Joe Jackson 1919 Black Sox & Pete Rose. [Archive]

Bill Burgess

12-02-2004, 06:38 PM

If someone throws a game, thereby cheating the fans of an honest game, I agree that there should be no clemency.

1. In America, the principle is, "Innocent until proof of guilt, beyond a shadow of a down." That applies to criminal proceedings. Not civil.

2. Joe Jackson was party to 2 trials. The first was admittedly a farce. All 8 accused players were acquitted on lack of evidence after transcripts were stolen from the Chicago prosecutors office. Most have ever since suspected the Comiskey/Rothstein axis of the purloined papers.

The second 1922 trial, where Jackson sued the Chicago team of back pay for '21-22. The jury believed Jackson was not guilty of ANY wrong-doing in anything, including throwing a ball game, or anything else. The jury voted to award Jackson every penny of his back pay, but the judge decided to edit certain passages of the 1921 trial, while disregarding/ignoring all the other parts of the transcript, and over-turned the judgment of the 12 person jury, and imprisoned Jackson for about a day, on the grounds of perjury.

Charles Comiskey didn't have the stomach or backbone to have his ruined tatters of a reputation dragged through the mud yet again, and so he paid Joe Jackson his settlement to make his nightmare go away. The terms of the settlement were sealed to protect Commie. For him to admit he was paying Jackson off was too humiliating to make public the amount.

Jackson's incessant assertions during the trial that Commie knew from the onset what was going on, and made a fake, bogus offer of money to anyone who knew that a scandal happened was far too mortifying for Commie to face any longer. Comiskey could also not face the BB public and have to account for how he was in possession of the stolen transcripts. How mortifying!

All the parties are long dead. Most of the details are based on hearsay. Most here, including me, are unlikely to change our views. For the anti-Jackson faction to speak as if they know more than the pro-Jackson faction serves no purpose, and doesn't move us further down the road.

If the details of this issue were to ever be argued in an honest trial, there is no way that the burden of reasonable doubt could ever be overcome.

All the main points of the anti-Jackson group, have counter-arguments, which are credible and possible, regardless if one believes them.

It appears to me that the majority of anti-Jackson clique bases their main feelings on his first trial testimony. And that is as sad as it is untenable. The full transcript is so terribly twisted and deliberately self-contradicting that anyone who bases ANYTHING ON IT, is irresponsible.

Yes, Jackson does "confess" that he took money. Yes, he does claim that he "let down at the plate." But he also says that he never let up, always tried to win, and that he tried to take the money to give to his management. His testimony is so obviously under 2 separate influences that it simply can not be used to prove that he is "confessing". Those who post here, either an edited or unedited version of Jackson's testimony, as proof of his guilt, are themselves guilty of terrible judgment, and are as pathetic as Jackson's sad "confession". No confession of that kind could stand up in today's courts. Not with an attorney of any substance. Jackson went through that first trial without ANY legal representation, which right there invalidates the proceedings as any test of his innocence.

If you had to go through a trial without a lawyer, would you feel as if your fate had been fairly processed? Before Jackson testified, he had been put into a room with a man whose interests were opposite his own, and had the fear of God put into him. Worse, he trusted that man, Alfred Austrian. And his testimony horribly reflected that conversation, which was wholly inappropriate legally, and was a major conflict of interest.

Chancellor:
(2) "People who argue that Jackson (or Rose) were not guilty of the actions for which they were banned are baseball's equivalent of those who don't believe the holocaust happened. They are both well established facts attacked only by those shackled by the chains of wishful thinking."

(Bill - I agree with you on Rose. On Jackson, I'm just saddened that you feel this way. I suddenly feel like a pathetic idiot. (Just teasing.) There is just so much counter-argumentation on the other side. But oh well. I still admire your BB chops.)

Bill Burgess

Schadenfreuder

12-08-2004, 02:14 AM

I know I might just be poiting out the obvious, but doesn't this thread read a little like some A&E American Justice transcript? Hell, even serial killers get a parole hearing...and, unlike Ty Cobb, Bill, Shoeless Joe didn't kill anybody. Sure, Charlie Manson has about as much of a shot as getting out of prison as I do of hitting 40 HR next year, but this is the Hall of Fame, and, by all accounts, Jackson was a helluva player. Charlie Hustle? A shameless schill...like if Robert Goulet had been hitting singles instead of recording them. Of course, all you ever see is sympathetic cinematic versions of "the great Shoeless Joe," but he can't be as big a slimeball as Pete Rose...and even if he was, Jackson should be in, just like Rose...after he dies.
Oh, and for the record, this won't hold up under the scrutiny of cross-examination...they are opinoins, after all. :D

JACKIE42

01-03-2005, 08:56 AM

Making it to the hall of fame should have to do with your ability to play baseball, thats it. Theese guys were involved in some shady stuff, but the amazing things they were doing were accomplished under their own power, without help from any kind of performance enhancing drugs.

They broke the law, they should have gone to jail, not the HOF.

Bill Burgess

01-03-2005, 10:32 AM

Since Joe Jackson refused to attend the 2 hotel meetings where the conspiracy was discussed by the cheaters, I wish whenever he is brought up, others would use the word, "alleged cheater", in his case. There IS much difference of opinion in his case. Not the others, except Weaver, who got exiled for not ratting.

Bill Burgess

Captain Cold Nose

01-03-2005, 02:17 PM

Also Babe Ruth drank during prohibition, while playing baseball, does that mean he belongs in jail and not the hall of fame?
It's not an either/or proposition. And, simply breaking the law is not against baseball's well-established rules. Orlando Cepeda and Fergie Jenkins both have drug convictions against them, but what they did is not against baseball's rules.
Gambling IS against baseball's rules, with the penalties clearly defined. That is the one activity anyone involved in baseball is not allowed to do.

HDH

01-03-2005, 02:23 PM

My original point here is that Joe Jackson died December 5, 1951; long before most here were born. Who is being punished by Joe Jackson not being in the HOF? The fans? The HOF? Baseball as an institution? Would it be a potential loop-hole for Rose to sleeze in? Jackson was found guilty by whatever means and that can't be fixed now... and he paid for it.

Bill Burgess

01-03-2005, 02:43 PM

HDH,

Technically, Joe Jackson was found not guilty by the only two trials he was ever involved with, concerning this subject.

He was "deemed" guilty, not by a legal judge, but by a baseball Commission.

He was judged by a jury of his peers to be entitiled to his two yrs. of backpay from his former employer, Commie, but the judge over-rode the carefully considered judgements of the 12 peers, and threw their legal verdict out his nearby window, and substituted his own personal opinion that Jackson was not entitled to the backpay, and threw Joe into the holding cell for the morining on the grounds of selective "perjury".

To this day, Joe Jackson STILL has not be found guilty by a legal jury.

Bill Burgess

I'd like to offer a view of the 1919 Black Sox scandal that may appear somewhat controversial, at first, but upon reading my material below, will seem less surprising. BB is a business. Owners see it that way. So do League presidents and Commissioners. Some owners also see it as the beautiful sport it is, like us fans.

I agree that seven White Sox players, excluding Jackson/Weaver, cheated and deserved whatever came their way. I have NO sympathy for them. But I would also like to submit the following below, to show the low-life character of Ban Johnson, who was the driving force in exposing the cheaters, and expelling them from BB.

It is my controversial view, that if the players had hypothetically been found to not have cheated, Ban Johnson would have continued to try to expel those players anyway. After all, Buck Weaver was known to NOT have conspired to do wrong, and was not separated into a benign category.

If ALL of them had been KNOWN to be clean, Mr. Ban Johnson would have expelled them arbitrarily anyway.

No one here seems to grasp that it was a political decison. It looked bad, so those who looked bad had to be sacrificed. Ban Johnson, who I PRAY doesn't slither into our Fever Hall of Fame, gave the following press conference in Jan., 1927, during the "Leonard, Speaker, Wood, Cobb Affair". He gave this amazing, phenomenal press conference, AFTER he discovered that both were CLEAN. Read the following for yourselves. Keep your barf bags close by.

Ban Johnson put out this fantastic message at a press conference in Chicago, IL, Jan. 17, 1927;

"I don't believe Ty Cobb ever played a dishonest game in his life. If that is the exoneration he seeks, I gladly give it to him. But it is from Landis that Cobb should seek an explanation. The American League ousted Cobb, but it was Landis who broadcast the story of his mistakes.

I love Ty Cobb. I never knew a finer player. I don't think he's been a good manager, and I have had to strap him as a father straps an unruly boy. But I know Ty Cobb's not a crooked ball player. We let him go because he had written a peculiar letter about a betting deal that he couldn't explain and because I felt that he violated a position of trust.

Tris Speaker is a different type of fellow. For want of a better word I'd call Tris cute. He knows why he was forced out of the management of the Cleveland club. If he wants me to tell him I'll meet him in a court of law and tell the facts under oath.

The American League is a business. When our directors found two employees whom they didn't think were serving them right they had to let them go. Now isn't that enough? As long as I'm President of the American League neither one of them will manage or play on our teams."

"I have men working for me, on my personal payroll, whose business it is to report on the conduct of our ball players. We don't want players betting on horse races or ball games while they're playing. We don't want players willing to lay down to another team either for friendship or money. That's why I get these reports. This data belongs to me, and not to Landis. The American League gave Landis enough to show why Cobb and Speaker were no longer wanted by us. That's all we needed to give him. I have reports on Speaker which Landis never will get unless we go to court.

"Judge Landis need not worry over the correctness of that interview. I made that statement then, I'm making it again, and I'll make it when he calls me Monday.

"I only hope he holds an open meeting. I want the public to know what the American League did and what Landis did.

"I sent a detective to watch the conduct of the Cleveland club two years ago. I learned from him by whom bets were made on horse races and ball games. I learned who was taking the money for the bets. I learned the names of the bookmakers who accepted the wagers and how much money was won or lost. I was gathering the evidence. Now, I watched Ty Cobb, too. I watched him not because I thought he was crooked, but because I thought he was a bad manager. Frequently, I have called him down. I gave Ty an interview just before he went on his hunting trip last Fall. He talked to me for two hours. He was heart-broken and maintained his innocence in that alleged betting deal which his letter tells about. I told him that whether guilty or not, he was through in the American League. I didn't think he played fair with his employers or with me. The actual facts which caused this whole explosion came to me early last Summer.

"Dutch Leonard had a claim against the Detroit Club. He threatened to sue for damages. He asserted that he had sworn statements of five men stating that Cobb had declared he would drive Leonard out of baseball. Ty always has been violent in his likes and dislikes. Those statements of his, if carried to court, would have been damaging to the Detroit Club. Frank Navin, the owner, also faced the possibility that, should he refuse to settle with Leonard, the latter would sell two letters, One, of course, was that one written by Cobb, and the other was that letter of Joe Wood.

"You know the contents. Both indicate knowledge on the part of the writers of a plan to bet on a framed ball game. Cob denies he bet, and I don't think he did. I say again I think Ty is honest. But as he couldn't explain the letter satisfactorily, it was a damaging document. So on that letter alone the American League would have been forced to let Cobb go. Now Speaker was implicated in the deal by statements by Leonard. I also have the data of my detective. I called a meeting of the directors of my league. My own illness and the pressure of their business delayed the meeting until Sept. 9, 1926. We met in a prominent Chicago club. We wanted secrecy, not because it meant anything to us but because we felt we should protect Cobb and Speaker as much as we could. They had done a lot for baseball. We had to let them out, but we saw no reason for bringing embarrassment upon their families. We wanted to be decent about it. The directors voted to turn the results of the Leonard investigation over to Landis. We did that in compliment to him, not to pass the buck. We had acted. We thought he ought to know about it.

When Landis released that testimony and those letters, I was amazed. I couldn't fathom his motive. The only thing I could see behind that move was a desire for personal publicity. I'll tell him that when I take the witness stand. The American League is a business. It is a semi-public business to be sure, and we try to keep faith with the public. Certainly we had the right to let two employees go if we felt that they had violated a trust.

But Landis had no right to release the Leonard charges. He had taken no part in the ousting of the two men. It was purely a league, not an inter-league matter, and there was nothing to be gained by telling the world that we felt Cobb and Speaker had made mistakes which made them unwelcome employees. When I take the stand Monday I may tell the whole story of my relationship with the Judge. If he wants to know when I lost faith in him I'll tell him this. When the Black Sox scandal broke the American League voted to prosecute the crooked players. Landis received the job. After several months had passed I asked him what he was doing, and he replied: 'Nothing'. I took the case away from him, prosecuted it with the funds of the American League and never asked him for help. I had decided he didn't want to cooperate. My second break with Landis came over a financial matter. I do not care to discuss it now, but I will tell about it Monday, if he wants me to. This statement of mine probably means a new fight with Landis. But he has chosen to make the public think the American League passed the buck to him on the Speaker and Cobb case. That's not true, and I don't intend to let the public keep on thinking that way."

Johnson also said that his observations of the Cleveland club showed that players as late as 1925 were continually betting on horse racing during the baseball season. One report, Johnson said, details the story of a pool by the players that netted a profit of $4,200. "We have no objections to players attending horse races," Johnson said. "We do object to them betting on races while they are supposed to be giving their best efforts to the baseball games." End of press conference. (New York Times, Jan. 18, 1927, pp. 18, "Johnson Accepts Landis Challenge")

JACKIE42

01-04-2005, 04:48 AM

http://www.seth.com/images/collection_pages/letters/03_lg.gif

Bill Burgess

01-04-2005, 07:46 AM

Not only couldn't Mr. Jackson read such a letter, being illiterate, he couldn't write either. His wife, Katie, had to serve as his translater, in such instances.

Mr. Landis, in circumstances, such as the one above, was merely being official. He had recieved repeated written requests from Mr. Buck Weaver, and never even once, CONSIDERED re-instating him.

Mr. Landis, always used as his shield, that anyone who had even sat in a meeting, where throwing was discussed, and not reported it to his management, would play ball again.

Using that definition, Mr. Jackson, who HAD NEVER DONE SUCH A THING, should have qualified for re-instatement. But as I said before, it was a political decision. All the cheats acknowledged that Mr. Jackson had NEVER sat in on their 2 hotel meetings, and it meant nothing. Mr. Jackson was sacrificed on the alter of appearances, by the 2 men who sacrificed the black men from BB. Mr. BAn Johnson was not called BAN for nothing.

Bill Burgess

Imapotato

01-04-2005, 08:03 AM

How do you feel about Buck Weaver Kroxquo?

I am a part of clearbuck.com (Please join if you feel he is innocent everyone)
and I have also thought his banning was a terrible slight...it was easy for Landis to say "Turn in your teammates", when the fact was...would you sacrifice your life, your wife and children (Weaver would have been killed easily) for the sake of telling, and no one would have done anything to stop it anyway?

Imapotato

01-04-2005, 08:22 AM

I wonder what you think about Barry Bonds making it to the hall of fame, he didnt break any of baseballs rules, but hes broken the law, does he belong in jail or the hall of fame?

He deserves a lifetime ban

Benny Kauff was a HOF player, but was banned for life for running a Grand Theft Auto ring.

As for Jackson...one statement, signed BY himself had this...

Police Officer: Did your wife know you took money to throw the game?

Joe Jackson: Yes, yes she did.

Police Officer: And what was her reply?

Joe Jackson: She said it was a terrible thing to do.

Not what does that tell you?

1. He took money
2. Even if you use the strawman argument that he was a hick or stupid, if he didn't realize it was wrong, he did very quickly afterwards when he wife told him so.

Guilty, beyond any resonable doubt.

Appling

01-04-2005, 02:17 PM

I have no doubt but that if the 1919 Black Sox scandal had happened in 2004, with similar facts, both Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson would find an arbitrator who would overrule their expulsion, and demand their return to MLB. If an arbitrator can reduce the penalty for NBA fighting, they certainly should find someone to re-instate Jackson and Weaver (with facts such as these).

Unless: is it possible that all players might have signed an agreement in advance of that Series, that any player who knew of another player betting on baseball or taking a bribe to throw a game, and who then failed to prompty report that fact, would be expelled for life from MLB?

Isn't it true that Joe never agreed to be party to scheme, but was given some share of the bribe money after the Series? Isn't it true that Buck Weaver never agreed to the fix (and may even have tried to persuade others not to do it)? Buck never took a dime and played a great WS -- but he did "fail to report" what he knew.

Bill Burgess

01-04-2005, 03:09 PM

Appling,

"Isn't it true that Joe never agreed to be party to scheme, but was given some share of the bribe money after the Series?"

Joe Jackson not only refused to sit in at either of the cheaters 2 hotel meetings, he said that he did not speak with any of the other cheaters, except his room mate / closest friend on the team, Lefty Williams. He neither spoke to, or involved himself with the cheaters.

Only 7 men attended those 2 "conspiracy" meetings. Lefty Williams "told" the other 6 conspirators, that Joe Jackson was "in on the deal." Mr. Williams, later during the 1923 trial, confessed that he used Mr. Jackson's name, at the conspiracy meetings, without Mr. Jackson's knowlege or permission. He testified to that under oath.

Of course, those here at Fever who keep posting the same old stuff, will challenge Mr. Williams testimony as lacking credibility to help his old pal. But just imagine that assertion. Cheaters who are caught, and paying the consequences of their crime, would lie under oath, to let off a guilty cheat.

That flies in the face of all psychology. If Jackson had really been in agreement to throw the series, Mr. Williams would have had no incentive to cover up for him. Why should he? He would have felt that Jackson was getting what he had coming in disgrace, and no backpay. After alll, Mr. Williams, and the other 6 were NOT receiving any backpay!!! Why should Jackson, if he were really a participant.

The ONLY pychologically valid incentive for Mr. Lefty Williams to attend the trial and vouch for Mr. Jackson's innocence, would have been due to his guilty conscouse, that he had screwed Mr. Jackson out of his good name, career, and backpay!!! Those who insist he was only helping his guilty pal out, are the simplistic, fanciful dreamers. Just doesn't fly! Not then, not now.

Mr. Jackson "TOOK" the money:
When Lefty Williams threw a brown paper bag on the bureau of their hotel room, Mr. Jackson, SHOULD have left it there for a cleaning maid to find. He made a terrible decision to take the bag to his team management and tell what he had heard. He was denied entrance into Commie's office by his lapdog, Harry Grabiner, and told, "We know why you're here. Mr. Commie doesn't want to see you."

So, alas, Mr. Jackson finally realized how ignorant he had been to touch the bag, and try to talk to management. "He was left, HOLDING THE BAG."

And his detractors have been using that mistaken judgement ever since to indict him. Next spring, when lapdog Grabiner, traveled down to Greenville, SC to sign Jackson, Mr. Jackson once again brought up the issue of the bag of money. Jackson claims that he asked him, "What should I do with that money." And he also claims that Grabiner said, "Why, keep it."

For management to take the money, would have exposed their feigning no knowlege about a "thrown series." Commie was acting to his public, that he knew nothing. To accept that money would have transferred the bag to Commie.

And, uh, guys. Jackson's "confession" where he speaks of the same things which you guys have been posting for over a year . . . it means less than nothing. To continue to show it, as if it "proves" your case, is to announce that you cannot grasp the under pinnings of the real situation.

Many, many gamblers went broke on the scandal. They all cleaned up on the first 2 games, and let her ride on the third and lost every penny that they could beg, borrow or steal. And many a low-life gangster was bitter. For Jackson to come out and say, "Yeah, I took your stinkin' money, and I screwed you royal. Nothin' so beautiful as a good double-cross. Ha-ha-ha. Thanks for the nice tip, suckers. I played to win. Ha-ha. Laughs on you!"

How long would Jackson have lived? How long would his wife have lived. Jackson sung what the gamblers wanted to hear to let him live. "I accepted their money and did my part to lose. Wife felt terrible, too. Boo hoo. I feel so ashamed of myself, sob, sob." For him to NOT mouth the script, would have put at risk everything he ever had. Commie attorney, Alfred Austrian saw to it PERSONALLY that Mr. Jackson was aware of these risks.

So, Jackson did what he felt he had to stay alive and protect his own. Ended up saying both lines really. He said one, then he'd say the other! So to continue to post his heavily edited testimony, shows selective motives.

The man paid his debt for a crime I and many others felt he didn't commit. But will that change anyone's minds here. Not a chance.

