What would happen if Joe Jackson was elected into the HOF?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

Would he lose his "Cult" like statis in baseball? How would it affect values on all of his items? Would this give Pete the front track to get in as well? There is a little ole saying "If they are talking about you good or bad... That's good! When they stop talking about you, that BAD!"

JC

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Kravitz

His cards would go up in value. All of the HOF collectors would have to have one, and like you said... People would be talking.

[Archive]

Posted By: bijoem

I don't know that it would hurt his value, and probably would add to it... since the story doesn't really go away - just another chapter added.

But I would guess a bunch of people who collect joe jackson / blacksox would feel a little of the magic was lost if Joe's soul was cleansed by the HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

"But I would guess a bunch of people who collect joe jackson / blacksox would feel a little of the magic was lost if Joe's soul was cleansed by the HOF."

But perhaps some HOF collectors would now be interested in obtaining cards
who didn't collect them before.
W/ or w/o HOF status he was a great player that was thrown out of baseball
so the allure of Shoeless Joe is still there.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jackson has always been viewed as this tragic figure, one who was possibly banished for something he only marginally particpated in.

He would probably no longer be seen this way, as his HOF induction would be vindication for all the wrongs heaped upon him. But would his cards be more valuable? If they cost any more, nobody would be able to afford them!

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Pete Rose would start doing cartwheels.

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve f

I'd rather he remain an outcast. (and Charlie Hussle)

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

he is gone. The honor would have been best when he was alive.Anybody that loved the game that much and hit like he did and was well respected....uh, this should had already happened.

How many generations of his family should be disgraced over this issue ?

[Archive]

Posted By: George

He knew about the conspiracy to throw the World Series, and he told no one. He took $6,000 in cash, and he kept it. That shows how much he "loved the game."

I think all the bleeding heart sympathizers should save their pity party for someone who deserves it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Like Buck Weaver

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

I would think that Shoeless Joe's cards would continue to go up. People will start investigating other aspects Shoeless Joe's fame.

For one, I have no idea if Shoeless Joe actually played center field without his shoes in the majors.

There would be renewed fervor over whether he was the best hitter of all time.

The demand for crackerjack and other Joe Jacksons would continue and the supply would be sitting in strong hands. People who would be unlikely to let go of the cards cheap.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

cool question, but an easy one...

his cards would simply continue to rise...the mystique is still there, the scandal is still there, the great ballplayer is still there...

plus, as someone elluded to, the demand would increase with there being a whole slew of HOF collectors who would now need "Joe"...and the supply wouldn't change (supply & demand 101).

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

he was a kid at heart, with a 2nd grade education. You could have probably given him a poop sandwich and told him it was a donut !

[Archive]

Posted By: B.C.Daniels

then they would have to let Pete Rose in!

BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Not to detract from the Joe Jackson discussion, but I don't believe it is fair to put Rose and Jackson in the same catagory. Jackson was banned from baseball because at a minimum he knew that the World Series was being thrown by his team mates. Rose was banned because he bet on baseball (including the Reds) and repeatably lied about it. There has never been a serious accusation much less proof that he threw a game or was aware that a game was being thrown. I'm not Rose's appoligist, but betting on your own team to win is in no way the same as throwing the World Series.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tommy Ernest

I do not believe that commissioner Landis had the authority to banned these 8 individuals. The reason why is two fold. First they where acquitted by the courts in 1921 and there was no commissioner at the time to rule on this scandle despite their confessions. What really happened is the owners got together with Mr. Landis and they decided to set a example with these players to avoid revenue lost at the ballpark and restore confidence back to the game. Gambling was a common thing back in those days playing baseball games. I do not think betting on the world series should place any higher standard than any other game. This is just like being tried twice for the same crime. I am sure the owners bet on there teams as well, but you never hear anything about that and you never will. Joe Jackson is way past due to be in the HOF. Forgive and forget everyone makes mistakes in there lives and wish they could go back to that time period and change things. We are all guilty of that so why hold him and others responsible. That is just like living in an prison without the possibility of being paroled for a baseball game. BIG DEAL, IT'S ONLY A GAME!

