OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

But how can you say he didn't jeopardize a game? You have no way of knowing that and you could easily view his play as a straw man tactic to alleviate suspicion.

No youre right i dont know but looking at his world series stats if he did he sure did a horrible job..lol

[arc2q]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

I see what youre saying and i agree to a certain extent. But my own personal opinion is i could care less if he took a bribe. If looking at his personal achievements and stats he should be in. If he personally didnt jeopardize the game then to me he should be in. Theres all kinds of speculation about what really happened but jackson's stats dont lie and based on those itd far fetched to say he threw any games. Let him in

While a timeless debate, I don't see your side of it really. I think romanticism has clouded our judgement of what occurred.

I thought Manfred's letter was perfectly worded. What do we know now that Landis did not know in 1921? Likely nothing. Therefore Manfred has to respect that decision. Only if new, substantive evidence emerges that changes the fact that Jackson admitted under oath to accepting money from a person he knew to be paying him and his teammates to throw the World Series should baseball even consider re-looking at the case in its entirety.

Authoritative decisions like banning a player must be respected by future generations and future commissioners for the punishment to have merit and for the authority to be considered inviolable. You cannot rewrite history out of nostalgia. While it may have seemed harsh, the decision was final in Jackson's life and should remain so now unless new evidence emerges.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by arc2q

While a timeless debate, I don't see your side of it really. I think romanticism has clouded our judgement of what occurred.

I thought Manfred's letter was perfectly worded. What do we know now that Landis did not know in 1921? Likely nothing. Therefore Manfred has to respect that decision. Only if new, substantive evidence emerges that changes the fact that Jackson admitted under oath to accepting money from a person he knew to be paying him and his teammates to throw the World Series should baseball even consider re-looking at the case in its entirety.

Authoritative decisions like banning a player must be respected by future generations and future commissioners for the punishment to have merit and for the authority to be considered inviolable. You cannot rewrite history out of nostalgia. While it may have seemed harsh, the decision was final in Jackson's life and should remain so now unless new evidence emerges.

I see both sides and respect people's opinions but personally i feel like he should be in along with pete rose. Thatll never change but like you said itll always be a timeless debate.

[mybuddyinc]

You can do a lot of things and not get banned from Baseball. But gambling or taking money has always been THE BIG NO-NO.

Jim Devlin, George Hall, Al Nichols and Bill Craver of the Louisville Grays were banned in 1877. They were, late in the season, 27-13, but went 8-12 in the last games. All but Craver admitted throwing games.

I've always felt these guys set the "unbreakable" rule in Baseball that has held up for all these years.

Rose, Jackson, Weaver, NO.

[Iron Horse]

They both get my vote to be in. In my opinion their career numbers should determine their entry to the HOF.
The only ones i don't want in are the ones we know 100% used PED.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by Iron Horse

They both get my vote to be in. In my opinion their career numbers should determine their entry to the HOF.
The only ones i don't want in are the ones we know 100% used PED.

Totally agree

[Dan Carson]

NO!!

[JoeyFarino]

In that era who would be dumb enough to rat on the mob???? Arnold Rothstein was in business with luciano, lansky, etc youd be looking at a death sentence if you snitched..period

[packs]

The point is you could have just said no and not taken $5,000 from Lefty Williams. You can't look at stats and say Joe Jackson definitively did not throw the World Series. He played the field. There's nothing about a box score that will tell you a guy didn't pull up on a fly ball they could have caught or tripped up rounding the bases and took a base away from themselves.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

The point is you could have just said no and not taken $5,000 from Lefty Williams. You can't look at stats and say Joe Jackson definitively did not throw the World Series. He played the field. There's nothing about a box score that will tell you a guy didn't pull up on a fly ball they could have caught or tripped up rounding the bases and took a base away from themselves.

Thats true but not going along with it couldve also meant a death sentence as well. There was millions at stake and if 1 person was a threat to that do you really think theyd hesitate to do something. How do you explain jackson begging comiskey to take him out of the series? Obviously he didnt want any part of it.

[packs]

I don't know if there's any truth to that claim that he asked Comiskey not to play. He made it later in life and not during his deposition.

If you want to go with the mob angle, which I don't really buy into because it takes a whole team or no team, he didn't have to accept the money. Accepting the money is what did him in.

[edjs]

Originally Posted by mybuddyinc

You can do a lot of things and not get banned from Baseball. But gambling or taking money has always been THE BIG NO-NO.