Bill Burgess

dreifort

01-04-2005, 03:33 PM

If Rose gets in the Hall, then Shoeless Joe should be glued with him and go in together. But not the other way around.... IMHO, Rose did more to hurt the game than Jackson did.

I think Jackson was not using good judgement.

I think Rose tried to work the system to his advantage, knowing full well what he was doing.

I'm all for electing Jackson and not Rose into the Hall. But sadly, every sports writer born after 1970 who thinks Michael Moore derserves the Nobel Prize Award and that America should be a socialist country will scream bloody murder if that happens and demand Rose be elected too.

Captain Cold Nose

01-04-2005, 03:37 PM

I'm all for electing Jackson and not Rose into the Hall. But sadly, every sports writer born after 1970 who thinks Michael Moore derserves the Nobel Prize Award and that America should be a socialist country will scream bloody murder if that happens and demand Rose be elected too.

Hoiw many sportswriters do you know that fit all those qualifications, let alone are eligible to vote in the BBWAA elections?

Bill Burgess

01-04-2005, 04:02 PM

How Jackson / Rose ever got associated is not clear, but they are separate cases, and unrelated. They have no common ground and must be examined independently, each on their own merits.

I have no position on the Rose case.

Bill Burgess

dreifort

01-04-2005, 04:16 PM

Hoiw many sportswriters do you know that fit all those qualifications, let alone are eligible to vote in the BBWAA elections?

they can't vote, but they can publish it.

How Jackson / Rose ever got associated is not clear, but they are separate cases, and unrelated.

If Jackson were to be elected, they will instantly become related in the public media's minds. The media is good at taking 2 things and making you see 1.

Captain Cold Nose

01-05-2005, 06:08 AM

[QUOTE=dreifort]they can't vote, but they can publish it.

Every year, there are writers clamoring for Rose who are neither socialist nor Michael Moore fans. Especially in Cincinnati, where Rose played. They also were born before 1970. The fact they write these articles has no bearing on whether or not Rose will actually get in.

I think you may be trying to be funny, but who can tell?

KHenry14

01-05-2005, 07:04 AM

I have no position on the Rose case.
Bill, I hope you take this in a friendly way.....

But I find it hard to believe that of all the people on BBF that you have no position on Rose. Heck Bill, even I've read the Dowd report! And now that Rose has even admitted what he's done, it seems obvious the conclusion that one might reach...that not only did he violate the cardinal rule of baseball, but that he arrogantly flaunted his rulebreaking and then gratuitiously lied about it for 15 years. This is a guilty man who got what he deserved. And I am surprised that you don't have an opinion on this case when you have opinions on most of the major issues in Baseball's history.

And I agree, Rose is different than the Weaver/Jackson situation, which is muddy at best.

Anyway, I am just curious why you don't have an opinion on a case that has galvanized most of the baseball following world.

Curious in a friendly way....

KH14

Bill Burgess

01-05-2005, 07:38 AM

When I said that I had no opinion on the Rose case, what I meant was, that I have no solid position on what to do with him. He admitted to betting on baseball. I believe he bet on his own teams, to win, all the time. I do not think he bet on his team to lose. At least I haven't heard that yet.

I think it is clear that he should not be allowed to manage a team ever again. Or coach or be allowed an official position in BB again.

I am not sure about his H of F eligibility. That was the point of my ambiguity. I think the fans still love him, but I discount that.

Part of me would like to see him elibible for the Hall, but if he is allowed in, then how seriously was he disciplined? Probably not enough. Perhaps he should not regain his Hall eligibility as long as he is living, which is what he seems to want most. That might be a fitting punishment.

I have heard rumors that his gambling compulsion has not been cured.

That is what I meant. I have no doubts as to his guilt.

Bill Burgess

dreifort

01-05-2005, 08:20 AM

Every year, there are writers clamoring for Rose who are neither socialist nor Michael Moore fans. Especially in Cincinnati, where Rose played. They also were born before 1970. The fact they write these articles has no bearing on whether or not Rose will actually get in.

I think you may be trying to be funny, but who can tell?

No Hall of Fame for Pete Rose
by Thomas Sowell (April 7, 2003)

Summary: If you want rules to be forgotten, then just forget to enforce them.

[www.CapMag.com] A San Francisco sports writer has joined the chorus of those who argue that Pete Rose should be admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, despite being banned from baseball for violating one of its cardinal rules, against betting on ball games. The argument is: What have Pete's personal shortcomings got to do with the fact that he had a great career on the field?

If we are going to go that route, and accept that kind of reasoning, then the time is long overdue to induct Shoeless Joe Jackson into the Baseball Hall of Fame. After all, Shoeless Joe had a lifetime batting average more than 50 points higher than that of Pete Rose -- and 12 points higher than that of Ted Williams. Where Williams' highest batting average was .406, Shoeless Joe Jackson hit .408. And he is still not in Cooperstown.

Some will say that the two things are different. Obviously. Any two things are different, otherwise they wouldn't be two things. But where is the difference in principle?

Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for life because of the 1919 "Black Sox" scandal, where the Chicago White Sox deliberately lost the World Series, so that a big-time gambler who was paying them off could make a killing betting against them.

Shoeless Joe Jackson himself could not be accused of throwing the games. He batted .375 in the Series -- the highest average of anyone on either team -- played errorless ball in the field, threw out a base runner from the outfield, and even hit a home run, which was much rarer in those days.

Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for life because he knew that the World Series was fixed but did not report his teammates to the authorities.

Jackson was the most tragic figure in the Black Sox scandal. Having grown up a barefoot and illiterate boy, he was able to achieve success because of his extraordinary ability to hit a baseball -- and suddenly it was all taken away from him because of what other people did.

For years, people pleaded his case. But the ban stood, cutting him down in the prime of his career, and the ban kept him out of the Baseball Hall of Fame for the rest of his life and after his death in 1951.

It should have. And it should for Pete Rose.

First of all, baseball is bigger than any individual who plays it. Like so many things in life, the tangible things in major league baseball cannot exist without the intangibles -- of which the trust of the public is the most important. Once the public decides that it is all fake and crooked, this thriving sports empire collapses like a house of cards. Ballplayers who deal with professional gamblers jeopardize the whole game of baseball.

Would major league baseball vanish into thin air if Pete Rose were admitted to its Hall of Fame? Of course not. Nor would it have vanished if Shoeless Joe Jackson had been either reinstated as a player or allowed to become a member of the Hall of Fame later on.

Termites do not destroy a house overnight. But destroy it they will if you let them go on long enough.

Those who say that we should admit Pete Rose to the Hall of Fame and then "move on" and "forget about it" have profoundly misunderstood human beings. What we do today affects what other people will do or not do tomorrow. If you want rules to be forgotten, then just forget to enforce them.

What have we gained over the past several decades by weakening rules, accepting excuses, and looking for easy ways of avoiding the unpleasantness of enforcing norms?

Has permissive parenting produced better children? Or even happier children? This 1960s trend produced not only rising teenage crime rates but rising rates of teenage suicide as well.

It has been the same story with adults. Going easy on criminals in the 1960s led to skyrocketing crime rates that did not reverse until more criminals began to be locked up in the 1980s.

Forgetting the past endangers the future. After Shoeless Joe Jackson has been admitted to the Baseball Hall of Fame will be time enough to talk about Pete Rose. But neither of them should be admitted, now or ever.

...article found here (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2560)

Captain Cold Nose

01-05-2005, 08:34 AM

What's the point of that article? It is hardly the first or close to the last for people saying one way or another about Pete Rose. There's nothing groundbreaking here. It's pretty stale, actually. Year 14 and counting for this argument. It's not going to take Jackon's election for the Rose supporters to come out of the wood work, no matter what politics they follow.

JACKIE42

01-05-2005, 09:33 AM

Both Jackson and Rose have been banned for life. Some people argue that a life time ban should end with ones death, even though i don't think either Jackson or Rose should ever get into the HOF dead or alive i can see their point, what do some of you think......Bill?

Bill Burgess

01-06-2005, 11:30 PM

Jackie42,

"The reason why i single out Jackson is because hes the only one people really think should be in the HOF, isn't this what this threads about, i have to admit that i can't believe your stance on this subject. You know i respect your opinions and usually agree with you, but in this case you lost me."

I understand, Jackie. My beliefs on the Jackson case are most decidedly in the minority. I am certainly not trying to be controversial. Anyone who knows me, quickly finds out that I have quite a number of minority views on BB.

My views on this subject, I've tried like heck to articulate them here, not making any progress, and feel somewhat flummoxed that I can't make plain the case for Jackson.

Bill Burgess

tybear

01-10-2005, 06:56 PM

I am fairly new to this site, but I find the discussion fascinating. It's so hard to find knowledgable baseball fans in today's NBA/Sports Center world.

Back to the original topic....

I believe that Shoeless Joe should be in the HoF. By today's standards, he was virtually retarded and most likely didn't even fully understand what he had agreed to do.

I believe that Pete Rose should be in the HoF. His accomplishments ON THE FIELD are among the most impressive in the sport.

Once you allow Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, etc. into the HoF, you've already thrown all moral objections out the window

JACKIE42

01-11-2005, 10:44 AM

By today's standards, he was virtually retarded and most likely didn't even fully understand what he had agreed to do.
He was far from retarded by any standards, being illiterate doesn't mean your retarded, he knew right from wrong. When you know a crime is being committed and you do nothing about it your as guilty as the people actually doing the crime. The players you named did nothing illegal, Jackson did.

HackWilson

01-11-2005, 10:56 AM

The players you named did nothing illegal, Jackson did. Beating a disabled fan isnt illegal? What about frequenting speakeasys? Steroids are illegal too, what should happen to the people that take thoose?

Captain Cold Nose

01-11-2005, 11:31 AM

Beating a disabled fan isnt illegal? What about frequenting speakeasys? Steroids are illegal too, what should happen to the people that take thoose?

Frequenting speakeasys was not illegal. The selling of alcohol was illegal during prohibition. That was it.

Baseball's rules are not society's laws. The rules state, very clearly, that gambling is punishible by permanent ban. Drug usage is not. An illegal activity does not automaticlaly disqualify the player.

There are different levels of punishment for different levels of breaking of rules. Drug usage gets suspension, etc. Without a clear definition on steroids, a player cannot be banned. But the subject of gambling is made very clear. That is the only "crime" on the books with banishment as the punishment.

If you're trying to say that should not be the case, Hack, you need to take that up with MLB.

HackWilson

01-11-2005, 02:02 PM

Your wasting your time hack thinks that going to a speakeasy, and fixing the WS are the same, no matter how many members other then myself tell him.
No I dont, I am a veteran shoplifter, alcoholic, drug abuser, and I've used corked bats and scuffed balls in semi-pro games, but that in no way makes me a bad baseball player. I am just here to say that theres a place for people like me in the hall of fame. Who are you to question why joe jackson threw the world series anyways? Why arent we talking about the blacksox owner here. In my opinion it was no differant than the coal wars of southern west virginia. When you treat your employees unfairly, why is it wrong for them to do something like that?

cubbieinexile

01-11-2005, 02:36 PM

Okay this is going to be pointless but. . .
How did Comiskey treat them unfairly? Even if he did how is throwing a World Series the way to resolved the issue? Wouoldn't a collective holdout be better? If you can get the stars of your team to throw a world series I think you can get them to go on strike before one.

Here is a post of mine from last year

Charlie Comiskey was not the cheapest s.o.b. in the MLB. That has been the excuse most people use to excuse the throwing of the World Series. Many many years later Bill Veeck found contracts stashed away in an unused elevator shaft that revealed how much a lot of the players on the Sox were getting paid at the time. Plus during the trial their salaries were revealed also. While some were on the low side they were not excessively so. Plus he had several contracts they paid the player in question quite well. While others, mainly Joe Jackson, had contracts that dated back to other teams. So if they were being paid poorly it wasn't because of Comiskey but because of a players former team and the fact that the Player signed the contract. The whole cheapskate thing is BS. Games were being thrown left and right in that era because the money was easy and you were not going to get caught. Heck the it is believe that the Giants threw the 1917 World Series against the Sox, and you don't hear anything about how cheap the owners were of the Giants.

Was Comiskey cheap by our standards? Yes and no. He had the money but saw no reason to waste it. Was Comiskey cheap the standards of his day? Absolutely not.

I have read studies where the writer compares salaries of the White Sox players to other players in the league and the stars were paid accordingly. I'll see if I can find them again.

This is for 1918
Eddie collins 5yr contract at $15,000 per
Ray Schalk 3yr $7,083 per
Joe Jackson $6,000
Buck Weaver $6,000
Eddie Cicotte $5,000 plus $2,000 signing bonus
Chick Gandil $4,000
Happy felsch 2yr $3,750 per
Lefty Williams $3,000
Fred McMullin $2,750
Swede Risberg $2,500
Pants Rowland $7,500

Average Salary for 1917 baseball player was $3,000

Buck Weaver at the time was the highest paid third basemen, Ray Schalk was the highest paid Catcher. Shoeless Joe Jackson signed a contract extension in 1915 that covered the years 1917 to 1919. So like any basball player nowadays his salary level and its lowness is his own fault.

Chick Gandil made about what a journeymen firstbasemen would get. Swede was a young player just coming off a weak rookie year. Just like todays players the youth is on the low end of the pay spectrum. Eddie Cicotte was slightly underpaid but he still got a $2,000 dollar raise from his previous contract and got another 2,000 bonus as well.

Comiskey spent money to house and field the best team he could. He spent $15,000 to get Ray Schalk, the highest price ever paid for a catcher up to that time, and then made Ray the highest paid Catcher in baseball. That is not being a cheapskate.

Bill Burgess

01-11-2005, 03:16 PM

Cubbie,

If you can't see that the Sox were being abused in their salaries, due to Commie's vile abuse of the "reserve clause", I find that odd.

Cicotte was way under- scale, Felsch was being paid as a journeyman, when he was one of the brilliant fielders. Collins was only paid his worth, because he could have made money outside BB, with his college degree. Jackson was extended from a terribly low salary.

Jackson was sold from Cleveland because he had been in a car crash, and they thought he might be impaired. Just the typical nonsense, employers use to abuse all they can get away with.

Collins - $15,000. Jackson $6,000. And you see NOTHING wrong?! What's wrong with that picture. You say that Commie's rep as a low-life scumbag was undeserved???! He decided to bill the players for their laundry, and hence they stopped washing their uniforms. Showed up for games in grimey, filthy uniforms, so the fans could see the problem. That is the original reason they were called the black sox. Soiled uniforms.

Cobb was drawing $20K, Speaker $16K. Collins $15K. Walter Johnson $15K. And Jackson $6,000. Some one wake me up. This is a nightmare.

Bill Burgess

HackWilson

01-11-2005, 03:23 PM

If you can't see that the Sox were being abused in their salaries, due to Commie's vile abuse of the "reserve clause", I find that odd.
Your extactly right. They got treated like crap just like anyone elese who didnt have a union.

cubbieinexile

01-11-2005, 03:31 PM

Jackson was getting paid $6,000 because he agreed on it. Comiskey did not make that contract. That was the contract that he signed when he was in Cleveland. Bill Veeck has said that Joe Jackson was one of the worst negotiators he has ever seen in baseball.

Eddie Cicotte made $9,000 dollars that year. The best pitcher in baseball made $15,000. His yearly salary was raised by $2,000 despite the fact that America was entering the War and nobody knew if baseball was going to be played. Cicotte in his initial contract wanted $7,000 dollars a year for three years. He ended up getting a 3yr $5,000 plus $3,000 signing bonus. So he got $18,000 instead of $21,000. How is this a terribly low salary? Cicotte thought he was worth 7 Comiskey thought 5 he ended up getting 6.

Today's players must buy their own bats does that make their owners vile demons?

The reserve clause is wrong. It was and always will be wrong. Having said that Comiskey did not stick it to his players. His pay was competitive if not more competitive then other teams. Probably better then every single NL team at the time and considering that he had the top moneymaker for three positions probably most of the AL. Even if you look past all that and still only hold onto the reserve clause bone it is still not enough of an excuse to throw a world series. Players in the 60's and 70's did not have to resort to cheating to get compensation. Heck players in 1915 didn't have to resort to cheating to get compensation.

Bill Burgess

01-11-2005, 06:30 PM

Cubbie,

"Jackson was getting paid $6,000 because he agreed on it."

(Bill - Not in the way you think. His choice was to say, "Yes um, Mr. Bossman." Or go back to the minors, or to quit BB.)

"Comiskey did not make that contract. That was the contract that he signed when he was in Cleveland. Bill Veeck has said that Joe Jackson was one of the worst negotiators he has ever seen in baseball."

(Bill - I don't care who was responsible for a perfectly good, but illiterate ballplayer got screwed. It's pretty hard for a man to study the numbers, when he can't read. Jackson's illiteracy gave him a terrible inferiority complex. I blame Commie for not paying a star player his fair worth. In 1914, Jackson was a $12,000. star, getting paid $6K. I call that a ROYAL SCREWING. If all your fellow supervisors were making $80,000. but your boss paid you $40,000. you'd get the idea a little quicker. But remember, you can't quit, shop your services around to ANY other employer. And oh, your employer can sell your contract, and by extension YOU, to any of his rival employers, and not give you a dime of it.)

"Eddie Cicotte made $9,000 dollars that year. The best pitcher in baseball made $15,000. His yearly salary was raised by $2,000 despite the fact that America was entering the War and nobody knew if baseball was going to be played. Cicotte in his initial contract wanted $7,000 dollars a year for three years. He ended up getting a 3yr $5,000 plus $3,000 signing bonus. So he got $18,000 instead of $21,000. How is this a terribly low salary? Cicotte thought he was worth 7 Comiskey thought 5 he ended up getting 6."

(Bill - In 1919, Walter Johnson was 32, the best in BB, and was the most steady, consistent pitcher in town. Eddie Cicotte was 35, still improving. He had just went 29-7, 306 inninings, 175 ERA+. If Walter was drawing down $15K, and Eddie $9K, I say that Eddie was being very seriously under-paid. It all depends on how you want to write it down.)

Today's players must buy their own bats does that make their owners vile demons?

"The reserve clause is wrong. It was and always will be wrong. Having said that Comiskey did not stick it to his players."

(Bill - If he didn't, then no player EVER got the horns of abuse.)

"His pay was competitive if not more competitive then other teams. Probably better then every single NL team at the time and considering that he had the top moneymaker for three positions probably most of the AL."

(Bill - I'd bet that Commie payroll was the lightest in both leagues, and by a good amount. And even Bill James, not sympathetic to the Black Sox, said that the White Sox was a money making team, and Commie had no reason to underpay his players. James suggests throwing Commie out of the Hall. I'd agree, in spades.)

"Even if you look past all that and still only hold onto the reserve clause bone it is still not enough of an excuse to throw a world series. Players in the 60's and 70's did not have to resort to cheating to get compensation. Heck players in 1915 didn't have to resort to cheating to get compensation."

(Bill - I agree that there can be no excuse to cheat the fans. A strike would have been preferable. But those guys had no good union. Actually they did have one, led by David Fultz, but it was a joke. No power. No cohesion. No nothing.)

Bill Burgess

cubbieinexile

01-11-2005, 07:24 PM

Actually Joe when he signed the contract did have a choice. He could go to the Federal League which was paying top dollar for players like Shoeless. So yes Joe could shop his services around.

Its funny because I remember in the early 90's when the salaries were going through the roof and players who signed multiyear contracts were screaming bloody murder because they were locked into what turned out to be low salaries that a lot of people were calling the ball players selfish greedy jerks. Now it is the other way around.

What happened to Joe is not because of Comiskey. If you are looking for someone to blame then blame the owner of the Cleveland team and blame Shoeless Joe. But how Comiskey gets the mud on him for this one is beyond me.

I say bull to Comiskey's payroll being the lightest around. He had three players earning the highest for their positions. How is that cheap. Comiskey was paying top dollar for players. The entire AL was paying more on average then the NL. Yes the White Sox were a money making team. How is that bad? Comiskey did not under pay his players. Again how is the highest salaries for their position being underpaid?

Cheating is no excuse, and there shouldn't be a but after that.

Aegis

01-11-2005, 07:27 PM

Cheating is no excuse, and there shouldn't be a but after that.