[Archive]

Posted By: pat

if he were elected, i think naturally they would continue to climb in price, maybe just at a higher rate. the demand is incredible to begin with.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

For one, I have no idea if Shoeless Joe actually played center field without his shoes in the majors.


I read a great book about Joe this past summer, "Say It Ain't So Joe" by Donald Gropman, great read.

If I remember correctly, a scout or someone important was at a game (not major league) to see Joe play. The shoes Joe was wearing were too small for his feet and were bothering him. Rather than sit out the game, Joe just took the shoes off and kept playing.

And as far as Joe taking money, he tried to go to Mr. Comiskey and tell him about the fix, but Charles was in on it too and stonewalled Joe. Personally, I believe they all took advantage of an uneducated man. His stats for the series show he gave his all, unlike his teammates.

Would his cards go up in value if elected to the HOF? I think there would be a spike because of people wanting a Joe Jackson card, but then it would settle and continue a steady climb.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Agreed that Rose and Jackson cannot possibly be put in the same light: one helped throw a WS, the other bet on games (and lied about it). Jackson will never be reinstated, period, and I think we all know that. That being said, his era was a different one in which gamblers were allowed much closer proximity to players than today. Tons of players were involved in fixing games. Tons of players bet on games. Baseball wasn't the money-making machine it is today and the public wasn't as up in arms about keeping it clean as they are today (just check attendance figures from the two eras). All that being said, I don't think Joe's cards pop very much (except in the short term) if he's allowed entry into the Hall. His cache, mystique is already at an all-time high, not to be exceeded.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff O

Tommy, I think you're simplifying the situation too much.

Judge Landis absolutely had the authority to do what he did, whether anyone agrees with his decision or not. Major League Baseball is a business, just like any other, and if he was granted the authority to make that decision by the men who controlled the game, he was within his rights.

I agree that gambling was "a common thing" in those days, but it doesn't mean that it was right. However, this is nothing at all like being tried twice for the same offense - one potential punishment was criminal, the other was civil. There is a big difference in standards applied. As an example, if I had a permit to carry a gun I could bring one to work with me on Monday. That would not be breaking the law, and I couldn't be arrested for it. However, I would certainly be fired from my job and never be able to work for my employer again, because it is against company policy. It's not illegal, but it is contrary to a specific set of rules, and I can be punished according to those rules.

As for your final comment: "That is just like living in an prison without the possibility of being paroled for a baseball game." Sorry to disagree, but being banned from baseball is nothing even remotely like living in prison without parole. Not even close.

With regards to Rose (who I know Tommy didn't comment on) - the rules regarding gambling were posted in every clubhouse during his career, and every year someone from the league talked to the players about gambling. He knew that what he was doing was against the rules, he knew the penalties, and he made his decision.

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

Some folks have suggested de-linking Hall of Fame eligibility from eligibility to participate in Major League Baseball. Thus, in Rose's case, one could argue that he belongs in the Hall for his accomplishments on the filed, but should remain banned from baseball because of the danger he continues to pose to the ethics of the game. I'm not sure where I come down on this issue but it strikes me as worthy of debate. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

"And as far as Joe taking money, he tried to go to Mr. Comiskey and tell him about the fix, but Charles was in on it too and stonewalled Joe."

This is the 1st I've heard that Commy was in on the fix.

[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...

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

"comisky was in on it too"...

also the first i am hearing of this...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I think Comiskey has gotten the rap that he was a bad guy in this due to his shabby treatment of the players and skinflint ways -- which supposedly was one of the reasons the players threw the Series. My understanding, however, is that Comiseky was not in on the fix despite being tipped off at various points (apparently every person on the planet had heard rumblings about the Series being fixed). After the players were charged and the scheme came to light, Comiskey did all that he could to salvage his team -- and that meant attempting to have them cleared criminally, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

jeff- this too is exactly how i understand the story...

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

You guys are being too easy on Rose. I agree he only bet on his team to win. If I was a bookie I would leave those games alone. But let me in on the times when he doesn't bet on his team. That's where you make your money. He may not put the reliever in to save him for the next game he was going to wager on as an example.

[Archive]

Posted By: fessgreg

i think joe jackson should be elected to HOF since the evidence and precedings back then were murky at best. if he was elected there would be renewed interest in him as a player and his cards would probably go up in price. signed greg