Jim Devlin, George Hall, Al Nichols and Bill Craver of the Louisville Grays were banned in 1877. They were, late in the season, 27-13, but went 8-12 in the last games. All but Craver admitted throwing games.

I've always felt these guys set the "unbreakable" rule in Baseball that has held up for all these years.

Rose, Jackson, Weaver, NO.

I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by edjs

I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

Some historians state that Weaver was present at three separate meetings when the fix was being planned. He was more than just some naive innocent.

Remember, Asinof's Eight Men Out took a lot of artistic license with the story and should be read with caution when seeking out historical fact.

[packs]

When MLB looked at Weaver's case again they found that he definitively participated in at least two meetings, one in New York City and one in Cincinnati. He discussed throwing the series with his teammates. He told no one and did nothing when they did throw the series.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know if there's any truth to that claim that he asked Comiskey not to play. He made it later in life and not during his deposition.

If you want to go with the mob angle, which I don't really buy into because it takes a whole team or no team, he didn't have to accept the money. Accepting the money is what did him in.

But it wasnt the WHOLE team and the fact that jackson even knew about it made him a liability. You dont think for a second that Rothstein used intimidation to persuade some of the players to go along with it???

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

But how can you say he didn't jeopardize a game? You have no way of knowing that and you could easily view his play as a straw man tactic to alleviate suspicion.

In that case why pay him at all to be in on it? He didn't have to be paid extra to play well.

PS At this point Rose has paid the price. I would reinstate him, unless there is evidence he bet against his own team and I don't believe there is.

[EvilKing00]

So when is this desition happening? Or did it happen today already?

[packs]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

But it wasnt the WHOLE team and the fact that jackson even knew about it made him a liability. You dont think for a second that Rothstein used intimidation to persuade some of the players to go along with it???

I don't think so, no. Because Buck Weaver attended multiple meetings and took no money, he simply sat back and watched his team throw the series. Joe Jackson on the other hand did take money. No one had to do anything.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In that case why pay him at all to be in on it? He didn't have to be paid extra to play well.

PS At this point Rose has paid the price. I would reinstate him, unless there is evidence he bet against his own team and I don't believe there is.

Does everyone in the hobby that supports Rose forget the shady stuff he did hobbywise? Stuff that comes very close to fraud if not being fraud and sometimes only because it's so hard to prove?

Selling loads of game used bats - Sketchy when he was using a new bat for what seemed like every pitch. Not illegal, but still a little questionable for the era.

Selling multiple bats from the same milestone hit. - Hard to prove he did that, harder still to prove that's exactly what he claimed at the time. sort of dueling stories, and the buyers could have been interpreting his claims. Sort of "this bat is from the at bat where I got the hit" which gets taken as "this is the bat I got the hit with" In the buyers mind - instead of the more truthful "this is the bat I hit the foul with a couple pitches before" (Not sure of the exact at bats/hits , just a for instance)

He did some other stuff too. I'd have to really dig for the old magazines that have the details.

As for Jackson, I agree that taking the money and playing well but keeping quiet is wrong, and I'm confident in thinking that Landis viewed it as being just as bad. Plus, as others have pointed out, there's a lot of subtle stuff a great athlete could do that wouldn't be obvious from the stats. While it might be trackable now with the video all teams have of other teams in detail. At the time there was no way to track stuff like not getting a good jump on maybe one particular ball so it falls in, or not taking a base, or taking a strike in a certain situation.

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't care about Pete Rose's personal shortcomings or hobby activities. By sheer force of will he made himself into the all-time hit leader and a superstar. He was the consummate competitor, and obviously raised the level of play of his teammates. His work ethic was unmatched.

As Sports Illustrated put it, even in the stands, his will to win could be felt.

As Rose himself put it, in one of the greatest of all baseball quotes, "I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball."

Yeah he gambled, but he's paid for that with purgatory for decades. He is clearly a Hall of Famer.

[packs]

Nope. He refused to admit what he did until it was undeniable. At any time, if he did in fact never bet against his own team, he could have admitted as such. So after all those lies he told when faced with the truth, you really believe him and believe he has enough integrity to be telling the truth this one time?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Nope. He refused to admit what he did until it was undeniable. At any time, if he did in fact never bet against his own team, he could have admitted as such. So after all those lies he told when faced with the truth, you really believe him and believe he has enough integrity to be telling the truth this one time?