I think Bill's 'but' in his post was to attempt to understand the dive the team made, not justify it. That maybe the team felt desperate because of their situation and that the union wasn't strong enough to stand behind them, so they took their own action. That's an explanation, but not a justification.

cubbieinexile

01-11-2005, 07:35 PM

They took a dive for a simple reason, and that simple reason was not a show of defiance or some sort of protest. What they did was not some noble quest of theirs, they were not playing the role of Joan of Arc. To pretend they were smudges the shine from actual ballplayers who did perform that role. Players like Curt Flood.

If you want to see Comiskey as King John, that is fine. But the players involved like Chick Gandil would be the Sheriff of Nottingham and his henchmen.

Bill Burgess

01-11-2005, 08:11 PM

Cubbie,

"Actually Joe when he signed the contract did have a choice. He could go to the Federal League which was paying top dollar for players like Shoeless. So yes Joe could shop his services around."

(Bill - OK, you got me. I had forgotten the Federal L. Joe was offered a lot of money, and he turned it down. Most of us honor him for doing that. Ed Roush didn't, he jumped.)

"Its funny because I remember in the early 90's when the salaries were going through the roof and players who signed multiyear contracts were screaming bloody murder because they were locked into what turned out to be low salaries that a lot of people were calling the ball players selfish greedy jerks. Now it is the other way around.)

(Bill - I don't think A-Rod regretted his decision to lock himself into a King's Ransom. Do you?)

"What happened to Joe is not because of Comiskey. If you are looking for someone to blame then blame the owner of the Cleveland team and blame Shoeless Joe. But how Comiskey gets the mud on him for this one is beyond me."

(Bill - In Burgessland, Commie will always be the bad guy. Why? Because I detest the scumbag.)

"I say bull to Comiskey's payroll being the lightest around. He had three players earning the highest for their positions.

(Bill - You say his payroll wasn't the lowest, I disagree. If I'm proven wrong, OK. But I will believe it until I'm shown otherwise. 3 players do not make a team. And you must remember, we are talking VERY good players. He was getting quality. So even if his payroll wasn't the lowest, considering his quality, he was under-paying for the value he was receiving.)

"How is that cheap? Comiskey was paying top dollar for players."

(Bill - Yes, Commie did pay good money for Collins/Jackson. I think it was $45K for Jackson, which proved Joe's value, and then Joe get's $6K per yr.!! So while he paid good money, he paid his players dirt, compared to their value.)

"The entire AL was paying more on average then the NL. Yes the White Sox were a money making team. How is that bad? Comiskey did not under pay his players. Again how is the highest salaries for their position being underpaid?"

(Bill - It is not hard to pay a guy the most for his position, and still under-pay him. Depends on his value to the team overall. Buck Weaver was the best 3B in BB and was paid $6K per. That is underpaid, even if Buck was the highest paid 3B. I'd have felt that Weaver was a $10-11K man. Weaver was the only 3B Cobb wouldn't bunt on. So Commie was getting so much more value than he paid for. And Schalk was the best catcher in BB and got $7K per. Much more value than was paid for. WAY under-paid.

Bill Burgess

HackWilson

01-11-2005, 10:04 PM

Jackson was getting paid $6,000 because he agreed on it. Comiskey did not make that contract. That was the contract that he signed when he was in Cleveland. Bill Veeck has said that Joe Jackson was one of the worst negotiators he has ever seen in baseball. How was that that Joe Jackson signed his contract? You dont think they could have taken advantage of him do you?

cubbieinexile

01-12-2005, 01:38 AM

So should Rolen get paid 25 million dollars because he is the best thirdbasemen? A baseball players true value is an arbitrary number. You can argue until you are blue in the face that a player should be paid this or that but unless you got the cash and a team then whatever your opinion on what a ballplayer should have gotten 80 years ago is meaningless. It doesn't really matter that you think the highest paid thirdbasemen should have gotten more money the fact is that Comiskey out of all the owners was willing to pay him the most. Comiskey could have paid him anything he wanted, he chose to pay him the most.

I wasn't talking about ARod and the 2000's. I was talking about the early 90's when player salaries escalated from the heights of 2 million a year to 7 million a year in only a season or two.

You seem to have some sense of what ballplayers were getting paid back then. If that is so then you should know that without really doing a lot of research that in all probability Comiskey's payroll was greater then any NL teams payroll. Also the Sox had what around a 20 man roster. I listed 10 of those players salaries and all are above average except for McMullin and Swede and by a lot too. If half the payroll is above average and by a lot then the other ten would have to be paid virtually nothing just to get to average for the League. Those 10 players account for 30,000 odd dollars. I have read accounts that his payroll that year was $85,000.

Look at our own times and their times. If a team has three players that are the highest paid for their position do they usually have a low payroll? Do they have the lowest? Connie Mack broke up his team because he thought the payroll was getting to high. That was why Comiskey was able to get Eddie Collins. So one cheapskate wasn't willing to spend the "rightful" amount of money on a player and the supposedly cheap Comiskey is.

To me Comiskey out of all the owners in the AL has shown during this time that he was willing to spend money on players. He built a baseball palace and he needed the seats filled to make money. He was the precursor to George Steinbrenner.

How was that that Joe Jackson signed his contract? You dont think they could have taken advantage of him do you?

How is that Comiskey's fault?

No matter how much people want to stereotype Joe Jackson has being this stupid country dolt the fact is he was still an adult. He was 25 years old when he signed that contract. The contract was not to sell his soul to the devil but to play baseball. There were steps he could have taken, avenues he could have gone down but did not. Does that mean it is all his fault? No, but he does share the blame.

Bill Burgess

01-12-2005, 06:50 AM

Cubbie,

This is amusing. You are the very first person I've come across to defend Mr. Comiskey as not being a cheap owner. And I hope the last. Where ever you came by this unique perspective, I have no idea.

I will say that all the other owners were also cheap. Why? Because the "reserve clause" allowed them to be. As you said, Mr. Comiskey was allowed by the rules to pay his players, whatsoever he desired, and they were in no position of equality to negociate. In fact, when it came to salaries, there really was no such thing as owner/player negociations. Didn't exist. Why? Because the "reserve clause" didn't require it to exist. The owner dictated, the player accepted, or held out, and then either sat out the season, like Kling/Baker, or signed for whatever was offered.

Just because an owner pays a high price to acquire a player, doesn't require him to pay him fairly. The reason an owner pays a high price, is because the other owner doesn't have to sell. So supply/demand, market forces enter into that equasion. Not so in salary matters. The "reserve clause" effectively shut out any and all market forces. There was only one way a player could express his discontent with a low salary. He could play sub-par during the season. But then he is committing professional suicide. Harri-Kari. He then lowers his value on the open market.

Your defense of Comiskey is valient but futile, Cubbie. Comiskey probably charged his bench warmers to sit in his dugout. They probably paid HIM to be White Sox. And he probably billed the team for each little amenity he could get away with.

Bill Burgess

Imapotato

01-12-2005, 08:12 AM

Yes Comiskey was cheap but why does he get so much venom
and a 10x worst jerk like Branch Rickey get lauded?

Branch Rickey did one thing for baseball, Jackie Robinson, and he did it not out of some honorable tactic, but because Jackie was cheap and he was looking foward to getting more Negro Players cheaply

Branch Rickey, when Austin McHenry died of a brain tumor refused to send flowers on behalf of the club at the request of the players.

Said Rickey "Flowers ain't gonna bring him back"

That guy was pure evil

cubbieinexile

01-12-2005, 10:10 AM

Cubbie,
This is amusing. You are the very first person I've come across to defend Mr. Comiskey as not being a cheap owner. And I hope the last. Where ever you came by this unique perspective, I have no idea.
You keep villifying Comiskey and saying the players had no options. They did have options. In fact in the time period we are talking about ballplayers had an options that most other players did not. If they did not like what they were getting they could go to the Federal League.

If Eddie didn't like his contract when he first negotiated it he could have left the AL and gone to the federal league. Heck if more players had done that it would be the federal league that is standing today and not the MLB. The players had a chance to set themselves free. Or if you don't want to be that pie in the sky they could have been much better off by choosing the federal league. Instead the players chose the "bondage" of the cheapskate owners.

And he probably billed the team for each little amenity he could get away with.
Again how is this such a monstrosity? Modern owners of businesses do this all the time? I work in a field where you must buy your work clothes, and god forbid you must wash them. I work in a field in which I don't get a per diem for food. I must buy my own lunch if I am hungry. I work in a field in which I must supply my own transportation to get to work. I work in a field in which I must supply some of the equipment that is essential to my job. I live in 2005 not in 1917. I'm thinking most people on this board have to do almost all of things I just listed to be employed as well. How exactly is charging to clean uniforms such damning proof of his evilness?

rich

01-12-2005, 02:00 PM

O.K., my name is ,say ,Buck Weaver. It's 1916,'17,'18 etc... Mr.Cubbie, where exactly are they playing those Federal League games? I'd like to sign up. Maybe I'll give my buddy Rebel Oakes a call to see if he's still managing!

Bill Burgess

01-12-2005, 04:15 PM

Cubbie,

Yes, the ML players had the option of the FL, but it only existed for 2 seasons, 1914-15! You are chatting as if that was a long term choice the players had.

For those 2 seasons, the ML had to pony up better contracts to their players. Cobb went from $15K to $20K.

Speaker worked his owner so well, he went from a basic salary of $9K in 1913, to a 2 yr. package of $36K, or $18K per. But it wasn't basic, all bonus. And when the Feds folded in late '15, Spoke's owner went and kicked the legs out from the package, thereby returning Tris to his 1913 salary of $9K. Tris couldn't believe his eyes when the contract arrived in the mail. He thought it was a bad joke. When he found out it was no joke, he went Texas ballistic. Refused to even report. When his owner told him to report, Tris took that as a sign that his demands would be satisfied. But at spring training, his owner, never even said anything. Tris found out he was traded to Cleveland by reading it in the papers. Isn't that sweet? How players were treated without such basic respect?

Collins, W. Johnson worked their owners for raises. Connie Mack couldn't meet the competition. He won the pennant in '14, but came in 4th in attendance due to blue laws which prevented baseball on Sundays. So Connie had to sell everyone to prevent them from jumping to the Feds. Couldn't raise anyone. Plank and Bender jumped anyway.

The only option the players might have done, is to line up behind a credible, viable, non-corrupt labor union. But the players were too chicken to come together to survive better. Part of the problem is that Congress had granted Baseball a waiver from the anti-trust laws. So BB was allowed to act as a monopoly. The Feds died when Judge Landis, before he was a BB commissioner, pocketed the anti-trust lawsuit the Feds brought against the MLs. Without the support of the government, the Feds threw in the towel. But even if the government had supported the Feds, the MLs owners would have simply continued to collude, and acted out a "gentlemen's agreement", to not bid for each others merchandise/products (players).

Bill Burgess

Sashag

01-12-2005, 04:52 PM

As I recall, Walter Johnson was very close to jumping over to the Federal League. Johnson he had even signed a contract with the Chicago Fedals. Johnson's signing was a big deal to ML owners because the team refused to let the public know how much Johnson signed for-this led to a belief that the FL would take away all of the ML's best players.

Johnson fought Griffith for the best contract offer. Griffith insisted that Johnson was his property for the 1915 and 1916 seasons because he had signed with them previously.

At the end of the year Johnson changed his mind and signed with the Senators for the 1915 season. -Sasha

HackWilson

01-12-2005, 05:00 PM

How is that Comiskey's fault?

No matter how much people want to stereotype Joe Jackson has being this stupid country dolt the fact is he was still an adult. He was 25 years old when he signed that contract. The contract was not to sell his soul to the devil but to play baseball. There were steps he could have taken, avenues he could have gone down but did not. Does that mean it is all his fault? No, but he does share the blame.
I didnt say he was dumb, I just said he couldnt read. Maybe he probably figured out how they took advantage of him and then...............

How exactly is charging to clean uniforms such damning proof of his evilness?
Can you play baseball as well as Shoeless Joe? Are you working in MLB. If so, you should throw a game or something to show your owner your not kidding around.

cubbieinexile

01-12-2005, 08:47 PM

You are ignoring the point. The Federal League folded because they could not compete with MLB for the players. The selfish greedy owners succesfully fought off the federal league by catering to the players greed. In other words they bribed the players to stay. If the players had jumped ship it would have been the Majors in desperate straights and not the Federal League. Instead the players took advantage of the Federal League by taking the bribe. A short term payout for a lifetime of servitude. I'm sorry but I feel no sympathy for a bunch of short-sighted greedy adults. At least with the owners you had a bunch of greedy adults that thought long term. The owners were not noble gentlemen and the players were not noble savages. They were human beings with the same faults and weaknesses. Pretending one had more or only seeing it in one and ignoring it in the other is wrong.

I refuse to pretend that adults are sheep and helpless victims. Every man has a choice. Players in the late 60's and 70's made a choice. They chose to band together and to think of each other. Superstars and scrubs fighting together for the common cause. Can that be honestly said any other time in the 20th century before they did it?

I didnt say he was dumb, I just said he couldnt read. Maybe he probably figured out how they took advantage of him and then...............
Do you know your strengths and weaknesses? Do you ignore your weaknesses or do you try to mitigate them?

Joe years later took Comiskey to court over pay. But that case was not about his salary in Cleveland or the contract he signed there. I'm thinking that if he was willing to sue later on that he knew exactly how much he agreed on in 1915. Just because you can't read doesn't mean you don't have a tongue when the paycheck comes.

Bill Burgess

01-12-2005, 09:56 PM

Cubbie,

You are obviously a bright person, and express yourself well, even if we disagree. You do have a bedrock case, that if the players had come together, and acted as a cohesive, deeply intelligent group, perhaps progress could have been made. But I think that would have taken a brilliant band of leaders to light their way, and chart them a faultless course around the pitfalls, both legal and mental.

No such group of legal/social scholars appeared like Moses, or George Washington to assist them through their 100 yrs. of "Valley Forge."

If they had been compelling, persuasive labor organizers, that's one thing. But they would have also had to approach the owners with a viable, credible strategy. One that would have allowed the owners to thrive, while dealing fairly with the players, stars/journeymen, alike.

For instance. If such a group had approached the owners and said, "We have enrolled every player in the league, and we'd like to discuss with you a plan of rewarding players, based on productivity, 3 yr. contracts, no 10 day release clauses, no reserve clauses, etc. We'd like to go over your books with you, and determine a % of a club's profits, to go towards payroll. All trades will result in half of the sale price going to the player. Treatment of players as property/chattel is no longer acceptable.

Of course the owners would have tried to negotiate hard to avoid that, but with the entire league prepared to strike, I think the owners would have caved.

But that never happened then. I wish it could happen now. But today the Players Union is the entity acting too greedy. And it will come back someday.

Back then, the players were far too independent to organize sucessfully, and hence they remained divided, and were conquered. Even the best of them. Jake Ruppert said that if he had paid Ruth $200K, he still wouldn't have over-paid him. DiMag never got his true value, because Ed Barrow was only willing to give him $6K raises, at a time. And there was literally nothing Joe could do about it. Cobb was always super-agressive and was probably paid what he was worth. Whenever his boss, Frank Navin, dug in, Cobb would call his pals in the Georgia congress, and they would submit legislation to remove BB's anti-trust waiver. It worked. Ban Johnson/ Frank Navin couldn't afford to take any chances with that exemption.

Joe Jackson was no Cobb, in his agression. His illiteracy terribly inhibited his agression, and hence he came off meek and submissive. Needed his wife Katie to read him everything. He did seek to sue for his backpay in 1923, but I would bet that was the result of 2 yrs. of others browbeating him into it. He himself was the worst possible example of a good, positive, agressive stance towards greedy owners. Gehrig was another chicken. Also look what happened to poor Dickie Kerr, hero of the Black Sox, at the hands of Commie.

Bill Burgess

Imapotato

01-13-2005, 12:23 AM

Actually the players DID have a union

The PPBA IIRC

1st led by Chief Zimmer in order to stop NL jumpers to the AL, then when Yankee CF David Fultz was injured and he was a lawyer, he took over and created the Player's Fraternity in 1912, Cobb and Mathewson were among the officers.

When it broke down in 1918...well looked what happened the next year

Cobb fans will enjoy WHO was responsible

August 6, 1912: Inspired in part by the Ty Cobb suspension and the Tigers' brief strike in May, the formation of a Players' Fraternity is announced, headed by attorney and former player Dave Fultz. Leading players include Cobb, Christy Mathewson, Mickey Doolan, and Jake Daubert. The goals are to oppose contract violations, rowdyism, and anything that may "impair a player's ability." At one point, a strike will be called for a Brooklyn attempt to send an obscure player, Harry Kraft, down to Newark, but many teams balk at the strike call, and it is rescinded.

» September 6, 1912: Former major leaguer Dave Fultz announces the formation of the Player's Fraternity, to improve the lot of players. Within two months the group will claim membership of 300 members.

» February 14, 1917: Dave Fultz, president of the Players Fraternity, calls off a strike set to begin within the week. One of demands of the union was to abolish the ten-day clause, in which a team ceases to pay a injured player after he has been out of action for ten days. Organized Baseball officially severs relations with the union, leaving the players without representation.

Bill Burgess

01-13-2005, 08:02 AM

I had mentioned in an earlier post, that they did have a union. However, their "Moses", never showed up. No band of brilliant visionaires to lead them out of their wilderness. And far too few players signed up. I doubt they had anything approaching 300 enrollees. Announcing a goal, and meeting it are 2 different things. But at least some were thinking along the right lines. Just weren't gifted enough to pull it off. And don't blame TC for its flop. He lent his good name.

Bill Burgess

Appling

01-13-2005, 06:13 PM

If such a group had approached the owners and said, "We have enrolled every player in the league, and we'd like to discuss with you a plan of rewarding players, based on productivity, 3 yr. contracts, no 10 day release clauses, no reserve clauses, etc. We'd like to go over your books with you, and determine a % of a club's profits, to go towards payroll. All trades will result in half of the sale price going to the player. Treatment of players as property/chattel is no longer acceptable.
Interesting proposals here. I'm sorry it never happened; MLB would be healthier today if it had.
I always wondered why MLB (and other team sports) never accepted pay or bonuses based on performance. I believe baseball specifically forbids bonuses based on achieving predetermined goals (such as 100 RBI or 40 Hr or .300 BA or 20 wins). I don't really understand why the players union objects to bonuses based on such performance standards.

I don't know what a "10-day release clause" is. Can someone explain?

I remember back in the late 1940's and early '50's, Sport Magazine had a feature just about every year on "Baseball's Reserve Clause". Teams kept that right because Congress granted them exemption from Anti-Trust Laws.

Half the sales price for a player goes to the player? I don't remember that ever being discussed. What would happen if it was just a straight player-for-player swap -- (no cash involved)?

Cobb was a top star and drew high wages for a ballplayer of his day -- but I believe Cobb became RICH only because he had the foresight to invest much of his money on a new business in Georgia -- with a product called "Coca-Cola". Rogers Hornsby (Cobb's NL counter-part) also made top money for a ballplayer but his investments went mainly into horse racing bets. Turns out that Coke was a better bet!

Imapotato

01-13-2005, 06:17 PM

I had mentioned in an earlier post, that they did have a union. . . . And don't blame TC for its flop. He lent his good name.
Didn't BLAME Cobb, Bill.
I said he was responsible for the strongest union, until the 70's

The downfall was when Dave Fultz (a lawyer and former player) left as its head

Bill Burgess

01-13-2005, 06:46 PM

Luke,

"I believe baseball specifically forbids bonuses based on achieving predetermined goals (such as 100 RBI or 40 Hr or .300 BA or 20 wins). I don't really understand why the players union objects to bonuses based on such performance standards."

(Bill - BB business practices have seldom made sense. I would personally like to see a standardized salary structure, with a system of bonus' based on stat productivity. How could any reasonable person argue against such a common sense plan?)

"I don't know what a "10-day release clause" is. Can someone explain?"

(Bill - In the old days, whenever a player couldn't play for 10 consecutive games, his club was entitled to drop him from the team, and owe him no further compensation. Mind you, it didn't have to, just could.)

"Half the sales price for a player goes to the player? I don't remember that ever being discussed. What would happen if it was just a straight player-for-player swap -- (no cash involved)?"

(Bill - No cash? No percentage.)

Bill Burgess

shoelessjoe

04-03-2005, 07:17 AM

"Shoeless Joe Jackson" was found NOT GUILTY by a
Supreme Court Jury....definitely belongs in the HOF! . :mad:

And as far as I'm concerned, so does "Pete Rose"

The All-time leader in hits and he's not recognized
because of his gambling problem on and off the field?

