[Archive]

Posted By: T E

I don't know if he should be in the hall or not. Landis was a bigoted sob, as far as I know, but he did what bb needed at that moment. If you want to know what kind of straits bb was in at that moment, look to Ring Lardner. He reacted as America did. It was as if you (America) walked in and found the sweetie love-of-your-life in bed (and loving it!) with a real sleaze-ball (gambling's influence on day-to-day bb).

Without the ban, bb would not have survived, at least at the level it was at, Ruth or no.

One aspect that never gets discussed about the relationship to gambling of baseball at that time is that bb was America's sport to bet on. There was horse racing and baseball. There were very little interest in other sports for gambling back then. I dare say baseball was bigger to the public, betting wise, than the NFL is today, and that is saying something. Landis reacted as the NFL comish would react today if a player was exposed throwing a game. Betting=increased interest in your sport. If bettors do not believe the sport to be honest, they will walk away. What do you think would happen to the NFL's TV ratings if betters walked away? Welcome to the NHL!

Jackson's HOF status, at this point, would have no effect on his value as a card, in my mind, because he is and always will be one of the mythical figures of baseball.

I would like to point out that, with the advent of the lively ball, Jackson had more extra base hits in his final year than any in his career. The only years close were from when he was a very young man. I can imagine his power numbers leaping up in the following two or three years as Mr. Ruth.

Sorry for the long winded response, but this great thread touched me...