OT: Shoeless Joe HOF decision?

[Joshwesley]

That's a shame... obviously by judging his performance in the series... Joe didn't throw anything, but taking the money makes him guilty.

He'll never get in..... but he'll always be an iconic figure and his cards will always have significant value.

[JoeyFarino]

Jackson had 0 errors, 12 hits and a .375 batting average during the world series and he doesnt deserve to be in the HOF??? Come on

[packs]

He accepted a bribe. His play doesn't matter and no one is going to ignore the fact that he took the money and his team then lost. His personal play doesn't mean as much as the moral implications of taking the money and being on the losing team, just like he was supposed to be.

You need to think about coercion and how it works. Either everyone is in, or no one is in. So just by accepting the money he told his teammates that he didn't object to losing the World Series on purpose. There's your ban.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by packs

He accepted a bribe. His play doesn't matter and no one is going to ignore the fact that he took the money and his team then lost. His personal play doesn't mean as much as the moral implications of taking the money and being on the losing team, just like he was supposed to be.

You need to think about coercion and how it works. Either everyone is in, or no one is in. So just by accepting the money he told his teammates that he didn't object to losing the World Series on purpose. There's your ban.

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

[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.

[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

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.