Shoeless Joe in the HOF...and his cards?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

No, actually its not. You made what essentially seems like a guilt by association argument, i.e., that somebody threw the series so it doesn't matter if Jackson did or not. That's the Buck Weaver argument and I personally think its a load of crap. Always have. Do you rat out your buddies whenever they do something you don't approve of or think is wrong?

The jury heard the evidence and he and the others were acquitted. If you want to argue that the trial was tainted, OK. Some are, either way. For every OJ, I can probably name someone who sat on death row for years before being exonerated because the prosecutors cheated by withholding exculpatory evidence. Juries most often get it right IMO, but sometimes they don't. The system isn't perfect but it generally works.

But it was Landis (who was a federal judge), not the process, who said that whether or not he did it didn't matter. Jackson didn't have a Court of Appeals he could ask to review his ban. Landis was it. That's rather unfair too, since Landis was a creation of the owners, including Comiskey, and Jackson's alleged actions took place before he had any jurisdiction. On other occasions, Landis used that very fact to duck having to make a decision.

I don't know whether Jackson was involved or not, although the stuff I've read has me leaning a little bit toward probably not. At this point, its a court of public perception issue as much as anything, which probably also screws Jackson since his guilt has been assumed for so long. But the answer to the first question I asked is still that no one knows what Jackson did. That matters. How can you decide whether someone is HOF worthy if you don't even know whether they did what is clearly keeping them out?

This jury got it wrong about Gandil, Cicotte, Risberg, Williams, etc. Did they get it right about Jackson? I have no idea but I can't assume he's innocent because the jury says when they were wrong about the others.

I never decided whether anyone is HOF worthy or not, Landis saw enough evidence to ban him, agree or disagree, he was banned. I've never seen enough evidence to overturn that ban.

This is just my opinion but I believe Jackson probably tried to win after he realized he got stiffed for the money. But if he blew one play or made one out intentionally while batting, then he's just as guilty as the others no matter how hard he played after that.

[packs]

We're not talking about a crime. We’re talking about the rules of baseball. Baseball determines its own rulings and it ruled against them. Nothing has changed in the 100 years since as far as I can tell.

[PowderedH2O]

Jackson is a player that I have always wondered what would have happened if had kept playing. He clearly was still great in 1920. But he was 33 back when 33 was getting old. How many more years could he played at that level? Two or three? Then maybe he hangs on for a few more years. The ball got livlier, so maybe that bumps his numbers some. My guess is that his average drops ten to fifteen points and he doesn't reach 3000 hits. Would he have Tris Speaker type values then?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by packs

We are not talking about a crime. We’re talking about the rules of baseball. Baseball determines its own rulings and it rules against them. Nothing has changed in the 100 years since as far as I can tell.

Yes, and unfortunately, it enforces them selectively, and chooses to punish some, and not others, selectively. That was particularly true of Landis, the Czar of baseball, who enforced "unwritten" rules that didn't exist and ignored others that did, if that was to his benefit. I'm not a fan of his for a multitude of reasons.