If this is the case.....then to hell with Barry Bonds HR record!

It's okay to take steroids and beat your wife? . :grouchy

cubbieinexile

04-03-2005, 09:19 PM

Joe Jackson was not put on trial to decide whether or not he threw the world series. Throwing the world series was not a crime. Still not sure if it is a crime nowadays. The government had to prove that by somehow throwing the world series paying fans were somehow defrauded. In otherwords they had to prove that fans were not entertained. Because of course nobody can sue or press charges becasue they lost money on bets, because of course gambling is illegal. That is why wrestlers do not get hauled off to jail even though the bouts are rigged.

The actual charge was conspiracy to defraud. I Which their actions were in the gray area for this. Who exactly are they defrauding? The people they were defrauding (people who bet on the series) were committing a crime anyway so their contractual rights are null and void.

Also of course it certainly helps when the confessions are stolen and thus not allowed into record.

Here are the charges:
(1) conspiring to defraud the public, (2) conspiring to defraud Sox catcher Ray Schalk, (3) conspiring to commit a confidence game, (4) conspiring to injure the business of the American League, and (5) conspiring to injure the business of Charles Comiskey.

Asd for Comiskey the defense showed that despite the fix Comiskey was making more money now then before the fix.

Here is some of the closing arguments for the defense
there may have been an agreement entered into by the defendants to take the gamblers' money, but it has not been shown that the players had any intention of defrauding the public or bringing the game into ill repute. They believed that any arrangement they may have made was a secret one and would, therefore, reflect no discredit on the national pastime of injure the business of their employer as it would never be detected

The final blow to the case came with the Judges instructions
He told them that to return a guilty verdict they must find the players conspired "to defraud the public and others, and not merely throw ballgames."

So as you can see the case at least from a legal standpoint was not about throwing baseball games. So when they got the innocent verdict it did not prove that Joe and others did not throw the World Series.

AG2004

04-03-2005, 10:36 PM

In any job, there are actions that are permitted under the law but not under the job's rules.

If I were a psychologist, I would be bound by a code of ethics to keep my patients' records secret. It would be legal for me to reveal a client's anxieties, but, if I were to do so, it would be an ethical violation and I would be kicked out of my profession. At most colleges, if I were an instructor, I couldn't keep my job if I were to date a student. It's legal, but it's a violation of my contract.

Now, let's look at Pete Rose. The rule is simple: you may not bet on games involving your own team. Even if you bet on your team to win, you may push your starting pitcher longer than necessary to cover the bet, and wear out his arm, or do some other things you wouldn't usually do. And, on days you don't make the bet, well, wouldn't that send a signal to gamblers? If you were in debt, couldn't the gambler put you in a position where you hampered your team's performance sometimes?

This is why betting on baseball or throwing games can get you kicked out of the game for life. Wife beating, although it can land you in jail, doesn't result in the warping of baseball games. Betting on games or fixing them will do that, and that's why baseball can't tolerate it. It's just like why psychological associations can't tolerate members revealing patients' secrets. For the profession, it's an unforgivable act, the ultimate betrayal of standards.

Jackson and Rose violated those most crucial rules of baseball, they got caught, and they were expelled from the game. They don't belong in the HOF.

Blackout

04-19-2005, 08:49 PM

Jackson or Rose?

ballparks

04-19-2005, 09:06 PM

I'd rather have neither.

leecemark

04-19-2005, 11:23 PM

Neither would be my prefered option too.

Bluesteve32

04-19-2005, 11:35 PM

I concur, neither.

Imapotato

04-20-2005, 12:10 AM

None of the above

Although I'd like Buck Weaver reinstated, and a shrine set up in Cooperstown for him...poor man died broken hearted

csh19792001

04-20-2005, 12:46 AM

No definitive proof of Jackson throwing anything. Rose admittedly bet on his own team for years, and bet against his own team.

Jackson was also a better baseball player, but that's moot, really.

Cougar

04-20-2005, 01:00 AM

Neither's probably the preferred option, but if I must choose, I choose the dead guy.

Gambling should cost you, at the least, any enjoyment of enshrinement, at least on this earthly plane.

leecemark

04-20-2005, 07:18 AM

-Chris, I've never heard even a suggestion of Rose betting against his own team. I'm not sure its ever come out that he even bet on his own team. He did bet on baseball and that in and of itself merited his ban. Its not as bad as throwing or, at the very least, profiting from your teammates conspiracy to throw a World Series. What is the source for your allegation?

2Chance

04-20-2005, 08:58 AM

"Neither" would be the best answer, but I take it that Blackout805 is asking "if you had to choose...."

I believe it is a whole lot less clear that Jackson was guilty of wrongdoing, so I voted for him. On the other hand, if Pete had not bet on baseball (and I think he did bet in favor of the Reds, not that it makes any difference) he would be a shoo-in and most people would have been delighted to see him there.

For Jackson, the controversy has actually raised his status in some people's eyes. How many other guys who perennially finished 2nd or 3rd in batting races are seriously talked about as Hall of Famers, especially those with careers as short as Joe's? (You don't have to dig out the high BA Stats; I remember that some of those years he was inhuman. Just saying however well he did for a few years, he couldn't top the league.)

Honus Wagner Rules

04-20-2005, 09:08 AM

Rose admittedly bet on his own team for years, and bet against his own team.
As far as I know Rose has never admitted he against his own team.

Captain Cold Nose

04-20-2005, 09:11 AM

tonjes

04-20-2005, 09:21 AM

i can't vote for either of these guys as well.

Bleacherbee

04-20-2005, 09:32 AM

Both, because they both had careers that warrant HOF induction.

moviegeekjan

04-20-2005, 10:13 AM

Neither ... both broke rules that the HOF goes by

Cooperstown is also the site for baseball's supreme museum, and both Rose and Jackson are represented in displays. That is enough.

redlegsfan21

04-20-2005, 10:27 AM

Rose admittedly bet on his own team for years, and bet against his own team.
Have you read "My Prison Without Bars", he states that he never went against the Reds or the Phillies.

Ex-Expo fan

04-20-2005, 10:33 AM

I completely disagree and would go with both being inducted in the HOF. I don't see why betting on baseball would be so bad for the sport itself (by disregarding the economical aspect of the game). Joe Jackson is now dead, and I think it was a severe enough punishment to ban him from the sport he loved. Other players in the HOF have done far worse than betting on a GAME. Since when should the rules in sports be harsher than the ones outside of it? Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are all-time greats, both held records while they were playing the game, their personal tendencies shouldn't be included when reflecting on their careers. I believe that a lifelong ban in the major leagues is enough punishment, no need to have a lifelong ban in the HOF. Today players who cheat on the game get a 10 days suspension, compare that to a lifelong ban.
And from my point of view, both players brought much more to the game than they took away.

julusnc

04-20-2005, 10:45 AM

It's the same old song and dance.Either you want the top two greatest banned Major League players inducted into the HOF or ya don't.There is no middle ground.

csh19792001

04-20-2005, 11:53 AM

The baseball betting line is a run line, so betting against the Reds is not betting on them to lose. If Rose was as much of a gambler as claimed, he would not have bet the Reds each time. Most gamblers could care less about the teams they bet on, just as long as they covered.

Exactly.

And Mark- Rose himself admitted to betting on baseball while managing the Reds. All the evidence in the Dowd report (betting slips and phone calls) confirms this. Although he didn't admit it explicitly, as CCN said, it doesn't take a genius to realize that he was going to cover (hedge) his bets some of the time.

Clockwork

04-20-2005, 12:01 PM

Jackson should go in. Rose when he dies.

Metal Ed

04-20-2005, 12:07 PM

And Mark- Rose himself admitted to betting on baseball while managing the Reds. All the evidence in the Dowd report (betting slips and phone calls) confirms this. Although he didn't admit it explicitly, as CCN said, it doesn't take a genius to realize that he was going to cover (hedge) his bets some of the time.
Wait a minute. Nowhere in the Dowd report does it accuse Rose of betting against his own team. In fact, in all the years since the incident, no one's ever made that accusation at Rose.

I think a little evidence is in order, Chris.

I find the idea that Rose would have intentionally managed his team to lose in order to cover his bets hard to believe. Besides the complete lack of evidence - Rose was far too competitive to do that. It's probably the same hyper-competitive nature that led to his gambling addiction in the first place.

Captain Cold Nose

04-20-2005, 12:17 PM

I thought Dowd has gambling slips with Rose's handwriting, which did indeed include Reds games.
Nobody's making the accusation Rose did not manage properly. But, the actual teams are secondary whe it comes to betting on baseball. I think it is very possible Rose could bet for or against the Reds (again, this is not to win or lose, but to cover) without really thinking about it. I don't think I have ever seen even the most ardent of Rose's detractors make the suggestion he used his wagering to influence how he managed.

Metal Ed

04-20-2005, 12:45 PM

>>>>The baseball betting line is a run line,

What does that mean? One bets that the score will be 7-5 or something like that?

>>>so betting against the Reds is not betting on them to lose.

So, that means what, he bets that the Reds will win, say, 7-5, not 9-3? Am I following you correctly?

I guess it's time for me to get up on my soapbox again. :)

Why Pete Rose should be re-instated

The argument against Rose goes that he broke the rules; therefore, he should be punished with a lifetime ban.

Which is about as sensible as saying that a man who stole a car broke the rules of society, so he should be punished with a lifetime sentence in jail.

I think that people should be punished in proportion to the crime that they commit. I think that when people break the rules, they should be punished, but that the punishment should fit the crime.

I don't see how any reasonable person can possibly say that Rose has been punished in proportion to his crimes. It is clearly cruel and unusual punishment. What did he do that was so bad, that we have proof of?

He bet on the outcomes of baseball games. Wow! He bet that this team would beat that team, by this or that score.

And that's worth a lifetime ban? With the things that some of the other guys in the Hall of Fame have done? Let me get this straight: a man with a .366 lifetime batting average, and who jumped into the stands and beat a guy up, is in the Hall; the guy who was the first to get 3000 hits but was also in large part responsible for the color barrier is in the Hall; a man with 714 home runs who held his manager by the heels out the back of a moving train is in the Hall; a guy who repeatedly broke the rules about defacing the baseball, then admitted to it, is in the Hall (make that several of those guys, actually) - but the all time hits leader isn't in the Hall - for putting money on who would win games.

Is it me? Don't those seem like some pretty strange moral priorities right there? Adultery and drunkenness and violence and racism and on-the-field cheating, are OK. But place money on who will a game - utterly inexcusable.

I just don't see how, in light of all this, Rose's punishment fits his crimes.

It's the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Humanitarian Hall of Fame. Players are inducted based on their performance, not their personal character. Yes, I know that when they started this whole thing, it was written that one of the standards for entry into the Hall of Fame should be good character and behavior. That was the theory, but that hasn't happened in actual practice.

Now. I can see where, if he had bet that the Reds would lose, and then purposely managed his team in such a way so as to make them lose, then that'd warrant the ultimate penalty. If he had done that, there'd be no excuse for his behavior- he'd be essentailly throwing games. The outcomes of games would essentially be fixed - making it no longer an actual competition, but a charade, with the fans as the boobs who are duped.

I'd say a lifetime ban would be in order for that.

But there's no evidence for that behavior. AT ALL. The Dowd report makes no mention of it. The baseball men who investigated Rose, and who made the decision to ban him, and who still refuse to reinstate him, have never made that accusation against him.

Call me crazy, but I think that men are innocent until proven guilty. I don't get this: We determine, with undeniable evidence, that a man is guilty of one crime (betting on baseball).....so then it is OK to just assume - this time without any evidence - that he is also guilty of another, separate crime (betting against his own team).

Captain Cold Nose

04-20-2005, 01:02 PM

You're following me, Metal Ed. The runs line (and money line) are not as straight forward as the lines for football and basketball, which is why baseball does not get nearly the gambling action as the other sports. I worked as a sports handicapper for a little bit, and, believe me, very few were calling to find out what the lines were.
Baseball has always had the one cardinal rule, that of gambling on the sport. It has resulted in player disqualification for over a century. While other sports have limited punishments to single-year-suspensons, baseball has been consistent in dolling out the penalty in regards to gambling regardless of whether the player is Pete Rose or Buddy Biacalana. He knew full well the rule. He knew full well the punishment. Depending on whether you believe it or not, he was warned about his gambling several times before the penalty was finally dealt. I think the Michael Sokolove biography that came out after the banning was trash, but too many have corroborated on many points to believe Rose was just casual in his habits or even limited himself. And, there are the betting slips with Reds games on them.

Jennifer

04-20-2005, 01:03 PM

The Hall of Fame is intended to recognize greatness and by that standard Jackson and Rose should be enshrined. By the same token it is an honor, albeit an earned one. Jackson and Rose both brought dishonor to the game. Jackson is long dead and his greatness needs to be formally recognized. Rose brought dishonor to the game not only by his gambling but his repeated denials and his wrongful disparaging of those who made him accountable for his actions. His recent confessions were to sell books and an effort to get into the Hall. This man should not be honored with enshrinment while he is still alive. Enshrinment should occur only after it is too late for him to enjoy it even if he is reinstated into Baseball while he is still living.

Enshrinment after death might also be the answer with regards those like Bonds who have used steriods.

Metal Ed

04-20-2005, 01:11 PM

>>>>>He knew full well the rule. He knew full well the punishment. Depending on whether you believe it or not, he was warned about his gambling several times before the penalty was finally dealt......too many have corroborated on many points to believe Rose was just casual in his habits or even limited himself.

Then he is an idiot for breaking the rule, and he is an arrogant idiot for doing it so flagrantly and openly without fear of any consequences. He is an idiot, and an arrogant idiot at that. Two unpleasant characteristics, but not ones that ought to be punishable by a lifetime ban.

>>>>>>And, there are the betting slips with Reds games on them.[/QUOTE]

But no one makes the claim that he bet against the Reds. Also, I am not too sure that there are even betting slips with the Reds on them. I have a summary of the Dowd report at home, I will look it up.

Captain Cold Nose

04-20-2005, 01:33 PM

If any case will remove the all-or-nothing distinction about gambling on games, it's probably Rose's. I honestly feel he, like most serious sports gamblers, separated the gambling from the actual sport.

2Chance

04-20-2005, 01:40 PM

>>>>He knew full well the rule. He knew full well the punishment.

That's the crux of the whole matter. If, in the earlier example, the punishment for stealing a car is life in prison, a car thief should get life whether we think that's really fair or not.

After that point, maybe we could look to see if the punishment fits the crime. But if we decide it doesn't, that still doesn't mean we should put all car thieves back out on the street.

Pete is banned forever (not for life) because he bet on baseball, something he has finally admitted. Sadly, the ban is only right.

Metal Ed

04-20-2005, 01:50 PM

You may be right. If someone told me that the penalty for stealing a car was a lifetime in prison, but I thought I was above the law and went a stole a car anyway, you'd pretty much HAVE to put me in prison, or else you'll get everyone stealing cars left and right. I guess you're right; not enforcing laws will only lead to chaos. I still think, though, the law itself in this case is completely bogus, and ought to be examined. But that is, as you intimated, a separate issue from the flouting of said law.

What a sad, sorry situation this is.

2Chance

04-20-2005, 01:59 PM

What a sad, sorry situation this is.
Man, you said it. :(

Roy Hobbs

04-21-2005, 12:37 AM

moviegeekjan

04-21-2005, 02:12 AM

I honestly don't think he had the intellectual capacity to really understand the nuances of what he was accused of doing.
His lack of mental abilities is far more "urban legend" than based on factual data. He may have been illiterate, but a number of his teammates have indicated that he was much brighter than given credit for.

Jennifer

04-21-2005, 07:57 AM

I think the only thing we can even argue as far as Joe Jackson goes is that he may have taken money to throw the game.
What is there to argue about regarding whether Jackson money. He testified under oath to a grand jury that he was promised $20,000, was paid $5,000 and complained to his teamates after the Series when he was not paid the remaining $15,000. This is somewhat different than what was portrayed in the movie Eight Men Out which in this aspect deviated from Asinof's book Eight Men Out.

What, if anything, he did to actually throw the Series is unclear but the Sox lost the Series and he took money to accomplish that result. It is absurd under the circumstances to place the burden on others to prove he participated actively. There is no way to know if he tried as hard as he could. Nor is there any way of knowing if he had come-up in game nine in the ninth with the bases loaded, two outs and the Sox down one what Jackson would have done. That his teamates might not have needed Jackson's help shouldn't be a reason to exonerate him. But as I said in an earlier response he does belong in the Hall.

west coast orange and black

04-21-2005, 11:56 AM

[Rose] should not be honored with enshrinment while he is still alive. Enshrinment should occur only after it is too late for him to enjoy it even if he is reinstated into Baseball while he is still living.maybe "lifetime" ban can be taken literally. ;)

FrenchyLefebvre

04-21-2005, 12:10 PM

Here's the thing, though: Joe Jackson WAS HOF eligible for many, many years. The HOF rule was not even made until 1991, when Rose's time was approaching. So, honestly, why would Joe get in now? Apparently, he was already a lost cause in all that time prior to 1991.

Rose should have been in the Hall -- just out of baseball. The HOF rule was non-existent - even at the time of his banning in 1989.

If the HOF rule had been in place for, say, Jackson and the Sox, then no question on Rose. And Joe's supporters had all that time... even after he died in, what, the 1950s?

Heck, if we really want to get down to it, even the other Black Sox weren't officially banned from being eligible for the Hall until 1991!!!! Voters throughout the years (even decades!) could have actually voted Eddie Cicotte or Claude Williams in, had they had HOF worthy careers otherwise, if they wanted to.
Perhaps this is the underlying reason Rose has any support still lingering at all, and is even still discussed and debated? IMO, otherwise, the HOF issue would have been cut and dry from the get-go.

As far as the games Rose didn't bet on, why the moron didn't say on the CNN interview when he was asked regarding such games: "Well, Paula, obviously I'm gonna bet when Mario Soto's out there for us and we're not facing Nolan Ryan... and Eric Davis isn't limping" is beyond me. He's just so used to being an arrogant, stupid jerk about it.
But if Rose had done anything remotely questionable during a game, no doubt somebody - anybody - would have stated suspicion by now -- (a la Canseco). especially a pitcher being "misused". It was always obvious Rose always wanted to win -- just had sense to bet when he thought his team's odds were better, naturally.

Metal Ed

04-22-2005, 07:48 AM

I think the only thing we can even argue as far as Joe Jackson goes is that he may have taken money to throw the game. But the guy hit .375 in the series and was certainly not "throwing the game" on offense. I have no idea what his fielding stats were but unless we have evidence that he was doing stuff while in the field that intentionally allowed the other team to score I don't think there's really any evidence at all that he actually *threw* any game.

The fact that he hit .375 could have been a cover for the fact that he really was throwing the games. The players of that era had throwing games down to a science. For example, the great game thrower Hal Chase would perform exceptionally well in games that he would throw - get 2 or 3 hits, make diving stops, etc., to cover himself in case anyone accused him of accepting a bribe for throwing a game. His performance would exonerate him from any wrong doing.

Yet at key points in the game, he would make critical moves that would cause his team to lose. It could be something as subtle as where he positioned himself in the field - arranging himself in such a way that an important play could be unsuccessful without Chase appearing to blatantly boot a ball on purpose. Something as subtle as where a player positions himself can have huge effects, especially when working in tandem with other bribed players on the team who are also out of position. They could execute failed plays without being blatant about it. Accepting bribes was so common for that generation of players (due to the stinginess of the owners) that players became highly skilled at subtly throwing games.

The fact that Jackson took money and then complained when his share wasn't as large as promised, is extremely telling. In those days, the winners would get a World Series bonus. The losers didn't get any money - unless they had accepted a bribe to lose the games on purpose. If they thought that they could earn more money from a bribe to throw the game than they could from actually winning the series (since the stingy owners paid only modest bonuses for winning the Series), they would do it. One has to wonder just what the heck Jackson thought he was supposed to be getting paid for after having *lost* the series. He didn't know? Sounds about as believable as Barry Bonds saying he had no clue he was being given illegal drugs.

west coast orange and black

04-22-2005, 02:29 PM

...The argument against Rose goes that he broke the rules; therefore, he should be punished with a lifetime ban.another is that he agreed to that particular punishment.