Given how fiercely competitive he was, I doubt he bet against his own team.

[packs]

He's a compulsive gambler though. When are compulsive gamblers moral crusaders? If it meant winning the money he was chasing, why wouldn't he do it? Clearly he didn't respect the game enough to not bet on it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Has anyone claimed he did, or suggested specific games where his playing or managing was questionable? They may have I just was not aware of it.

[mybuddyinc]

Originally Posted by edjs

I have always understood that Weaver did not take money, nor threw any game, that his only part was not telling the league about the fix. Am I mistaken in this? I am definitely not a big time baseball historian, just a card collector and fan. I have always thought, though, that his wrong doing was much more minor than the others.

Same with Louisville Craver. He never admitted to taking money. Later in life, trying to be reinstated, he adamantly denied it. He was included, in association, like Weaver, for not coming forward.

Arguably more minor, but others would argue the opposite.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by steve B

Does everyone in the hobby that supports Rose forget the shady stuff he did hobbywise? Stuff that comes very close to fraud if not being fraud and sometimes only because it's so hard to prove?

Selling loads of game used bats - Sketchy when he was using a new bat for what seemed like every pitch. Not illegal, but still a little questionable for the era.

Selling multiple bats from the same milestone hit. - Hard to prove he did that, harder still to prove that's exactly what he claimed at the time. sort of dueling stories, and the buyers could have been interpreting his claims. Sort of "this bat is from the at bat where I got the hit" which gets taken as "this is the bat I got the hit with" In the buyers mind - instead of the more truthful "this is the bat I hit the foul with a couple pitches before" (Not sure of the exact at bats/hits , just a for instance)

He did some other stuff too. I'd have to really dig for the old magazines that have the details.

As for Jackson, I agree that taking the money and playing well but keeping quiet is wrong, and I'm confident in thinking that Landis viewed it as being just as bad. Plus, as others have pointed out, there's a lot of subtle stuff a great athlete could do that wouldn't be obvious from the stats. While it might be trackable now with the video all teams have of other teams in detail. At the time there was no way to track stuff like not getting a good jump on maybe one particular ball so it falls in, or not taking a base, or taking a strike in a certain situation.

Steve B

All that stuff has NOTHING to do with what he accomplished on the field without any help. Who cares if he sold bats..how does that affect anything he did as a player? The HOF is based on numbers and what you accomplished as a player. The bat issues can be dealt in another way. He deserves to be in no question about it

[jiw98]

In 1920 Jackson batted .382. This is the year after the 1919 series. Landis announced his rule against throwing a game Aug. 3, 1921. This is almost two years after the 1919 series.
So here's my question. How can you be suspended for life for breaking a rule that hasn't been written yet? Wouldn't that be like getting a speeding ticket for driving 70 mph on a highway that was two years later changed to 55 mph?

Now for the life time suspension. Wasn't Steve Howe given like 7 life time suspensions? If I remember it right, each "life time" suspension was for one year.

Just sayin....

[Bigdaddy]

Joe took money to throw a World Series. Landis had to set a hard example to keep organized gambling out of the game and instill the public's trust that the games were not fixed going forward. Joe and the others were the example. Time does not change what he and the others did.

As for Pete, and I'm a big Reds fan and loved Pete the player, I cannot believe a word that comes out of that man's mouth. He has lied from the day he was investigated, only fessing up to whatever evidence is on the table that he cannot deny. He agreed to a lifetime ban and that is what he deserves.

Now if the Hall of Fame wanted to induct either of these gentlemen, it could change their own rule and take out the part about being banned from baseball - remember being banned from baseball and not being eligible for the HoF are two independent issues.

[Kenny Cole]

I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

Very interesting...im sure we'll never know the real truth on what occured. But looking at Jackson's stats and what hes confessed about the world series i dont believe he personally jeopardized any game. But the debate will go on.....thanks for sharing what you learned.

[howard38]

[QUOTE=Joshwesley;1448233]That's a shame... obviously by judging his performance in the series... Joe didn't throw anything, but taking the money makes him guilty.

That isn't necessarily so. The Sox weren't trying to throw every game and in the three they won (and in which Jackson was presumably doing his best) he batted .545. In the five losses he batted only .286 and most have that production (HR, 2B, 3 RBI) came in the final game when they were already getting blown out. That isn't proof of any wrongdoing but neither is his overall BA of .375 proof of innocence.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I don't presume to be an expert on this. I have read a lot of books, read the grand jury testimony that is available, have seen some interviews and still don't really have a good sense of what actually occurred. After 90 years, it is probably unrealistic to expect that I would.

