So Pete, a student of the game and its history, looks at that and says to himself, "Dam, I'm going to bet on baseball."

That is what it all boils down to. There really is no debate.

Does his exclusion suck for his fans and fans of the game who enjoyed his play on the field? Absolutely, hence why many clamor for him to be included in the Hall still.

But if he is that stupid to do the one thing that every clubhouse has a sign saying NOT TO DO...then he made his bed.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers than Rose and Jackson? Are you also an Oscar voter?

+1000 ...the premise is laughable

[Clutch-Hitter]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

That's inaccurate IMO

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

On the contrary, their exclusion from the Hall has propped up the prices of their cards to well above what people would otherwise pay for them. They were fine players, but Eddie Collins and Joe Morgan were certainly better.

I think this is a good point. Look at the price gap between Jackson and Speaker. Was Jackson a better player? No, they are very similar bats through their age 32 seasons (when Jackson's career ends) plus Tris was a legendary glove. Look at Cicotte vs. Vic Willis or any other similar pitcher. Gandil far outsells his talent level too. Being the villain appears to do more for one's prices than being the good guy. I'm not sure why; I'd chalk it up to "any name recognition is good" except these guys outsell other famous players (anyone buying Jackson knows Collins well) and HOFers every collector knows.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think this is a good point. Look at the price gap between Jackson and Speaker. Was Jackson a better player? No, they are very similar bats through their age 32 seasons (when Jackson's career ends) plus Tris was a legendary glove. Look at Cicotte vs. Vic Willis or any other similar pitcher. Gandil far outsells his talent level too. Being the villain appears to do more for one's prices than being the good guy. I'm not sure why; I'd chalk it up to "any name recognition is good" except these guys outsell other famous players (anyone buying Jackson knows Collins well) and HOFers every collector knows.

Look at how popular Hal Chase is, even among many on this forum. The guy was more despicable than any of the Black Sox, or Pete Rose.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

[ThomasL]

There is a case for Joe Jackson to be had...Pete Rose there is not a case until he dies and then you can argue the technicality of what "lifetime ban " means.

Pete Rose knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was punishably by lifetime banishment and he did it anyway. The "he only bet on his team to win" does not matter at all as the rule is betting regardless and the use of this making it ok is idiotic on it's face as, if we assume it to be true. BC he didnt bet on the Reds to win every single game...so what is he as player/manager telling gamblers when he DOESN'T bet on his team to win...that is essential the same thing as betting against your team when you are laying bets regularly. And yes he was laying bets as a player not just as manager as he was a player/manager and could insert himself in the lineup at anytime so the argument "he didnt do it as a player..." is also out the window. I have zero sympathy for Rose and cant understand why anyone does.

Rose also signed off on his own punishment with Giamatti so there's that.

The Black Sox did not sign off on their own punishment, were found not guilty in court and in 1919 there was no expressly written rules against betting on games or throwing games for that matter. And were retroactively banned by a commissioner that didnt exist at the time of their alleged fixing. Jackson and the others were HOF eligible and Jackson even got some votes over the years.

Jackson's degree of guilt comes into play (same as Buck Weaver) and the debate of if all 8 (9 if you count Joe Gedeon) should have been handed the same banishment punishment.

There is no question of guilt with Rose..he is not comparable with Joe Jackson.

A better debate is should Hal Chase be in the HOF or Eddie Cicotte for that matter?

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers than Rose and Jackson? Are you also an Oscar voter?

He didn't say that Collins and Morgan had more significant historical careers. He said they were better players.

And he's right.

People's fascination with hitting a lot of singles over a (by far) record number of plate appearances never ceases to amaze me. Especially with someone who barely hit .300, had a career OPS under .800, and was a horrible base stealer hitting at the top of the lineup (in an era where your table setter was counted on to always be on the move). Not to mention a subpar outfielder.

But hey, he tried really hard.

Edit: I didn't notice Jackson mentioned there too. Naturally I'm only referring to Rose

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

Dutch Leonard produced two letters as evidence of his allegation to the commissioner, one letter written by Cobb to Leonard and another written by Joe Wood to Leonard.

In the Cobb letter, Cobb mentions that they were too late in pulling their money together and that the bookies were no longer interested. "Wood and myself were considerably disappointed in our business proposition, as we had $2,000 to put into it, and the other side quoted us $1,400, and when we finally secured that much money it was about 2 o’clock and they refused to deal with us, as they had men in Chicago to take up the matter with and they had no time."

The Wood letter states that "Cobb did not get up a cent. He told us that and I believed him."

Neither letter mentions Speaker at all. Leonard supposedly testified that Speaker was involved, but Leonard later denied ever naming Speaker.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

Cobb hated Dutch Leonard, said he was one of the only guys he spiked intentionally, and essentially ended Leonard's career in his managing years. Speaker, an old friend then passed on signing Leonard.

Leonard went to Ban Johnson in 1926 and told him that he, Cobb and Joe Wood had conspired to bet on a game in 1919, and that Speaker had agreed to lose it. The Tigers won. Leonard produced 2 very vague letters from Cobb and Speaker that reference a bet, though what it is on is never fully stated. Johnson summoned Leonard to come answer questions about the allegation, Leonard refused to do so. Kennesaw Mountain Landis then publicly cleared Cobb and Speaker in early 1927, as the only source was a man who was angry at both of them, produced no real evidence, and refused to answer questions.