The fact that he hit .375 could have been a cover for the fact that he really was throwing the games... Sounds about as believable as Barry Bonds saying he had no clue he was being given illegal drugs."could have" inherits "could not have", so your scenario is merely one possibility. one that merits investigation, but a possibility nonetheless.

...Sounds about as believable as Barry Bonds saying he had no clue he was being given illegal drugs.this is an analogy and strays waaay off course.

Metal Ed

04-22-2005, 03:04 PM

this is an analogy and strays waaay off course.

Merely pointing out a double standard: many of those who would grant Jackson the benefit of the doubt would never do the same for Bonds, yet both are equally implausible. You follow?

west coast orange and black

04-22-2005, 03:17 PM

yeah, i follow. but the former involves an admittance, the latter does not.

Metal Ed

04-22-2005, 03:21 PM

Ok, fair enough.

Imapotato

04-22-2005, 03:21 PM

The fact that he hit .375 could have been a cover for the fact that he really was throwing the games. The players of that era had throwing games down to a science. For example, the great game thrower Hal Chase would perform exceptionally well in games that he would throw - get 2 or 3 hits, make diving stops, etc., to cover himself in case anyone accused him of accepting a bribe for throwing a game. His performance would exonerate him from any wrong doing.

Yet at key points in the game, he would make critical moves that would cause his team to lose. It could be something as subtle as where he positioned himself in the field - arranging himself in such a way that an important play could be unsuccessful without Chase appearing to blatantly boot a ball on purpose. Something as subtle as where a player positions himself can have huge effects, especially when working in tandem with other bribed players on the team who are also out of position. They could execute failed plays without being blatant about it. Accepting bribes was so common for that generation of players (due to the stinginess of the owners) that players became highly skilled at subtly throwing games.

The fact that Jackson took money and then complained when his share wasn't as large as promised, is extremely telling. In those days, the winners would get a World Series bonus. The losers didn't get any money - unless they had accepted a bribe to lose the games on purpose. If they thought that they could earn more money from a bribe to throw the game than they could from actually winning the series (since the stingy owners paid only modest bonuses for winning the Series), they would do it. One has to wonder just what the heck Jackson thought he was supposed to be getting paid for after having *lost* the series. He didn't know? Sounds about as believable as Barry Bonds saying he had no clue he was being given illegal drugs.

Well said Ed

I will dispute that the Pirates ever threw a World Series, since Dreyfuss was very generous to his players even when they lost.

The A's on the other hand, I could see them throwing the Series

64Cards

04-22-2005, 05:13 PM

If they have proof that Rose dumped games as a manager or player, keep 'em out. If not, let the voters decide. But I could understand someone not voting him in, for betting on baseball. That is the one unforgivable sin for a professional athlete or coach, just like treason would be for a politician or soldier.

Rose is about the biggest knucklehead that ever lived. Even if he is a gambling junkie, good lord, there is no shortage of sports events besides baseball for him to bet on. Horse racing, football and basketball ought to be enough for the dimwit to blow his money on.

Jennifer

04-22-2005, 05:22 PM

Gamblers look for an edge. Rose had a big edge in betting Baseball. There was not only his expertise but the inside information available to him. Someone like Rose who apparently an addict couldn't resisit betting on the sport where his odds of winning were the greatest.

64Cards

04-23-2005, 07:40 AM

Well, Pete thought he had a big edge and could clean up, the same way most gamblers think that they know so much about sports that they know whom is going to win. But I would be willing to bet [bad pun] his success rate wasn't much better than someone else who pays serious attention to the stats, etc. Which means if he's doing real well he may win 52% of the time. To me, that's not worth risking your career, reputation and a legacy over. :confused:

Captain Cold Nose

04-25-2005, 11:56 AM

The A's on the other hand, I could see them throwing the Series
Do you have a theory about 1914?

Wagner33

04-26-2005, 01:07 PM

If I had to go with one, I'd pick Jackson. He seemed to change his mind after the fix was in. Plus, he took the cash and really didn't seem to "throw" the series at all (at least from the plate). Rose just seems like he really doesn't care.

I think both should be recognized for their baseball achievments in the HOF, but with some kind of warning on what they did wrong, etc.

Brad Harris

04-26-2005, 04:35 PM

An individual should be removed from baseball's Ineligible List upon his death.

KHenry14

04-26-2005, 05:14 PM

Well, of the two, the clear choice is Jackson. Partly because the evidence against him is somewhat ambigous and the evidence against Rose is concrete.

Pete knew the punishment before he ever started laying a bet, so he knew that a lifetime ban was a possibility. Secondly, while I agree that there is no evidence that Pete ever bet against the Reds, I do believe that that fact is not relevant. Pete put himself in a position where he could be manipulated by bookies, and right when he got busted he was already telling bookies he wasn't going to pay them. Well, doing that only would ultimately cause him a problem, because at some point some bookie is going to get a leg breaker to tell Pete he had 2 options, pay up, or fix games...or else something bad would happen to him or his family. Now it never came to that, but I think it doesn't take much in the way of an imagination to see that it could very well have gotten to that point. But if he never bets, the situation never arises...thus MLB's ban.

BTW, I am of the opinion that if Pete had merely held a press conference a year after he first was suspended and told the world that he had a gambling addiction (whether it was true or not), begged forgiveness, went to rehab....he'd be in baseball now and certainly in the HOF. But arrogance knows no bounds, and Pete liked gamblilng more than he liked baseball I guess and now it's too late. I think there is little chance of him getting in the HOF until after his death. Ya reap what ye sow.

KH14

64Cards

04-26-2005, 05:46 PM

BTW, I am of the opinion that if Pete had merely held a press conference a year after he first was suspended and told the world that he had a gambling addiction (whether it was true or not), begged forgiveness, went to rehab....he'd be in baseball now and certainly in the HOF. But arrogance knows no bounds, and Pete liked gamblilng more than he liked baseball I guess and now it's too late. I think there is little chance of him getting in the HOF until after his death. Ya reap what ye sow.

KH14
Well said, Monty Burns.

Roy Hobbs

04-29-2005, 11:02 PM

One has to wonder just what the heck Jackson thought he was supposed to be getting paid for after having *lost* the series. He didn't know? Sounds about as believable as Barry Bonds saying he had no clue he was being given illegal drugs.
I take it you've never had any experience with people who have borderline mentally challenged IQs. Barry Bonds is probably college professor material compared to Joe Jackson.

Here's the thing, though: Joe Jackson WAS HOF eligible for many, many years. The HOF rule was not even made until 1991, when Rose's time was approaching. So, honestly, why would Joe get in now? Apparently, he was already a lost cause in all that time prior to 1991.

Rose should have been in the Hall -- just out of baseball. The HOF rule was non-existent - even at the time of his banning in 1989.

If the HOF rule had been in place for, say, Jackson and the Sox, then no question on Rose. And Joe's supporters had all that time... even after he died in, what, the 1950s?
The ban is what keeps Rose out of the hall, not the 1991 rule or more specifically the fact that Rose got caught cheating. If Rose had been allowed on the ballot he still wouldn't have been elected. Many baseball writers now are saying they won't vote Mac in on the first ballot on the *suspicion* that he used steroids. Based on the fact that he lookd bad in a congressional committee hearing and that he openly admitted using a legal supplement several years ago.

I think Rose has successfully martyred himself since 1991, though, and that if he was allowed to get on the ballot he'd probably get in if he made a bunch of teary-eyed speeches about how sorry he is and how much he loves the game.

ADunn44

04-30-2005, 08:56 AM

My Vote goes to Charlie Hustle

Pete Rose Should Be in the Hall of Fame

I wish everyone would get off of Pete Roses’ case, about gambling. It’s the stats and the way he played the game that is important, that is how he earned the moniker or nickname “Charlie Hustle.” I did not need to use sources, except for all the videos I watched and the articles I read about him. Pete Rose should be in Baseballs Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Shame.
I never really got to enjoy watching Pete Rose play, so I had to learn about him, so that I could defend him whenever I would be asked “does Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame”, and almost immediately I came up with numerous stats, and facts about him. I mean the stats and facts would literally roll off my tongue.
I would start out by saying; “It’s the way you play the game and how good you are on the field, not by what you do on your own time.” I would roll off that he is the all-time hits king, with 4,256 hits, the numerous awards he won, such as Rookie of the year in 1963, the 1973 NL MVP, two consecutive gold glove awards 1969-70, led the majors in batting average in 1968-69, 1973, led the majors in On Base Percentage in 1968 and 1979, he also has played the most games of all-time with 3,562, the most career at-bats with 14,053, second all time in doubles, and also the most times on base at 5,929. Needless to say, I think this is good enough to get Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame.
I still feel that there is still more to prove that Pete Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame, and that’s the numerous World Series titles that he won, and the fact that he was the captain all 24 seasons, and that he managed the Reds from 1984-1986.
Pete Rose was also selected to the All-Star game, 17 times in his 24-year career, which also included a stretch of ten years from 1973-1982. Pete is most remembered for the 1970 All-Star Gamewhen he rounded third base in the bottom of the eleventh inning, and bowled over Ray Fosse. That’s the way he played, hard, 110% all the time, whether it was a season game or the exhibition all-star games, he played hard nosed all year round.
As I near the end of my defense of why Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, I would like to say, although he betted on baseball, there are players in the Hall of Fame that did dumber things. For example, Ty Cobb, supposedly the greatest player to play the game killed a man, and played dirty all the time. Babe Ruth, the former home run king, was a compulsive gambler and also a womanizer, and slept with numerous women. Mickey Mantel was a heavy drinker, was always drunk, and screwed anything that walked on two legs, maybe even four legs.
Then we come to the most current shameful things done by either a Hall of Fame member or a future Hall of Fame member, Barry Bonds. All I can say is, “which takes away the integrity of baseball more, using steroids to break storied records, such as season leader in home runs with 73, or chasing a record that is perhaps the most storied, most career home runs, which currently sits at 755.
The worst part in my opinion is that the writers that select the Hall of Fame classes, feel that betting on baseball is worse than killing a man or using steroids to break a few records. I mean come on, all Pete Rose did was bet on baseball, which at first he denied all claims until after mid-2003, then you got guys that were complete drunks or a man-hoe, a cheater, or even a killer, yet everyone would rather have these type of “Icons” in their and not Pete Rose. I think it just goes to show you how pathetic and feeble-minded some people can be, when it comes to choosing people to be a proud fan of that athlete.
It’ll be a great day once people realize that Pete Rose finally deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, but until that day, I will not approve of any records that are broken, until steroids are banned completely from the game, even though there is a new policy, its like a slap on the wrist for first-time offenders.

KHenry14

04-30-2005, 10:21 AM

ADunn...you see, even the most ardent Anti-Rose people would freely admit that Pete did enough to merit induction based upon what he did on the field. As a friend of mine always says "somebody got all those hits".

But the difference between what all those other people did (and Rose was a womanizer too) is that Pete put the integrity of the game in jeopardy. And it wasn't just a one time thing like Jackson, Pete's gambling went on for some time, and he was breaking a rule that was posted in every clubhouse since 1919. He knew darn well what he was doing was against MLB rules, and he didn't care because he was Pete 'freakin' Rose, the King of Cincinnati, and nobody would dare go after him. Well, he was wrong. And then he compounds the wrong by lying for 15 years.

Bottomline is that Pete could have put the results of games into question, potentially making the Reds games more like the WWE than MLB. ;)

So, while your arguement about his on the field performance has merit, there is a lot more to it than that.

KH14

FrenchyLefebvre

04-30-2005, 10:39 AM

The ban is what keeps Rose out of the hall, not the 1991 rule or more specifically the fact that Rose got caught cheating. If Rose had been allowed on the ballot he still wouldn't have been elected. Many baseball writers now are saying they won't vote Mac in on the first ballot on the *suspicion* that he used steroids. Based on the fact that he lookd bad in a congressional committee hearing and that he openly admitted using a legal supplement several years ago.>>>>>>>

<<<I think Rose has successfully martyred himself since 1991, though, and that if he was allowed to get on the ballot he'd probably get in if he made a bunch of teary-eyed speeches about how sorry he is and how much he loves the game.

No comparison whatsoever, IMO, with these two players careers.

Comparing Mac's career with that of Rose is like comparing Guns & Roses to The Rolling Stones or Beatles. Rose would have strolled right in there based on his playing career when first eligible, hence the rule/ban being invented/married in the first place. No way Mac would have had HOF consideration without the spurts of power/homeruns.

IMO, Rose has done nothing remotely "successful" since then. Just the opposite. He has pretty much repelled anyone who was supporting him back in 1991 with his moronic-ness (word invented just for him :cool: Apparently, fans who appreciated what he did on the field care(d) much more than he has.

bigtrain

05-01-2005, 09:54 AM

I think a lifetime ban should be just that. Once they have passed away they should be allowed to enter the HOF if their careers warrant it.

Joe Jackson was one of the greatest hitter of his era and by they way, there is NO PROOF he helped throw the games. An overanxious Judge Landis convicted him without proof.

Pete Rose is the all time hit king and played with more heart than any player since. However he did break the rules and he is rightly punished but no matter what anyone says the hall is incomplete without him.

Finally, if you believe that either of these men do not deserve the HOF then neither does Barry Bonds. Only a true idiot believes he didn't take steriods and I am tired of this "they were not against the rules back then." People, they have been ILLEGAL since 1991 in this country without medical reason.

My two cents and that is all it is worth.

hbinways

05-01-2005, 02:18 PM

neither- both scum. Keep em' OUT.

E.Banks#14

05-01-2005, 02:29 PM

Both, because they both had careers that warrant HOF induction.

I agree with Bleacherbee. The HOF is a the place where the best players of MLB belong, these are two of the best players of alltime.

J W

05-01-2005, 05:58 PM

Given a choice, I am with those who chose Joe Jackson mainly because he is deceased. The players themselves should reap what they sow, and the one cardinal sin in baseball would be to gamble on the sport (and obviously throwing games because of it).

As for Jackson's family, I think they deserve to see their ancestor's bust in Cooperstown. Unfortunately we're already several generations removed from Shoeless Joe; nonetheless...

As for Rose, I can't decide whether I would penalize him as a manager, or period. I know I never want to see him manage an official game again. But that's what Rose wants--he wants the whole deal, to be let in the game and manage again. So he can continue to sit out IMO.

HDH

05-02-2005, 11:32 AM

Joe Jackson:
Regardless if we argue guilt or no guilt, Joe died in 1951; there is no more punishment Joe can possibly suffer. His banishment is a punishment to baseball fans. He should now be eligible for the HOF.

Pete Rose:
The evidence shows Pete did bet on baseball and also bet on baseball games his own team played in. Regardless whether he bet for or against, he bet on baseball and should be banned until he passes away. After that, Pete as a player should be eligible for reasons that I feel Joe Jackson should be eligible now.

leecemark

05-02-2005, 01:35 PM

--How is his banishment a punishment for baseball fans? The Hall exists to honor the greatest players ever to play the game. Honoring a player who dishonored the game in the manner Jackson did seems inconsistent with the purpose of the Hall. I would see his induction as an insult to ever honest player who ever put on a uniform.

bigtrain

05-03-2005, 08:52 AM

If this is the case then Babe Ruth should be banned for his known association with prostitutes and Ty Cobb should be banned because he was blantently racists which more than tarnishes the game.

leecemark

05-03-2005, 09:10 AM

--What players do on their own time is none of my business. Jackson's crimes were against baseball not just public morality.

ADunn44

05-03-2005, 10:13 AM

Pete Rose should be in the Hall right now, thats all there is to it

Appling

05-04-2005, 07:07 PM

Joe Jackson was a great player, but not a "leader". When others on the team decided to take a dive and pressed him to support his stand, he didn't have the self-confidence it would take to oppose them. He was a victim.
He was expelled from baseball ("for life"?). He's dead now. Let him on the ballot. Even so, his election is not a certainty. I think it would be interesting to put him on the ballot, then see if he gets elected.

I think Pete Rose should also be allowed on the HOF ballot. Like Jackson, he should be put on the ballot after he is dead. I think his career records would then get him elected to the Hall.

king_ghidora

05-06-2005, 03:14 PM

It's hard to evulate what 'cheating' is in Baseball. We all know Gaylord Perry made into the hall while finding ways to cheat with his spitter. Spitballs were ruled to have warped the game, just as betting can create motives other than pure victory that warp the game.

So really, the only criteria that should move someone to the Hall Of Fame is their on-field performance. There has been plenty of evidence that Cobb and others were also involved with fixing games and betting, but that Judge Landis didn't want to bother with disciplining Cobb because a) Baseball had suffered enough of a black eye with the 1919 World Series, and b) because Cobb had too much dirt on other players. Thus, we simply look at Cobb's career numbers and decide that he was indeed one of the greatest in history, and holder of Major League records.

Rose, likewise, is a Major League Record holder. He absolutely deserves to enter the Hall. Saying that Rose is out but Perry is in is tantamount to saying that rules don't count so long as you don't get caught breaking them. As for Jackson, sadly, I'd say that he doesn't have the career numbers. I could care less if he was getting paid to take a dive. Most baseball historians agree that the practice wasn't uncommon, and the only spectacular thing was that it was during the World Series, not during the regular season. The fact of the matter is that he doesn't have a long enough career to support HOF credentials. I find that sad, since I believe he would have been one of the all-time greats. But that's just it: he would have been. In summery: 'cheating' is too subjective, so only career numbers can be taken into account. Rose has the numbers, Shoeless Joe doesn't.

leecemark

05-06-2005, 03:27 PM

--The penalty for throwing a spitball is ejection from that game (with perhaps a 10 game supension if you get caught with ball doctoring equipment). The penalty for betting on baseball is permanent ejection from the game. In baseball, as in life, there are different penalties for different offenses.

edsachs1

05-06-2005, 08:22 PM

I think they should at least put Jackson and Rose on the ballot and have voters vote only on the stats. They can keep the lifetime bans, but at least put them were they belong with the elite of baseball. I will be especially angered if they let people like McGwire and Bonds in the Hall when they are clearly cheating.

Bleacherbee

05-06-2005, 09:03 PM

What does it matter. Rizzuto, Mazeroski, and George Kell are in the Hall of Fame. Its not like its this hallowed place.

They get more press from being out of it then they would being in it. It certainly sustains Jackson's legacy moreso than it would if he were admitted.

MasonDixon

05-07-2005, 07:28 AM

I think they should at least put Jackson and Rose on the ballot and have voters vote only on the stats.
Well Jackson was eligible for the Hall of Fame until the ban on ineligible players 15 years ago, and I don't know that he ever received any votes.

Kroxquo

05-07-2005, 07:45 AM

They get more press from being out of it then they would being in it. It certainly sustains Jackson's legacy moreso than it would if he were admitted.
That's a point I've been making for a long time. If not for the ban, Joe Jackson would probably be like Tris Speaker - an elite player largely forgotten except to serious scholars of the game. Pete Rose is more famous for not being in the Hall of Fame than he ever would have been if he was. Neither should be allowed in the Hall, but both benefit from not being there.

edsachs1

05-07-2005, 09:37 AM

Well Jackson was eligible for the Hall of Fame until the ban on ineligible players 15 years ago, and I don't know that he ever received any votes.

Yeah, and I think that was because nobody wanted to vote for him because of his scandal. I think the voters should look only at the stats, not at anything that happened outside of the game (I know both of their scandals involved the game but Jackson just accepted the money and still hit about .400 in the series, and I really did not see what was so bad about Rose unless he bet for the Reds to lose.) You could say that Ruth doesnt belong in because he got drunk nights before game, which could look like the MLB supports getting drunk (I'm not saying Ruth doesnt belong, he was just a good example I could think of). I dont mind the lifetime bans but at least let these two players in where they belong. I think you could even keep the ban by not letting Rose attend his induction ceremony if he is ever elected.

bonfig1

05-11-2005, 02:06 PM

I still don't care if Pete bet on baseball. So what. He's the all-time hits leader. Compromise by opening the hall to him but keep him from ever managing in the majors again.

Come on. Let Pete in the Hall! All-Time Hits Leader! I don't care if he was playing craps in the tunnel to the dugout. Put him in the Hall with one condition - he can never manage in the majors again. :radio

ADunn44

05-11-2005, 09:30 PM

Pete Rose desreves this more than anyone else, and anyone who says McGwire and Bonds should be in first, should dragged out into the street and should beaten to death with their own arms

csh19792001

05-11-2005, 11:41 PM

Pete Rose desreves this more than anyone else, and anyone who says McGwire and Bonds should be in first, should dragged out into the street and should beaten to death with their own arms

If you were divested of your Reds fandom, would you honestly feel the same way about Rose? Think about it.