What I do think is that it is crystal clear that Comiskey knew about it and did his best to cover it up. I think it is almost equally as clear that Ban Johnson knew and tried to cover it up. If we are going to vilify the players who were involved, and I get the indignation about "cheating the game" and whatnot, it seems to me that the higher-ups who knew about it, and in Comiskey's case, was the basic reason why it occurred, deserve an equal fate. Comiskey is in the HOF. So is Johnson. Fair is fair. Kick them out or give up the pretend outrage.

BTW, did anyone note that, according to some interviews, the genesis of the 1919 conspiracy was that the 1918 world series had been thrown? I find that very interesting.

Kinda like Bud Selig and PEDs eh?

[steve B]

A question then for those saying it's all about what someone did on the field and that off the field stuff should have nothing to do with it

Are you then against the current practice in pretty much all sports of suspending players for stuff they do that's off field and unrelated to their sport? Adrian Peterson? Michael Vick? Delmon Young?

And should the PED users be sanctioned? Many of them did stuff before MLB had any specific rule or testing program.


Steve B

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by steve B

A question then for those saying it's all about what someone did on the field and that off the field stuff should have nothing to do with it

Are you then against the current practice in pretty much all sports of suspending players for stuff they do that's off field and unrelated to their sport? Adrian Peterson? Michael Vick? Delmon Young?

And should the PED users be sanctioned? Many of them did stuff before MLB had any specific rule or testing program.


Steve B

No i feel that the fact that he took a bribe shouldve been dealt in a different way and seperately. It should in no way keep him out of the HOF. Everything he accomplished on the field proves he deserves to be in. Now if youre using PED's you dont deserve to be in based on the fact you used something to enhance the results you got on the field. Jackson's numbers speak for themselves. The fact that he took a bribe didnt enhance his game or been proven that it made him lose any games either.

Same with pete rose. Who the hell cares if he bet on games. How does that affect anything he did on the field. He played his ass off without PED's and has some insane numbers. How can anyone justify not letting him in. I understand theres a rule but unless he had his team throw any games to benefit him then he deserves to be in. The fact that he bet on games is a seperate issue. Firing him takes care of that. Maybe a fine too but keeping him out of something he clearly belongs in is excessive

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Same with pete rose. Who the hell cares if he bet on games. How does that affect anything he did on the field. He played his ass off without PED's and has some insane numbers. How can anyone justify not letting him in. I understand theres a rule but unless he had his team throw any games to benefit him then he deserves to be in. The fact that he bet on games is a seperate issue. Firing him takes care of that. Maybe a fine too but keeping him out of something he clearly belongs in is excessive

Are amphetamines PED's? Rose admitted to using them on David Letterman in 2010, but "only to lose weight". He is not banned from baseball for amphetamines, but your contention that Charlie Hustle played without the aid of PED's is false.

[packs]

I also disagree that the fact that Rose bet on games is a separate issue. He was betting on games while being on the field. That is one and the same. Ban him for life.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pariah1107

Are amphetamines PED's? Rose admitted to using them on David Letterman in 2010, but "only to lose weight". He is not banned from baseball for amphetamines, but your contention that Charlie Hustle played without the aid of PED's is false.

Mays and Aaron used greenies.

[almostdone]

What confuses me in all of this "knowing but not telling equals lifetime banishment" is the case of Rube Benton. He testified to knowing the series was fixed but didn't talk until the hearing. Basically he was thanked by Landis and kept right on playing until retirement.

Btw, there is a young man in my town I know who is a direct decendant of Benton. Kind of a weird family legacy, related to the one guy not banned who admidted for knowing.

Drew

[tschock]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Now if youre using PED's you dont deserve to be in based on the fact you used something to enhance the results you got on the field.

Sort of like taking greenies in the '60s and '70s, right?

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

I also disagree that the fact that Rose bet on games is a separate issue. He was betting on games while being on the field. That is one and the same. Ban him for life.

Ok let me ask you this....did pete rose betting on games have anything to do with what he personally accomplished on the field?

[packs]

He was betting on games while on the field. The actions are one in the same.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

He was betting on games while on the field. The actions are one in the same.

