Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Sorry to mess up on the math, but Cobb has been quoted as saying that he owed much of his batting prowess to imitating the batting swing of Joe Jackson.

It was Babe Ruth who said he imitated Joe Jackson, not Cobb.

[glchen]

IMO, both of them should be inducted into the HOF. It's only a matter of time before you see MLB sponsorships w/ the casinos and gambling entities like DraftKings like the other major sports, and then you'll realize how hypocritical baseball is on this matter. There should definitely be a punishment, similar to PEDS, such as first strike is 80 game suspension without pay, etc. However, after that, they should leave it to the voters or Veterans Committee on whether to vote the player in.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by glchen

IMO, both of them should be inducted into the HOF. It's only a matter of time before you see MLB sponsorships w/ the casinos and gambling entities like DraftKings like the other major sports, and then you'll realize how hypocritical baseball is on this matter. There should definitely be a punishment, similar to PEDS, such as first strike is 80 game suspension without pay, etc. However, after that, they should leave it to the voters or Veterans Committee on whether to vote the player in.

I can see some merit in this, but there is a vast difference between betting on a team and taking bribes to throw games.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by robw1959

I can see some merit in this, but there is a vast difference between betting on a team and taking bribes to throw games.

No not really, because in both instances the player/manager is perceived to be purposely trying to lose games. In Jackson's case he took money from gamblers to throw games he played in. The gamblers would bet on those games for Jackson's team to lose and the money they paid him would come out of their winnings. In Rose's case he was a player/manager in games that he personally bet on himself, the bets weren't placed by separate gamblers. The perception then is that if Rose bet against his own team that he would do something to throw the game so he would win the bet and collect the money himself. In either case, the issue and bottom line with both Jackson and Rose is them making money off gambling by them doing something to purposely lose games. It doesn't matter if Rose said he never bet against his team or not, because the perception is that if he tried to make money gambling then why wouldn't he be doing it by purposely losing some games as well as through winning some.

The issue isn't the gambling, it is the fans thinking that the players aren't always trying to win games and baseball turning into the WWE.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Tabe

It was Babe Ruth who said he imitated Joe Jackson, not Cobb.

Well I read it was Cobb, but regardless of which one it was, the point has been well established that Joe Jackson had a great swing, and I doubt if there is anyone yet to be elected to the HOF that was or is a better player than Shoeless Joe.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Well I read it was Cobb, but regardless of which one it was, the point has been well established that Joe Jackson had a great swing, and I doubt if there is anyone yet to be elected to the HOF that was or is a better player than Shoeless Joe.

Barry Bonds, to name just one.

[Frank A]

Neither belong in. Both were aware of what they were doing and just went with it. Jackson I feel somewhat sorry for. Rose was always a wise guy and thought he could do anything he wanted. You follow the rules or else.

[Pat R]

For Jackson it depends on which of the many versions of the different stories you believe. Some accounts have said...

He refused the $5000 twice and teammate Lefty Williams threw it on the hotel room floor. He then tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but he refused to meet with him.

It was said that in his grand jury appearance he said he would muff balls and he would be slow and make short throws back to the infield but there are
no stenographic records of him saying that.

Years later the other seven players who were supposedly involved said he was never at any of the meetings.

He was acquitted by a grand jury

So if you believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty then Jackson does belong in the Hall of Fame.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

For Jackson it depends on which of the many versions of the different stories you believe. Some accounts have said...

He refused the $5000 twice and teammate Lefty Williams threw it on the hotel room floor. He then tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but he refused to meet with him.

It was said that in his grand jury appearance he said he would muff balls and he would be slow and make short throws back to the infield but there are
no stenographic records of him saying that.

Years later the other seven players who were supposedly involved said he was never at any of the meetings.

He was acquitted by a grand jury

So if you believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty then Jackson does belong in the Hall of Fame.

Roger Clemens was acquitted, in a verdict that essentially meant the jury didn't believe he used.

[Jim65]

Joe Jackson was charged with perjury after testifying in his civil trial against Comiskey. He was a proven liar who changed his story multiple times.

I think he probably played to win after he realized he was getting screwed out of his payoff money, but if he botched one play in the field or one AB on purpose, hes just as guilty as the rest.