Captain Cold Nose

05-12-2005, 05:22 AM

I still don't care if Pete bet on baseball. So what. He's the all-time hits leader. Compromise by opening the hall to him but keep him from ever managing in the majors again.
Yeah, so what if he broke the one rule that would get a player expelled. He is above the rules. Anarchy for only those we like.

ADunn44

05-12-2005, 11:08 AM

If you were divested of your Reds fandom, would you honestly feel the same way about Rose? Think about it.

no, i wouldn't change my opinion, because he is a local product of Cincinnati, and he was an awesome player, i just wish i was around to see him play, seeing as i'm only 19

bonfig1

05-12-2005, 02:35 PM

Yeah, so what if he broke the one rule that would get a player expelled. He is above the rules. Anarchy for only those we like.

Strawberry got TREATMENT for his cocaine. Other players get TREATMENT for alcoholism, anger, depression etc., and they can keep playing. How bout some Steroids? Sure you can play in 10 days. Pete's an addict that only hurt himself. He's paid his dues. Let him in. I'm not even a Reds fan. I'm a Cardinals fan.

abacab

05-12-2005, 02:55 PM

Pete's an addict that only hurt himself.

Are you kidding? Rose hurt the integrity of major league baseball. He called the results of every game he ever managed into question. He wasn't banned because he has a problem, he was banned because injured the game itself. Can you imagine what would happen if we found out several players were betting on games.... the same games that they're playing in? How could you even watch a game without wondering if the players were really giving their best effort? That's why the rule exists, and Rose knew it, and he broke it anyway because he thought he was above the rules, and too late he found out that he's not.

Imapotato

05-12-2005, 07:46 PM

If you wnet into a store and a sign said

"Shoplifters will be persecuted to the FULL EXTENT of the law"

and then stole a .75 cent pack of gum, and wound up with 5 year sin prison....you deserve it! You were warned. It makes no sense, nor is it a copup to say, I didn't steall 100 dollars, it was just a pack of gum

Both Jackson and Rose saw that sign everyday of their career, Jackson saw it on the OF wall, Rose in the clubhouse...they are no longer part of the game, simple as that

The player that needs to be reinstated is Buck Weaver, he is no HOFer, but it would be nice for Selig to lift his ban, of course Selig uses the same political BS by stating "No other commisioner saw anything to sway..blah, blah" Only Landis held Weaver down, no other commisioner has ever looked into Weaver's guilt or innocence, or the fatc he mailed Landis every year until his death to be reinstated, and proven innocent

clearbuck.com is a website dedicated to clearing Buck's name, and I am a member

leecemark

05-12-2005, 07:54 PM

bonfig1

05-13-2005, 10:33 AM

Are you kidding? Rose hurt the integrity of major league baseball.
What integrity are you talking about? The cocaine addicts, wife beaters or steroid users? Just trying to clarify your stance here. The integrity of the game was tarnished when a coked-up Strawberry got a million slaps on the wrist. Injured the game? You must be kidding. The game goes on with or without Rose but there's always a new controvery that somehow gets overlooked: Sammy Sosa's corked bat a few years back, for example ... where's your integrity argument for that? Doesn't that put every one of his at-bats "into question." Players giving their best effort? When was the last time you saw someone run hard to first base on an infield grounder to second or pop-up? Best effort my ass. Rose didn't think he was above the rules, he's just stupid. He's really not an intelligent man. He's not very well educated. I'm not condoning what he's done, but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. For those who have forgotten, the "Hustle" in his nickname was about how he played the game, not how he bet on it. He gave it everything he had. He left it all on the field. That's where it should begin and end. On the field. That's why he should be in the Hall. Period.

bonfig1

05-13-2005, 10:40 AM

[QUOTE=Imapotato]If you wnet into a store and a sign said

"Shoplifters will be persecuted to the FULL EXTENT of the law"

I think you meant prosecuted.

csh19792001

05-13-2005, 05:10 PM

--I agree Weaver didn't deserve the same penalty as the other Black Sox. A one year suspension probably would have been more appropriate. There is no reason for his banishment to continue, but nothing would actually be altered if it was lifted. As you said, he isn't a realistic Hall of Fame candidate. He is long since dead, so he won't be able to return to making a living from the game. Whats the point of worrying about whether hes banned or not?

Vindication, Mark. Egregious injustices rectified. Obviously it's the principle here that matters. For his name and his family, so he will no longer thought of as a fraud and a scourge to the history of baseball.

rich

05-13-2005, 06:16 PM

Bonfig 1, you'd get a standing ovation from the Phillies fans! In 2000, the '80 team was honored on their 20 anniversity of winning the series. The Vet went crazy when Dallas Green went over and laid a #14 jersey on first base. Pete is obviously an ignorant, pompous, full of himself jerk. The Phillies franchise has been around for 135 years with 1 championship. Pete sent 3 million people to Broad Street, for the parade. Big Mac, Bonds, Sammy et al, have destroyed the record book.

ADunn44

05-17-2005, 07:59 PM

so, r u for/against Pete being in??

Imapotato

05-18-2005, 09:48 AM

--I agree Weaver didn't deserve the same penalty as the other Black Sox. A one year suspension probably would have been more appropriate. There is no reason for his banishment to continue, but nothing would actually be altered if it was lifted. As you said, he isn't a realistic Hall of Fame candidate. He is long since dead, so he won't be able to return to making a living from the game. Whats the point of worrying about whether hes banned or not?

What if your great grandfather was falsely accused of a crime?
Weaver has descendents that it will effect greatly

I think you meant prosecuted.
lol, yea...well look at the time of the post...I need to sleep earlier, like old people time

RobertHConner

05-22-2005, 04:14 PM

Neither deserves to be there according to the rules. If you're going to show mercy, the obvious recipient of such an act would be Jackson. All we know is that Jackson initially agreed to the fix. Whether or not he actively tried to lose is debatable. His high average for the series is a bit misleading. There was an attempted sac bunt where the catcher was slow getting to the ball- single. There was a groundball to 1B where the pitcher forgot to cover 1st- single. There was also a routine pop fly that the fielder lost in the sun- double. Take those three hits away and Joe's AVG goes from .375 to .281.
Rose, on the other hand, committed a far more insidious crime. For those of you who don't get the danger of betting on your own team, consider these scenarios: 1) You've got money on Thursday's game so you alter your lineup and keep your betyter relievers out of Wednesday's game-optimizing your THUR. chances by comprimising your TUE & WED games. 2) What's to stop a guy with $150,000 riding on a game from offering members of the opposing team 10 or 20 K to make sure you win. The rule stands as it does, so black & white, on every clubhouse wall for that very reason. We don't want our beloved game to turn into boxing, where you watch someone win, but have no idea if it was legit (i.e. the 1st Lewis-Holyfield "draw").
Rose also spent the better part of 2 decades assassinating the character of Bart Giamatti & his family, not to mention Fay Vincent. He has made fools of several supportive Hall of Famers such as Jim Palmer. His book release was the same day as Paul Molitor & Dennis Eckersley's induction announcements, completely stealing the thunder from what should have been the biggest day of the baseball lives. Last, but nowhere near last, he started his book signing tour at a casino in New Jersy. What on earth was his reasoning for doing something that idiotic when he only wrote the book to get into the Hall? Unless of course he simply confessed for the sake of the alm ighty greenback, ala Jose Canseco.
Jackson didn't break the rules with the same punishment of lifetime banishment in place. He couldn't known how severe the justice was going to be. Rose knew and then made the decision to do it anyway. He was arrogant enough to think he was either too crafty to get caught or was too damn big to be fully reprimanded...he was wrong on both counts. Jackson had no previous example to make him think twice about his deal. Rose had hald the 1919 White Sox, Dutch Leonard & others to let him know how serious baseball was about gambling. He has no excuses. I guess he was so obsessed with Ty Cobb that he thought he could get out of it like Cobb & Speaker did.

Appling

05-23-2005, 09:18 AM

Place yourself in the shoes of Joe Jackson (if he really wore shoes):

Teammates of yours conspire to throw the World Series and invite you to take part. You didn't attend the meeting but a teammate of yours volunteered to represent you. You later learn you are part of an agreement you really didn't seek. What should you do? Especially since those other guys are so much smarter than you are?

Should you report it to someone? To whom: your manager? your team owner? a respected teammate (Eddie Collins? Ray Schaulk?)

Maybe if I do nothing it will all go away! I just want to play baseball.

Throwing the series seems bad, but there was no written rule against it. Who will it hurt? Perhaps just some people who bet on baseball. Why should I worry about them? Besides, can I really "rat on" my teammates?
* * * * *
Compare this with the use of steroids in baseball the past ten years or so.
Was there a written rule against it? Certainly it is against the law! Why shouldn't players who knew about use of steroids be banished just for not reporting it? Would you be surprised if the commissioner made such a ruling -- just for not reporting?

So imagine the shock to Joe Jackson -- and especially to Buck Weaver -- when the iron fist came down.

Whereas Pete Rose broke the rules when they were clearly published and well known. Rose can claim no surprise. And Rose's transgression went over a period of several years, not just a one-time happening.

Rose is worse!

jalbright

05-23-2005, 02:50 PM

My own take on what baseball (as opposed to. for instance the BBF HOF) should do is keep them both out for the time being.

Jackson is easier for me--he took money he knew was in furtherance of the conspiracy to fix the Series. I could forgive mere silence without the money, but once he took it, he went beyond mere silence. Besides, the amount is equal to that received by any of the conspirators. Doesn't that imply he agreed to do much more than merely be silent? Taking the money also signals he was willing to cross the ultimate barrier of selling out his teammates--in the World Series! Putting him in Cooperstown would honor him, when he dishonored baseball in nearly the deepest sense possible. He can rot as far as I'm concerned.

Rose is a really tough case. There's no significant credible evidence that Pete did anything but try to win as a manager and player of the Reds. Despite the bookies and other assorted scumbags who were privy to Rose's gambling on baseball when it happened, none has produced any credible evidence he bet against his team or otherwise deliberately failed to do his best to win every game. The crowd Pete dealt with while gambling on baseball were the sort to sell out their own mothers for a buck or a reduced prison sentence--and they've had ample opportunity to do so with what they know about Pete. The fact they haven't done so strongly indicates Pete never did those things However, Pete was as close to going over what I called the ""ultimate barrier" above with respect to Joe Jackson as a gambler like Pete can get without actually crossing that line.

There's no question Pete had to be banned for his behavior. Baseball left the door open in his case by giving him a right to petition for reinstatement. The reason, I believe, is that while Rose's gambling required a harsh response, the evidence he went further than betting on his own team to win didn't exist. Pete was popular, and I think the powers that be sensed what I see in Rose--a compulsive gambler who was out of control. If he got his act together and stopped gambling and stayed away from it for a few years, they realized they couldn't keep him out. On the other hand, the way they handled it made certain they would get strong assurances Pete had licked his gambling problem before they let him get anywhere near the role of an insider in the sport. Pete, by his own admission continues to gamble and denies there's a problem. That's not the kind of reassurance baseball needs from a guy who let gambling push him as far as it did--the next time might even be worse.

But when Pete dies, gets it through his head that he has a gambling problem and deals with it, or gets so old he's got no chance to be put in an insider's role in the sport, then I'd let him in--but not a second sooner.

Jim Albright

538280

05-23-2005, 05:07 PM

I am sick of all this crap about Buck Weaver. He is the most overrated player ever. Check out his stats in a Baseball Encyclopedia or at Baseballrefence.com. There is no way he is a Hall of Famer. I agree he shouldn't be banned from baseball (even though that doesn't matter anymore because he's dead), but he isn't any better than about 100 third baseman. Buck Weaver is not a Hall of Famer, so all you people just go look up his stats.

Imapotato

05-24-2005, 07:41 AM

Ok, there is medication to help you

I just read every post here and no one has stated Buck Weaver belongs in the HOF

and since I have been here, around 2001 or so, no one has suggested such

Cougar

05-24-2005, 10:21 AM

I've seen people claim that Buck Weaver might have had a HOF career if he weren't banned, so 538K (I'm rounding) isn't imagining this.

However, I don't think anyone's claiming he should go into the HOF based on what he did before the ban. That's obviously crazy talk; I haven't inferred that from anyone's post.

I think people are saying more what might have been, just as they would for Roy Hubbs, Pete Reiser, Ray Chapman, Lymon Bostock, and other players with extremely truncated careers.

That's not so wrong, although I'm not particularly sold. But you do have to discount offensive numbers for the dead ball era, so by those standards it's not so outlandish to claim he may have been on his way.

king_ghidora

05-28-2005, 12:53 AM

People need to get over the 'intergrity' of baseball thing. I just think that the only thing to be considered about being in the hall of fame is your career numbers. Baseball has wife beaters, alcoholics, and KKK members. The great Ty Cobb killed a man. So what's all this nonsense about the holiness of the Hall of Fame members?

Rose is one of the greatest of all time, and he has the numbers to prove it. Jackson was one of the greatest, but he doesn't have the numbers to prove it. Baseball's a great game, but it's never been too long on the 'integrity' thing. Just ask the descendants of Negro League players.

cubbieinexile

05-28-2005, 01:13 AM

Theres integrity and then theres integrity. I don't want to defend wife beaters or people like that but the HOF is not a place that enshrines humanitarians that is not their goal or purpose. HOF is about baseball what Rose and Jackson (I believe he did others don't but that is not the point of this post) did concerns baseball. Beating your wife does not concern baseball.

efin98

05-28-2005, 02:13 AM

Integrity as it relates to matters on the field is what matters, integrity as it relates to matters off the field doesn't. You can be the biggest horse's butt in the world off the field but if you play the game by the rules and your statistics support you then you deserve to be in the hall. Conversely you can be the friendliest guy around off the field but as soon as you intentionally put you team in a situation that calls into question every decision you make on field or every play you make on the field then you put the deserve to be out of the game.

king_ghidora

05-28-2005, 11:31 AM

I totally agree with you. You can be a terrible person and still be in the hall - does Rogers Hornsby deserve to be kicked out for being a white supremacist? Unfortunately, he was still one of the greatest of all time, so there he sits (and rightfully so) next to his peers.

Rose bet on games. But he still played as well as anyone in history. Evidence shows that a lot of people bet on games, and others have been accused of fixing games as well (notably Cobb), but were let off the hook. What I was saying about 'integrity' is that the argument about Rose and Jackson having harmed baseball's 'great integrity' is foolish. I would think that competing against only whites would cast a much bigger shadow over one's career than any other offense, but it doesn't. All that should really count are the numbers, people. The numbers illustrate if you're one of the all-timers.

cubbieinexile

05-28-2005, 11:41 AM

A question you have to ask yourself is this: Did Rose and Jackson gambling actions not harm baseball because they were dealt with?

In otherwords was the damage less because they were stopped? Would the damage have been greater if the gambling and the possible (I think it happened) fixing had been allowed to continue. I think the answer to that is an obvious yes.

As for the segregation, I do believe you have a point and it is one of the reason why I think Cap Anson should never have been allowed in the HOF. Now I don't think he was the only reason why segregation existed in baseball but he was a key figure. As for segregation and Comiskey and Ban Johnson and the other owners in the HOF I am ignorant of their doings. I have a feeling that they are probably just as guilty but I don't know for sure.

TyrusRaymondCobb

05-31-2005, 09:43 PM

None of the above

Although I'd like Buck Weaver reinstated, and a shrine set up in Cooperstown for him...poor man died broken hearted

I definitely agree with you here! If Ty Cobb thought he was good enough, so do I.

Greenmountains4me

06-01-2005, 07:19 AM

ScrewBll45

06-01-2005, 06:17 PM

Are you kidding? Rose hurt the integrity of major league baseball.

Like the integrity wasn't hurt before that, drugs, drinking, besides no one will ever break any of Pete's records, and can you name a more vicious competitor that Rose, you can't.

scrabblehack

06-04-2005, 07:08 PM

I was surfing the web and came across an essay by Jimmy Carter advocating Rose's eligibility to the Hall of Fame. Carter said he knew virtually no one who opposed it. Well, I oppose it.

One thing I read about Rose's case that has stuck with me -- Giamatti made the most favorable decision in Rose's favor without ignoring the evidence. They showed the betting slips on TV. They showed other exhibits of Rose's handwriting. To me they looked like they were written by the same person.

Now, Giamatti banned Rose not for life, but indefinitely, under a rule not directly relating to gambling. He agreed that the commissioner's office would reconsider the decision in one year. His successor decided against reinstatement.

Now what the one year pause enforcing the rule did was open the door for the owners to change the rules. The rules currently state that any player, coach, or manager that bets for or against his own team will be banned for life. Some have thought a lifetime ban too harsh for betting for your own team. Although I have heard rumors Rose bet against his own team at one point, I have not seen any proof.

bigbravesfan_91

06-06-2005, 03:03 PM

The black sox threw the series "shoeless" Joe Jackson didnt do crap those of you that vote for Pete Rose are idiots. #1. He bet against his team (and for his team) on several ocassions, what a traitor. #2 Even if he didnt bet, he claimed that he didnt for several years, then in his book just to get into the hall of fame, he says he did, what a pansy.

ADunn44

06-06-2005, 07:30 PM

those of you that vote for Pete Rose are idiots. #1. He bet against his team (and for his team) on several ocassions, what a traitor. #2 Even if he didnt bet, he claimed that he didnt for several years, then in his book just to get into the hall of fame, he says he did, what a pansy.
when did it say he bet against the Reds, no proof was ever found

and Pete Rose is one the best players of all-time, thats all i gotta say bout that

Ursa Major

06-07-2005, 01:53 PM

The point of punishment in part is to make sure the perpretrator can't repeat the crime. A lifetime ban from participating in baseball is a far cry different from deciding what honors a player should receive. Certainly, though, dishonorable conduct should have a role. But, where the player's performance -- like Rose's -- clearly is HOF material, at some point you have to say he's done his time and let the voters decide. I mean, geez, Gaylord Perry was an outright cheater and has since been an embarassment to baseball, and Steve Carlton is a first class nutjob, but they're in without any questions. Why should Rose have to face the ban and have his post-ban conduct held up to scrutiny? Whether or not other HOF members will boycott his induction is something he has to face.

Jackson is another case. Clearly, his time has run, and the voters should get to decide on him. A few facts to bear in mind: he was illiterate and malleable but not "slow", but he clearly couldn't keep up with sharpies like Gandil and Cicotte, or even his best buddy Lefty Williams. He at first refused to join the conspiracy, but did so when Gandil told him that the deal was going down with or without him and if he agreed to "join" he'd get $20,000 and he could play any way he wanted. Gandil just wanted to be able to tell the gamblers that Jackson -- their best hitter -- was on board, but didn't care how he in fact played. (You can see Jackson's grand jury testimony here (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/joejackson.shtml), and given that he candidly admits transgressions that he knew would get him at least suspended from baseball, there is every reason to think he is being truthful.) All signs are that he played as hard as he could and his conspiring teammates recognized that by the way they treated him, as is argued here (http://www.baseballimmortals.net/Jackson_Joe/jackson--innocent.shtml). And, there is evidence that he told Sox owner Comiskey about it. Certainly, it is odd that the prosecutor examining him before the grand jury almost studiously avoided questioning him about what Comiskey knew or should have known about the fix, which was widely speculated at the time.

On the other hand, it might be argued that he realized before anyone (after the payment was not made after the second game) that the gamblers were doublecrossing them, and so he decided to play out the rest of the series as hard as he could to spite them. But, anyone who argues that Jackson was not "in" has to confront Jackson's own testimony.

But, at the time, there was no hard and fast rule about gambling or the consequences of it. To say that now, 86 years later, he should still be banned outright from a Hall of Fame that did not then exist says more about those who would continue the ban than it does about the HOF or Joe Jackson.

Why not trust the same BBWA voters who can parse out batting averages and ERAs to decide for themselves whether or not Joe (or Pete) should be forgiven? I would trust a panel of sportswriters to make a decision that honors that great history of baseball more than I would Bud Selig, that's for sure.