That didnt answer my question. Did his betting on baseball have anything to do with his stats, records or personal achievements on the field?

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

He was betting on games while on the field. The actions are one in the same.

How are the actions one in the same??? He achieved everything on the field without any help. I didnt know betting makes you hit and run better. Unless youre running away from a angry bookie who wants his money. The betting has NOTHING to do with his playing ability at all. Thats why he deserves to be in. The betting issue should be dealt with by suspension of games or a fine. But to strip someone of a title that they clearly earned is excessive

[Kenny Cole]

The HOF is not exclusively about statistics. There is a morality clause and, now, there is the Pete Rose rule -- that if you are permanently banned, you are permanently ineligible for the HOF. Fair or not, that's the current rule.

I feel much more strongly about betting on baseball than I do PEDs. That is particularly true for Rose, who read the rule against doing that -- one of, if not the only rule taped on the door of every clubhouse -- every time he went out to play. He also had the example of what happened to Jackson. He knew what he was doing would get him banned and he did it anyway.

Screw him. He has no excuses and he is a dick to boot. At least the Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver supporters have some arguments they can make. Rose has none. He was one of the most competitive players I ever saw, but he needs to buy a ticket to Cooperstown. I hope he is never elected.

[Peter_Spaeth]

He's done his time. 25 years or however long it's been.

[Kenny Cole]

We will just have to agree to disagree about that.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by johnmh71

This is an absolute joke. He needs to stay banned. If they want to reinstate someone from that group, they should reinstate Buck Weaver.

Put me down for one ENORMOUS +1 on that. Joe got $5,000, and what he and the other guilty ones did struck near fatal blows to the very heart of the game--who's going to be interested if it is widely believed that the outcome of games is predetermined, other than possibly pro wrestling fans?

Regards,

Larry

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by jerseygary

And does anyone find it disturbing that MLB is supporting that Fan Duel betting racket?

Yes. I'm very glad someone else has noticed this. I find it hard to watch MLB Network because of the constant mentions to Fanduel and daily fantasy lineups.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

Accepting a bribe is meaningless unless u do something personally to fulfill the terms of the bribe. If he didnt then theres no reason whatsoever why he shouldnt be in

To all: Don't think for ONE minute that Joe Jackson didn't do anything to "throw" the 1919 World Series. True, his statistics do not warrant that notion. However, when Christy Mathewson joined iconic sports reporter and good friend Grantland Rice to cover the 1919 series, Matty was appalled at the number of balls that were falling safely between and in front of Jackson and Felsh (CF). Matty insisted something was terribly wrong, especially considering Jackson's world class fielding reputation. Jackson may not have been charged with any "official" errors, but he played a "careless" left field "at least" the first 5 games. Also attributing to Jackson's .300+ series average was his performances in game 6 and 7 (when he hit his one series homer) after the Sox were down 4 games to 1. Rothstein had not paid the players what he promised them, thus enticing the players (including Jackson) to revolt and play hard to win those 2 games. Unfortunately, after Lefty Williams' wife was threatened after the Sox closed the series to 4 games to 3, Williams didn't make it out of the first inning in game#8, ultimately leading to the Red's series victory.

Bottom line: Jackson was a guilty as "Original Sin"! He has no business being in Cooperstown and neither does Pete Rose.

JoeT.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

To all: Don't think for ONE minute that Joe Jackson didn't do anything to "throw" the 1919 World Series. True, his statistics do not warrant that notion. However, when Christy Mathewson joined iconic sports reporter and good friend Grantland Rice to cover the 1919 series, Matty was appalled at the number of balls that were falling safely between and in front of Jackson and Felsh (CF). Matty insisted something was terribly wrong, especially considering Jackson's world class fielding reputation. Jackson may not have been charged with any "official" errors, but he played a "careless" left field "at least" the first 5 games. Also attributing to Jackson's .300+ series average was his performances in game 6 and 7 (when he hit his one series homer) after the Sox were down 4 games to 1. Rothstein had not paid the players what he promised them, thus enticing the players (including Jackson) to revolt and play hard to win those 2 games. Unfortunately, after Lefty Williams' wife was threatened after the Sox closed the series to 4 games to 3, Williams didn't make it out of the first inning in game#8, ultimately leading to the Red's series victory.

Bottom line: Jackson was a guilty as "Original Sin"! He has no business being in Cooperstown and neither does Pete Rose.

JoeT.

Agree to disagree.