I believe the SABR bio of Dutch Leonard has a pretty good summation of the affair, from memory.

If they were guilty, they should be treated the same as Jackson and Rose when it comes to honors. I've never seen any real evidence they were guilty, much less a preponderance

[bbcard1]

The one huge advantage to letting them both in is that we could stop talking about it ;-).

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought there was pretty good evidence Cobb and Speaker bet at one point.

A lot of players bet on and threw games...Cobb and Speaker according to HOF writer Fred Lieb the evidence was pretty damnable and listen to Joe Wood's Glory of Their Times interview...pretty damning as well.

Bill Veck in his book The Hustler's Handbook references Harry Grabiner's diary as 1918 World Series and Cubs games being fixed. Also mentions Pete Alexander and Rabbit Maranville as being involved in fixing games. Pete Alexander also friends with 1919 WS fixer Billy Maharg. Other Cubs involved in game fixes were Claude Hendrix and Lee Magee. Cicotte also said they got the idea by hearing the Cubs got money for throwing the 1918 WS.

It is pretty obvious that many players were betting on and throwing games and not being really punished for it (traded off seems to be the move that was made) and the White Sox knew this and thought they could make some easy money.

Landis in 1926/27 in regards to Speaker and Cobb made the comment he would not deal with any more past scandals from the time before he was commissioner basically giving anyone prior to 1920 a free pass...which the 1919 WS would fall into so there is a big hypocrisy there in his ruling with the Black Sox.

[ThomasL]

On a side note...

Speaker and Gandil had very similar life paths prior to breaking into the league...both very rough tough hard nosed guys who cut their baseball teeth in areas that werent very far removed from the Old West. Would have loved to see their on the field fist fight in a game I believe during the 1919 season.

[oldjudge]

Rose, Jackson and all the roid squad members should be kept out. Let’s talk about whether Anson’s bust should be removed from the HOF for being the chief reason why the color barrier came about in baseball.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Interesting . . . can you name any better players than Joe Jackson that have yet to be inducted?

All of these guys definitely:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw

And then these guys have/had better careers, but I wouldn't necessarily say they were "better players" than Shoeless Joe
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Justin Verlander
Curt Schilling
Bob Caruthers
Adrian Beltre
Max Scherzer

[BRoberts]

Rose is an obvious HOFer.

[jiw98]

I'm for letting both Jackson and Rose in the HOF. Joe Jackson could not have broken a rule that didn't exist until years later. (Rule 21 adopted 1927) Even after being found not guilty by the jury on Aug 2, 1921, it wasn't until the following day that Landis said that any player betting on baseball will be banned.
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.
JMHO

[rats60]

I don't understand how anyone could support Pete Rose for the HOF. He knew the price for betting on baseball was a permanent ban. He deserves his punishment.

Joe Jackson at least has a case because there was no rule. The facts are not clear his level of participation, but at a minimum he knew the fix was in and didn't try to prevent it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jiw98

I'm for letting both Jackson and Rose in the HOF. Joe Jackson could not have broken a rule that didn't exist until years later. (Rule 21 adopted 1927) Even after being found not guilty by the jury on Aug 2, 1921, it wasn't until the following day that Landis said that any player betting on baseball will be banned.
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.
JMHO

It doesn't take a rule to know you can't take money to throw a World Series.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

There is a case for Joe Jackson to be had...Pete Rose there is not a case until he dies and then you can argue the technicality of what "lifetime ban " means.

Pete Rose knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was punishably by lifetime banishment and he did it anyway. The "he only bet on his team to win" does not matter at all as the rule is betting regardless and the use of this making it ok is idiotic on it's face as, if we assume it to be true. BC he didnt bet on the Reds to win every single game...so what is he as player/manager telling gamblers when he DOESN'T bet on his team to win...that is essential the same thing as betting against your team when you are laying bets regularly. And yes he was laying bets as a player not just as manager as he was a player/manager and could insert himself in the lineup at anytime so the argument "he didnt do it as a player..." is also out the window. I have zero sympathy for Rose and cant understand why anyone does.

Rose also signed off on his own punishment with Giamatti so there's that.

The Black Sox did not sign off on their own punishment, were found not guilty in court and in 1919 there was no expressly written rules against betting on games or throwing games for that matter. And were retroactively banned by a commissioner that didnt exist at the time of their alleged fixing. Jackson and the others were HOF eligible and Jackson even got some votes over the years.

Jackson's degree of guilt comes into play (same as Buck Weaver) and the debate of if all 8 (9 if you count Joe Gedeon) should have been handed the same banishment punishment.

There is no question of guilt with Rose..he is not comparable with Joe Jackson.

A better debate is should Hal Chase be in the HOF or Eddie Cicotte for that matter?

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.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

All of these guys definitely:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw

And then these guys have/had better careers, but I wouldn't necessarily say they were "better players" than Shoeless Joe
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Justin Verlander
Curt Schilling
Bob Caruthers
Adrian Beltre
Max Scherzer

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.

[bmattioli]

Rose is a Hall of Famer to me and that's all that counts.