TheUnknownBandit

06-10-2005, 07:22 PM

I still don't understand why Bud Selig would have any bearing on the HOF. He is the commissioner of the major leagues. Where in that is it imply he should have any bearing on a museum of baseball? The HOF was created to celebrate the history of baseball, and I believe the public should vote on whether these players should be inducted without being directed by the Commish on who they can and cannot vote for. I feel there should be an entirely different and independent governing board for the HOF, away from King Selig.

But since that will never happen, that's only a pipe dream. And as to my opinion about the two in question, I think Jackson should be allowed to be voted on, as the ban should only have lasted a lifetime. Same goes for Rose, once he passes on, then shall he be eligible.

I don't know if Shoeless Joe should be in the Hall, but I'm pretty sure somehow Pete Rose will get in eventually. However, I don't even expect that in my lifetime, and I'm only 21.

whatswailing

06-10-2005, 07:24 PM

Selig didn't ban Rose from baseball or the hall of fame. Where did you get that notion? He just keeps the deal intact.

DoubleX

06-14-2005, 10:07 PM

Yes, I've already created another thread on this very topic, and yes I've left this same message in other threads, but I really believe this needs to be cleared up, so I thought a more direct thread title was in order. In short, I am appalled and completely dumbfounded. It's an utter embarrassment and I will continue to see it as a display of hypocrisy until I am convinced otherwise:

I count 30 people who voted for Joe Jackson when he was elected in February. Of those 30:

- 13 Have Voted For Pete Rose This Month
- 14 Have Yet To Vote This Month
- 3 Have Voted This Month And Have Not Voted For Pete Rose

So to those three voters (and any of the 14 who might join them this month) who helped Jackson's election but have so far abstained from supporting to Rose, I must ask you if you feel there is are at least 135 players that were better than Rose, and if there are at least 135 players that better meet this clause in our voting procedures:

Candidates for the Players Ballot should be considered based on their performance and its impact on their team’s record.

Let's see, which player's actions seem more in line with that clause:

Player A who knows full-well of a conspiracy to throw the World Series and accepts money as part of that conspiracy, and admitted that he expected more money from the conspiracy, or...

Player B who earned the nickname Charlie Hustle, was a vital cog on a team the dominated most of an entire decade, and displayed his team first attitude by playing multiple positions for the good of the team.

If those three voters (and any of the 14 who join them) can put aside questions about morality and character and vote for Jackson based purely on his on-the-field accomplishments, there should be no reason why they're not voting for Rose at this juncture; unless they can somehow convince that there are at least 135 players with more impressive on-the-field accomplishments than Rose...

And I will keep posting this in various forums until either Rose is elected or this apparent hypocrisy is explained convincingly.

reddog7712

06-21-2005, 09:16 PM

I think Rose should be in the HOF, because he was banned for things he did as a manager. The reason he would be inducted would be for his playing abilities, not for his managing skills. He did nothing wrong as a player, and his player-side should not be punished. Never again should he manage, however.

As for Jackson, his stats in the '19 World Series are the only evidence I've seen, so it's hard to say. .375 isn't the type of play for a man who throws a game, though.

carnivore

06-22-2005, 03:47 AM

Pete Rose was basically a slap hitting corner outfielder with average fielding skills and less power than you'd want at the positions he played. His career OPS was 784 - significantly lower than that of the legendary Oscar Gamble. He did hit for average, but his walk rate was nothing to write home about and his SB/CS ratio was positively atrocious - he was far from ideal at the top of the lineup. Yes, he's got counting statistics galore ... so if you want to put him in the Hall for a long career of being good enough with several very good seasons (but few if any great ones) sprinkled in then go right ahead. Personally I believe that if he'd been thrown in as part of the big Astros-Reds deal (that brought Morgan to the Reds) he'd have been out of baseball by age 38 and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Jackson on the other hand had fantastic rate stats and would have been included in every all time greats argument if he hadn't been banned.

Maybe the reason why people don't vote for Rose is that they don't believe that he's a HOFer? I doubt it ... but you never know.

nothing but baseball

06-22-2005, 07:45 PM

Talk about stats...the one and only stat you need to know about to prove that Rose should be in the HOF is his career of over 4,000 hits

PoloGroundsKid

06-22-2005, 11:57 PM

leecemark

06-23-2005, 12:12 AM

--It was a permanent, not lifetime, ban for the Black Sox.

carnivore

06-23-2005, 04:13 AM

Talk about stats...the one and only stat you need to know about to prove that Rose should be in the HOF is his career of over 4,000 hits
The honest response is that I never liked Rose as a player and was just taking a cheap shot at him.

But as long as the subject came up ...

There are basically two inputs to determining HOF status: Peak Value and Career Value.

In terms of Peak Value, Rose was basically a lesser version of Ichiro without the fielding and base running - a corner outfielder that got on base a lot (although less than you'd expect based just on BA) but didn't provide a whole lot of punch. But looking at Peak Value is admittedly unfair to Rose because he was pretty darn consistent his entire career - it was a long plateau with a very gentle slope - no pronounced peaks but very little in the way of valleys too. Ironically, Joe Jackson was pretty much the same way for his admittedly short career, but far more impressive: he played 9 full seasons and was in the top 5 for OPS every year. Rose managed to crack the top ten just three times in 24 seasons.

So let's look at career value ... and here Pete does indeed have what to offer. Does his consistency and longevity buy him into the HOF?

Nowadays when I think about whether someone deserves to be a HOFer I compare them to Andre Dawson. Why Andre Dawson? Because for me he epitomizes the classic borderline HOF case. He is among the leaders of HOF-eligible players for just about all the major counting stats and he was an excellent fielder and base runner (until his knees went) as well. But he's not in yet, and may not get in later (his inability to take a walk and the concensus that his MVP award was undeserved have hurt him with the Sabermetrically savvy younger voters). He may well define the cut off between the Hall of Very Good and the Hall of Fame.

So if I was the GM of the team and offered to take my pick between Pete Rose's career and Dawson's whom would I pick? In terms of Peak Value I find myself leaning towards the young Hawk, who was always included in the conversation when you talked about the best player in the NL (I don't remember anyone talking about Rose that way - and yes, I'm old enough to remember). But if I was offered to choose between their careers? I believe that regrettably I'd have to go with Rose, but it wouldn't be an automatic decision.

Final thoughts: Rose did have a HOF career, but his 4000 hits don't automatically qualify him for any kind of inner circle status. It was certainly a unique accomplishment, but not really as special as you think. Don't forget ... he also holds the records for outs.

Astros4Life

06-23-2005, 09:20 PM

Jackson should be reinstated and buck weaver and any other deceased players that did something wrong...jackson was the best player in the series he did better than the cincy red legs and jackson couldnt read so anyone could have pulled anything on him and gotten away with it...weaver aughta go in the hall as well...rose i think should not get a lifetime ban but a 30 year ban which means he would be able to come back in 2019 which by that time he will be too old to do anything in baseball

west coast orange and black

06-24-2005, 12:35 AM

...He did nothing wrong as a player, and his player-side should not be punished...during part of the time of his betting on baseball, rose was a player/manager. he absolutely did wrong while a player. just ask him. he'll tell ya the truth.

yest

06-24-2005, 10:58 AM

I think Jackson was innocent (375 batting avg. no errors series only HR ext.)
while Rose was gultiy

DoubleX

06-24-2005, 11:45 AM

Both received lifetime bans. Jackson is dead. His lifetime is over; therefore it's time for him to get into the Hall. Rose is still living, therefore his lifetime ban continues. When he's dead, then he should be eligible.

First, I'm not talking about the actual Hall of Fame here, I'm talking about our Hall of Fame here at Baseball Fever. I created this thread to bring attention to the fact that Joe Jackson has been in our Hall of Fame for several months, while Pete Rose is still on the outside looking in despite the fact that we've already elected 110 players and have room for 25 more on our ballots. So if the majority of voters here can put Jackson in despite his transgressions, why not vote for Rose by now?

Second, as Mark said, the ban is permanent.

Barnstormer

06-24-2005, 11:46 AM

I think Jackson was innocent (375 batting avg. no errors series only HR ext.)
while Rose was gultiy

People should read the well-informed and researched threads on this very topic, they have been very helpful to me and helped me to go beyond the common reaction of "well he hit .375 so he musn't have done anything wrong."

From what I can gather, some of the nuances of the case are:

- He took money so he was in on the fix.
- HE DIDN'T HAVE TO PLAY BADLY, the rest of his team especially the pitchers were throwing the game well enough that he could have hit .500, so he was never really put to the test (I liked one post that asked what would he have done at bat in the bottom of the ninth, in a tie game with runners on).
- So he was guilty of being in on the fix but not guilty of intentionally playing badly. He didn't throw the game because he didn't have to.
- They were all found not guilty by the criminal court. Judge Kenesaw Landis banned them anyway, saying "Regardless of the verdict of the juries, no player who throws a ball game(Jackson didn't), no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game (Jackson did), no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked players and does not promptly tell his club about it (Jackson did), will ever play professional baseball."

So it really depends where you draw the line in terms of what is ethically "unforgiveable". He was guilty of being part of the conspiracy even though he never had to act on it. So basically it amounted to taking hush money.

That said, I think what he did was ethically different from what the ringleaders (Gandil, Williams) did, I think he should have gotten maybe a one-year suspension, and I think he should be in the hall-of-fame.

DoubleX

06-24-2005, 11:55 AM

I think Jackson was innocent (375 batting avg. no errors series only HR ext.)
while Rose was gultiy

Have you not read Jackson's Grand Jury testimony? He was in on the conspiracy and had no qualms against almost from inception. He took money as part of the conspiracy. He was admittedly disappointed when Chick Gandil was not able to pay him more money (as promised), meaning Jackson wanted to benefit from the heinous conspiracy. And while his batting statistics seem good, there are eye-witness accounts that report that Jackson seemed to come up slow on what should have been routine fly balls, allowing them to drop in for hits.

Eddie Cicotte and Lefty Williams as the pitchers in the conspiracy did most of the hardwork, allowing Jackson to look good at their expense, but he was in on it, and he wanted to financially prosper from it. So he had a bout of good conscience afterwards. The deed was already done, he knew of it, he agreed to be a part of it, he aided it, and he wanted to benefit from it. I wonder if he would have made his turn of good conscience if he had received the extra money that had been promiseed that he never got.

Jackson is guilty. Is his crime as deliberate as Chick Gandils or Swede Risbergs or Eddie Cicottes? Probably not. But he's still guilty and he desired to (and did) benefit from their misdeeds. In some ways, I think it hurts perceptions of Jackson's morality even more - he wanted to and did prosper from the misdeeds of others while apparently playing hard himself and looking good while they looked bad for his benefit. If they looked bad, he should have too, so don't be fooled by his apparent good play - he prospered and meant to prosper and was disappointed that he didn't prosper more.

So now I will ask you this question again, and again reference our actual rules for voting here:

Candidates for the Players Ballot should be considered based on their performance and its impact on their team’s record.

Which player's actions seem more in line with that clause:

Player A who knows full-well of a conspiracy to throw the World Series and accepts money as part of that conspiracy, and admitted that he expected more money from the conspiracy, or...

Player B who earned the nickname Charlie Hustle, was a vital cog on a team the dominated most of an entire decade, and displayed his team first attitude by playing multiple positions for the good of the team.

Until you convince me otherwise, I will continue to see your support of Jackson and not for Rose as hypocrisy...

The Splendid Splinter

06-24-2005, 12:19 PM

Until you convince me otherwise, I will continue to see your support of Jackson and not for Rose as hypocrisy...
But didn't Jackson try to tell people about it? Didn't he go to the owner with the money and told him to take it and other people?

Rose gambled on the game of baseball MANY times. Jackson and them threw "one" World Series. Not saying that Jackson is innocent, both are guilty. I think Jackson is guilty, to some extent. Plus wasn't the verdict Not Guilty??? So technically, they were innocent. And did Rose played for the good of the team when he was the player manager? Or did he play so he can break the hits record and in doing so, hurting his team more than helping? That would be performance on the field there and the impact on his team.

But anyway, I believe Jackson should be in the Hall Of Fame since he's been dead for awhile and Rose should go in when he dies. By then, they should have their dues of being in the Hall Of Fame.

If I had a ballot for this Hall Of Fame, I would've been voting for Rose for awhile, DoubleX so I can see what you're saying, but I can also see why others don't. His numbers looks good because of how long he played.

Barnstormer

06-24-2005, 12:46 PM

Which player's actions seem more in line with that clause:

Player A who knows full-well of a conspiracy to throw the World Series and accepts money as part of that conspiracy, and admitted that he expected more money from the conspiracy, or...

Player B who earned the nickname Charlie Hustle, was a vital cog on a team the dominated most of an entire decade, and displayed his team first attitude by playing multiple positions for the good of the team.
Come on, talk about selective evidence. How about:

Player A who has a lifetime average of .356, gray ink of 168 in basically only 10 seasons, was the second best hitter in his league for a decade just behind the greatest baseball player of all time, and has a career OPS+ of 170 (8th all-time), or...

Player B who actively and repeatedly bet on baseball games including those he was playing or managing in, and who abused his managerial position to play past his prime to the detriment of his team and the younger players on it. Oh and who by the way never hit .356 in any one season and who in 24 seasons was top 10 in OPS+ 3 times (never breaking the top 5) and never had more than 82 RBIs in a season.

DoubleX

06-24-2005, 01:05 PM

But didn't Jackson try to tell people about it?
Plus wasn't the verdict Not Guilty???
Jackson did try to approach Comiskey with the money after the fact, the World Series had already been thrown, the conspiracy had already been carried out, the deed had already been done.

And yes they were found not-guilty in a court of law, thanks to a lot of corruption, lying on the part of gamblers, and another conspiracy surrounding the trial that sought to get the players off and not incriminate some of the nation's most successful and high profile gamblers. First and foremost, it was exceptionally odd that transcripts of the players Grand Jury testimonies were found missing when they were needed for the trial. If you read the transcript of Jackson's testimony you'll see that he admits to his involvement in the conspiracy, the money involved, the fact that he accepted money and was disappointed that he wasn't receiving more, the meetings between the players about the conspiracy, and so on, and the transcript would have been fairly damning if available for the actual trial

Come on, talk about selective evidence. How about:

Player A who has a lifetime average of .356, gray ink of 168 in basically only 10 seasons, was the second best hitter in his league for a decade just behind the greatest baseball player of all time, and has a career OPS+ of 170 (8th all-time), or...

Player B who actively and repeatedly bet on baseball games including those he was playing or managing in, and who abused his managerial position to play past his prime to the detriment of his team and the younger players on it. Oh and who by the way never hit .356 in any one season and who in 24 seasons was top 10 in OPS+ 3 times (never breaking the top 5) and never had more than 82 RBIs in a season.

Would Player A have a .356 career average if he had a decline period? Very doubtful. Essentially, all we have to base Jackson's career on is his peak.

As for Rose, the year he broke the hits record, he had an OBP of .395 at the age of 44. He was at worst, at the point an average ballplayer. Getting anywhere close to 4000 hits is a tremendous feat and something only two players have ever done. If I were Rose and I was that close and could still hack it in the Majors (which he could even at 44), I would have gone for the record too. It's so hard to come that close, might as well go the extra mile and get over the hump. Then Rose hung around as a part-time player for one more year in which he really couldn't hack it anymore. But there is nothing to suggest that Rose in his early 40's was any worse than an average player, which is pretty good considering his age.

Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that Rose bet against his own team. He is Charlie Hustle and he did earn that nickname. He played hard and he played to win, and he would do whatever he could, including taking out opposing players if the situation called for it (Bud Harrelson, Ray Fosse) if it meant winning. There is no evidence, like there is with Jackson, that Rose ever did anything or was part of anything that served to undermine the success of his team. And that's what the rules here say, and I quote AGAIN:

Candidates for the Players Ballot should be considered based on their performance and its impact on their team’s record.

Jackon was part of a scheme the intent of which was to purposefully undermine the team's success - the impact was to make the team lose. There is no evidence, like there is with Jackson, that Rose was ever part of anything that had the intent of making his team lose. That's a huge difference and relates directly to our stated rules. We know Rose bet on baseball, but do we know he bet against his team? We have never seen anything to suggest that. But we do know, from Jackson's own mouth, that he agreed to be part of a conspiracy to make his team lose and to benefit from that conspiracy. You show me evidence that Rose bet against his own team and I'll change my stance on this, but in the meantime I suggest everyone do a Google search for Joe Jackson's Grand Jury testimony, read it, and you'll see that Jackson was not a victim, but a participant, and only had a bout of good conscience after the deed was done and after it was apparent he wasn't going to receive anymore money (thus making him question if it was worth it. Had he received the promised amount of money, I doubt we'd see Jackson having a change of mind afterwards, despite everyones romanticized vision of him). There are far too many Jackson apologists on these boards, and in general. He was a tremendous player, but he was also guilty.

And finally, the question here wasn't a comparison between Jackson and Rose for there on the field accomplishments. Jackson was the more gifted player (although Rose excelled amidst a far more talented league). The real question is are there 135 players better than Rose? Do you feel there are?

Barnstormer

06-24-2005, 03:04 PM

The real question is are there 135 players better than Rose? Do you feel there are?[/B]
No, I don't, even though I don't really like Rose. I actually agree with your points, I was just pointing out that your Player A and B comparison was a little unfair, as you were comparing Rose's playing record to Jackson's role in the Black Sox.

I also agree Jackson was guilty, and made the point in another post that the .375 is deceiving because he didn't have to throw the game, the pitchers did it for him.

But as for your basic point, that if BBF elected Jackson that they should elect Rose, I completely agree.

I think I feel more sympathy for Jackson, however, because:

a) his lifetime ban from baseball happened when he was 30, not 47, thus cutting his career short; and

b) The punishment did not fit the crime, as even you said in another post his guilt was not equal to that of Gandil and the other leaders, those guys approached the gamblers, Joe just went along because it was pointless to do otherwise. Sure he wanted the money, since he knew that he would be denied the winners' purse that they would no doubt have won in a clean series. So I think the sentences from Landis should have acknowledged that difference, perhaps a year (or two) suspension for Joe and Buck Weaver, lifetime ban for the rest.

DoubleX

06-24-2005, 07:28 PM

The punishment did not fit the crime, as even you said in another post his guilt was not equal to that of Gandil and the other leaders, those guys approached the gamblers, Joe just went along because it was pointless to do otherwise. Sure he wanted the money, since he knew that he would be denied the winners' purse that they would no doubt have won in a clean series. So I think the sentences from Landis should have acknowledged that difference, perhaps a year (or two) suspension for Joe and Buck Weaver, lifetime ban for the rest.

Buck Weaver is who I feel the most sympathy for. He knew of the conspiracy and attended a number of the consipirator meetings, but accepted no money and played his heart out. I wish I knew more of Buck's actual thoughts at the time, but a suspension of a year, two at the most seems more than fitting for a player that was becoming the premiere thirdbasemen in the game, given that he knew full well of the conspiracy and let it happen. But seriously, what could he do about it? They were his friends and it was going to happen with or without his consent. I suppose he could have ratted them out, that's why I think some punishment should have been administered to Buck - a message needed to be sent conspiring to throw games will not be allowed at all, from the most involved conspirer to players that bore witness and did not prevent it (Buck). I just think it was unfair to give all 8 players a blanket punishment. They all did not do the same thing (especially Buck), and should not have suffered the same fate.

As for Jackson, I'm not as sympathetic to him. I think people like to look at Jackson and his vast talent and say what a shame. And it is a shame he let himself get so caught up in it. You say what else could Joe have done since it was going to be thrown anyway? Well he could have done what Buck Weaver did and not have accepted money or sought out more money. Buck is proof that there was a high road to take and that every other player who knew of the conspiracy could have taken that high road; Joe chose not to and I think he should be lumped in with the others.

csh19792001

06-25-2005, 12:19 PM

Would Player A have a .356 career average if he had a decline period? Very doubtful. Essentially, all we have to base Jackson's career on is his peak.

Actually, given how much offense went up during the 1920's, his raw production probably would not have dropped much, if any. In fact, his average might very well have increased with a decline phase through the 1920's. Tris Speaker was a .338 hitter after 1919- ended up at .345. Zack Wheat went from .299 to .317!! Eddie Collins went from .325 up to .333 lifetime by the time the 20's ended. All these stars were almost exactly the same age as Jackson, and none were his equal as hitters.

As for Rose, the year he broke the hits record, he had an OBP of .395 at the age of 44. He was at worst, at the point an average ballplayer. Getting anywhere close to 4000 hits is a tremendous feat and something only two players have ever done. If I were Rose and I was that close and could still hack it in the Majors (which he could even at 44), I would have gone for the record too. It's so hard to come that close, might as well go the extra mile and get over the hump. Then Rose hung around as a part-time player for one more year in which he really couldn't hack it anymore. But there is nothing to suggest that Rose in his early 40's was any worse than an average player, which is pretty good considering his age.

I agree that 4,000 hits an incredible total, but as to the notion that "there is nothing to suggest that Rose in his early 40's was any worse than an averge player" or "he was at worst, at that point an average ballplayer" are both flat out silly- basically EVERYTHING suggests that Rose was below average; not just compared to a great player- but the average journeyman schlep in the National League during that period. Plus, it isn't like he's at a valuable defensive position- he's playing first base, where the best offensive player on the team is usually stuck, yet is poor offensively anyway. Look at his numbers, especially in comparison to the average NL first baseman of that period.

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1982 Phillies 41 162 634 80 172 25 4 3 0.47 54 66 32 8 8 .271 .338 .345 .683
1983 Phillies 42 151 493 52 121 14 3 0 0.00 45 52 28 7 7 .245 .286 .316 .602
1984 Expos 43 95 278 34 72 6 2 0 0.00 23 31 20 1 1 .259 .295 .334 .629
Reds 43 26 96 9 35 9 0 0 0.00 11 9 7 0 0 .365 .458 .430 .888
TOTALS 121 374 43 107 15 2 0 0.00 34 40 27 1 1 .286 .337 .359 .696
1985 Reds 44 119 405 60 107 12 2 2 0.49 46 86 35 8 1 .264 .319 .395 .713
1986 Reds 45 72 237 15 52 8 2 0 0.00 25 30 31 3 0 .219 .270 .316 .586
TOTALS 625 2143 250 559 74 13 5 0.23 204 274 153 27 17 .261 .315 .348 .662
LG AVERAGE 2128 267 560 95 15 47 2.19 248 210 317 60 28 .263 .388 .329 .717
POS AVERAGE 2161 270 582 103 10 61 2.82 303 249 300 22 16 .269 .410 .344 .754

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
1982 Phillies 75 0 -12 .495 4.11 214 32 .066 .170 .387 9 7 8 3 12 493 718 1B
1983 Phillies 45 -22 -31 .322 3.05 141 17 .041 .146 .332 5 2 1 7 11 398 555 1B
1984 Expos 27 -5 -7 .413 3.30 82 8 .036 .147 .334 3 1 3 1 10 221 314 1B
Reds 19 8 7 .731 8.27 44 9 .094 .188 .505 1 2 0 0 1 62 107 1B
TOTALS 46 3 0 .520 4.39 126 17 .051 .158 .378 4 3 3 1 11 283 421
1985 Reds 58 5 -1 .531 4.99 129 16 .054 .284 .433 5 4 1 4 10 314 500 1B
1986 Reds 23 -10 -13 .334 3.30 64 10 .051 .190 .364 0 4 0 1 2 188 272 1B
TOTALS 247 -24 -57 .450 3.98 674 92 .054 .186 .380 23 20 13 16 46 1676 2466
LG AVERAGE 275 0 0 .500 4.44 825 156 .124 .238 .436 27 10 16 18 47 1676 2381
POS AVERAGE 307 31 0 .542 4.94 887 173 .141 .259 .451 38 9 6 24 51 1676 2450

This is a guy who a grand total of FIVE homeruns in his last 625 games (almost 2500 PA). A Slg of .315!! and an OPS+ of 84 his last 5 seasons. Rose hung around, plain and simple, to hit singles, accumulate hits, and break the record. This is a guy who was lousy in terms of offensive production, couldn't run, and wasn't even an average fielder his last several years. Also, as player-manager, he kept himself in the lineup during this period of steep decadence, taking a spot of someone who would have been (in all likelihood, given the numbers) far more valuable. So yes, even beyond betting baseball on many occasions, because of his utter hubris, Pete Rose did do things to hurt his team's success.

Replies in the body of text above.

carnivore

06-25-2005, 12:33 PM

... As for Rose, the year he broke the hits record, he had an OBP of .395 at the age of 44. ...[/B]

Interestingly enough, in 1985 Rose's OBP benefited from walks more than any other year in his career - he batted only .264 that year. The only theory I can think of for this odd quirk is that opposing pitchers assumed that under the circumstances he'd swing at anything and were feeding him junk all year. Any other ideas?

DoubleX

06-25-2005, 12:48 PM

In 1981 at the age of 40, Rose batted .325, had an OPS+ of 119 and was within 500 hits of Cobb. If I had come so close to Cobb's record and could still play at that age, I would keep on playing to get to that record as well, and I suspect most other people would if they were in Rose's position.

In 1984, at the age of 43 and the year before he broke the record, Rose batted .286 (25 points above the league average) and had an OPS+ of 99. Again, if at 43 Rose could still contribute just as well as the average player and be so close to the hits record, might as well go for it. I'd do it, and I think most people will, and I won't begrudge him. It's incredible difficult to get so close to the record, Rose deserves every bit of credit for getting to that point, and I can't fault him for going that extra mile.

Anyhow, I don't see how posting Rose's decline statistics are an argument against him not being one of the top 135 players of all-time. It seems everyone is straying from the argument here and trying to make this a Jackson vs. Rose contest, and it's not a Jackson vs. Rose contest because I concede that Jackson was the more talented player. The question here is if voters can get past Jackson's transgressions and questionable character and support his candidacy, why not support Rose now? The only way I can see a Jackson supporter getting around voting for Rose now is if they can convince that they truly feel that Rose is not among the top 135 players ever. And so far no one has convinced me of that and instead have tried to divert the question of this thread to being a comparison between Rose and Jackson and Rose's ability at the end of his career. This is not meant to be a comparison, this is meant to clarify what I see as hypocrisy here. And until someone can convince me that they truly feel Rose was not among the top 135 ever, I will continue to believe that the supporters of Jackson who are not supporting for Rose are hypocrites.

klsm54

06-25-2005, 12:50 PM

I can't vote for either in the poll. That is because I think both should be in the hall. No proof that Jackson did anything, history actually indicates that most likely, he did NOT do anything to throw the series. And Rose betting is such a minor thing. It is legal to bet in just about every state now, in one form or another. Betting on any game, or betting for or against your own team, does not constitute cheating, in any way shape or form. Some archaic rules are, and some "Holier than though" attitudes are keeping one of the best players of all time out of the hall. I hated Rose when he played, the "Big Red Machine" beat my Pirates way too often, and denied them of a couple more world series. But the numbers are there.

The Football HOF admits players that border on being incarcerated, but baseball bans a guy for a few bets.... :rolleyes: Baseball needs more living players in the hall, and unless he committed a "REAL" crime against humanity, anybody with Rose-Like numbers should be there....JMHO

DoubleX

06-25-2005, 01:04 PM

I voted for Shoeless Joe Jackson because, from what I've read, the man *couldn't* have cheated! His numbers remained the same during the scandal as they were *before* the scandal. There's no doubt in my mind that he was wrongly banned from the game and the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose, on the other hand, freely admits *now* to having gambled when he was a player. That makes him forever inelligible in my mind.

Do a Google search for Joe Jackson's Grand Jury testimony and you'll see that he freely admitted to being a party to the conspiracy, accepted money as part of the conspiracy, and was disappointed when he wasn't given more money, as promised. There are also eye-witness accounts that claim Joe came up slow in the field and let some fly balls dunk in that he normally would get to. Additionally, Jackson struck out twice in the series, which doesn't seem like a lot, but when you consider he struck out just 10 times that whole season, you gotta wonder about those strikeouts and if they sabotaged key situations for the White Sox.

And, Jackson did have a bout of good conscience after the deed was already done and the World Series lost, but I believe he would have done a better job keeping his guilt to himself had he received the extra money that was promised to him. The fact that he received only a small portion of the money promised to him made it easier for him to question his involvement in the whole thing and feel bad about it. And there was a higher ground to take in the whole mess, as Buck Weaver showed. Buck, like Jackson was aware of the conspiracy and invited to join, but unlike Jackson, Buck refused money, did not seek more money, and there are no reports at all that Buck's play was suspect (as there are with Jackson's fielding).

Anyhow, after reading through this thread, again it seems that there are too many Jackson apologists who have this romanticized vision of Joe as an innocent boob who unwittingly got caught up in this mess. As always, I stress that anyone who feels that Jackson is an innocent boob and is guilt free, needs to read his Grand Jury Testimony (which was conveniently missing during the trial), and you'll see that Jackson, from his own mouth, was guilty. Don't be fooled by his good hitting statistics, the man was guilty and he knew it.

The results in this poll are disgraceful, as is the comment that Jackson "allegedly" threw the World Series in the poll. There is no allegedly about it, the guy ADMITTED to being a part of the conspiracy. Read his Grand Jury testimony people - you can't ignore facts; Joe was guilty and he knew it! This poll has been misleading from inception as it distorts the truth.

As for Rose, he is a scumbag, something that is even greater magnified for us because of modern media scrutiny. However, I don't know how different Rose is from Ty Cobb, someone most of us readily identify as one of the best ever. Both players played hard and to win and cared not for the wellbeing of their opponents standing in their way. However, it was highly suspected that Cobb bet on games (and along with Tris Speaker, was almost banned from the game for it). Cobb, like Rose, was a scumbag, but was also a bigot and a racist, but we don't hold these facets against him, why?

It seems to me that far too many people have this romanticized version of the players and the game from the earlier 20th century and are far more willing to give those players the benefit of the doubt (and even ignore condemning evidence altogether). Is that fair though? Would Cobb look like such a saint if he was subject to the same media storm/scorn as Rose?

carnivore

06-25-2005, 01:43 PM

It seems everyone is straying from the argument here and trying to make this a Jackson vs. Rose contest, and it's not a Jackson vs. Rose contest because I concede that Jackson was the more talented player. The question here is if voters can get past Jackson's transgressions and questionable character and support his candidacy, why not support Rose now? The only way I can see a Jackson supporter getting around voting for Rose now is if they can convince that they truly feel that Rose is not among the top 135 players ever. And so far no one has convinced me of that and instead have tried to divert the question of this thread to being a comparison between Rose and Jackson and Rose's ability at the end of his career. This is not meant to be a comparison, this is meant to clarify what I see as hypocrisy here. And until someone can convince me that they truly feel Rose was not among the top 135 ever, I will continue to believe that the supporters of Jackson who are not supporting for Rose are hypocrites.
I haven't participated in the voting until now, but I'll take a stab at this anyway.

First the assumptions:

In the top 135 players we should expect to see about about 80 position players.
I am going to give each position equal representation. IOW, there will be as many 3rd basemen as 1st basemen.
Since Rose was primarily a corner outfielder and firstbaseman for most of his career, he'll compete for one of those 30 spots.

Versatile as he was, Rose primarily played the positions where you expect to see power ... and he didn't have it. And while he went a long ways towards compensating with a high average, his OPS+ was sadly ordinarily for the positions he played. Of the 100 career leaders for OPS+ there are 88 outfielders and 1stbasemen listed and Rose isn't close to being on the list (no, I didn't break out the centerfielders). Interestingly enough, most of the non OF/1bs on the list played 3rd base - another one of Pete's positions.

Now granted, not all of those players were better than Rose, a number of them had short careers and others are still active and haven't hit their decline phase yet. But this is still indicative of the fact that Rose's true value is only measured in terms of consistency and longevity. As a 1b/OF he was less than exceptional. The only truely special thing he did was be good for a very long time.

I don't think that I'd have difficulty finding 10 first basemen and 20 corner outfielders that I'd rank ahead of Pete Rose.

And please don't bring up the Charlie Hustle crap - it was a great self promotional gimmick but who cares if you run to first base on a walk? Based on Pete's abysmal record stealing bases, I'd think that that would be the last thing you'd want to discuss as part of his qualifications. His aggresiveness on the basepaths probably cost his teams more runs than it ever brought in.

BTW, one last point: I could see ranking Rose among the top ten secondbasemen without any problems - maybe you should blame Joe Morgan for all Pete's problems?

csh19792001

06-25-2005, 02:34 PM

Anyhow, I don't see how posting Rose's decline statistics are an argument against him not being one of the top 135 players of all-time. It seems everyone is straying from the argument here

What I wrote was not directly germane to the ongoing Jackson vs. Rose diatribe above. My post was a direct response to specific, specious claims that you made to try to make Rose look better than he was. Now, obviously Pete Rose is one of the top 135 ever- that isn't a very select group anyway. Besides, the fact that he's part of an arbitrary "top 135" doesn't prove (or mean) much of anything, in any case.

Obviously, based on the facts, we see that Rose was not even an average player his last 5 years, or even close- he was an out machine with no power, no speed, below average fielding, and only a modicum of value as a player.

DoubleX

06-25-2005, 03:24 PM

In the 5 seasons leading up to and including the year he broke the record, Rose batted .277 with an OBP of over .360. That's hardly indicative of him being an out machine. Seriously, put yourself in Pete's position in Spring 1982. You're 41, coming off a year that you just hit .325 in 431 ABs meaning that you can still hit at a Major League level, you've collected more career hits than everyone save Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron, and you're within 500 hits of Ty Cobbs longstanding record; would you not give a run for the record given that you've come so close, closer than anyone except Hank Aaron? I'd give it a shot.

Moreover, it's complete crap to say that Pete held his team back by keeping himself in the lineup for several seasons past his prime. He only had control of him being in the lineup for less than half a season prior to breaking the record. He wasn't a manager until near the end of the 1984 season (after having spent 95 games with Montreal). It should also be noted that the reds finished in 5th in 1984, and then IMPROVED by 12 games and finished in 2nd place in 1985 - Pete's first full year as manager. In 1986, Pete kept himself to a part-time bench player and pinch-hitting duties and then retired. So yeah, it's a gross exagerration to say Pete for years manipulated his lineups so he could play at the expense of his team, when in truth he did it for just one season and in that season his team improved by 12 games.

As for Carnivore's points about Rose's position, normally I'd say he's right, but based on our many conversations and rankings here, I'd say most members here don't pigeon-hole Rose at any one position and do see him as a utility player, so the argument is moot. Rose wasn't at any position long enough to be considered at it against other players. Moreover, I see the fact that Rose jumped from position to position while in his prime and on championship teams a huge sign that he was all about winning and had a team-first attitude.

And one more thing - that 135 is not arbitrary at all and it means everything in this discussion. Csh, we've had some good conversations here and usually we're of similar minds on things, but I take the fact that you label that 135 as arbitrary as a disrespect and a sign that you posted in this thread without reading the original post in this thread and similar posts I've made on this topic in other threads in this forum. That 135 number is about our Hall of Fame here at the Fever. As of last month, we've elected 110 players to the Hall, and we're allowed to have up to 25 players on our current ballots. Meaning, that if Rose isn't on a voters ballot, that signals that the voter does not believe that Rose is among the top 135 ever - something even you admitted is hard to swallow (when you said "now obviously Pete Rose is one of the top 135 ever.").

So that's the entire point of this protest - I'm specifically questioning the voters who supported Jackson when he was elected in February but have yet to put Rose on their ballots. It's fairly hard to believe that an intelligent baseball fan would not include Rose among the top 135 of all-time, and that's where we're at now at the Fever. If you look at ballots, they are largely composed of marginal Hall of Famers and Grey Area players now - Rose at worst, surely belongs among many of the names being voted for now based purely on his on the field accomplishments (per our rules which I have quoted several times). So if those voters can put aside character questions and vote for Jackson, why aren't those same voters voting for Rose at this point? I find it hard to believe that they think there are 135 better players than Rose, so I created this thread so they can tell me why they're not. Either they'll convince me that they don't believe Rose is among the top 135 (which none of the voters in question has done so far), or they'll admit their hypocrisy and expose their ignorance.

So again, I repeat, this isn't a Jackson vs. Rose thread, or an assessment of Rose's last few years, it's to get answers from the people that could support Jackson despite his trangressions, but are not supporting Rose despite the fact that we're considering 135 players now.

My basic stance is that if you voted for Jackson, there should be no reason why you're not voting for Rose at this juncture when we've elected 110 and can vote for 25 more. So I created this thread so that those in question could explain themselves and perhaps convince me that they are not hypocrites but they truly believe that there are 135 players better than Rose - so far not one of them as done this.

leecemark

06-25-2005, 04:01 PM

--Double X, I am more or less in agreement with your position on Rose. I didn't and never would have voted for Jackson, but now that he is in I have Rose on my ballot. However, I think you are dead wrong and hurting your argument when you try to argue that Rose was anything but a drain on his ball clubs his last five years (and 6 of his last 7). Even the best of those five years when he was slightly below the average player offensively, he would have been way below the average firstbaseman. He was also a lousy fielder and baserunner by that point. There were dozens of benchwarmers and career minor leaguers who could have contributed more as the firstbasemen for his teams than he did. Even before he became player-manager he was more a sideshow than an actual on-field assest to his teams.

csh19792001

06-26-2005, 12:30 AM

Thanks for lending support and rationality to this discussion here, Mark.

Double X- I actually didn't vote for Joe Jackson here- so I'm not part of the "double standard" crowd. I'm reserving judgement, becuase to be honest I still haven't heard a definitive answer as to Jackson's culpability. I've seen credible, well researched sources (both on TV and in the literature) that support each respective side of the case.

Final thoughts: Rose did have a HOF career, but his 4000 hits don't automatically qualify him for any kind of inner circle status. It was certainly a unique accomplishment, but not really as special as you think. Don't forget ... he also holds the records for outs.

You know, the more I look at it, the more I think that Rose was never really that great, but only very good during his prime, and simply either "good" or "poor" for a long time afterwards, racking up the totals. Not only does he Pete Rose lead in outs made, but by a huge margin not even nearly commensurate with his lead in PA.

OUTS
1 Pete Rose 10328
2 Hank Aaron 9136
3 Carl Yastrzemski 9126
4 Cal Ripken 8893
5 Eddie Murray 8570
6 Rickey Henderson 8510
7 Dave Winfield 8422
8 Robin Yount 8415
9 Brooks Robinson 8340
10 Luis Aparicio 8110

If he'd been at least a decent power hitter (however he was always the quintessential singles hitter), or had been outstanding as a baserunner or possessing of great speed (not either of those), or had an outstanding eye and drawn a ton of walks (and/or had a great K/BB ratio as a leadoff hitter) like a Joe Morgan (nope), he would have been truly great. By contrast, Joe Jackson was an incredible all-around talent- and the greatest natural hitter of all time, and did everything very well or at an exalted level. I know we aren't really debating their merits/skills, however, I still don't see Rose as an alltime great by any means, simply because he hung around forever to break a record previously thought to be totally unassailable. Rose is almost certainly not even one of top 50 best ever- and I can't imagine how Jackson isn't in that group.

west coast orange and black

06-26-2005, 02:02 AM

...And Rose betting is such a minor thing.yer kidding, right? i just now pinched myself, and i'm awake... and i do not understand, five-four.It is legal to bet in just about every state now, in one form or another.this has absolutley NOTHING to do with the rules of baseball.Betting on any game, or betting for or against your own team, does not constitute cheating, in any way shape or form.rule 21(d) is not about cheating.

21(d): BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Some archaic rules are, and some "Holier than though" attitudes are keeping one of the best players of all time out of the hall.rose signed on to keep himself out of the hall... and to keep private the findings that he bet on baseball while player/manager... after his actions did so;
during every spring training, clubhouses are visited and players and staff are spoken to about this rule, specifically. it is not archaic; it is current and very important.

the school of thought that it's always someone else's fault seems to be still up and running... and thriving.

DoubleX

06-26-2005, 05:21 AM

Rose is almost certainly not even one of top 50 best ever- and I can't imagine how Jackson isn't in that group.
Ugh I give up...The aim of this thread has been totally distorted and has broken down to a Joe Jackson was better than Pete Rose thread and Pete Rose wasn't that great thread. I'm in agreement with both, but that's not the question here...sigh

klsm54

06-26-2005, 12:16 PM

Sorry, I think the betting rule is trivial. Baseball gives drug abusers multiple chances, seemingly forever, wife beaters and habitual trouble-makers are coddled, yet a simple bet, even when approved by the vast majority of society, is frowned upon to the extent of keepning people barred for life from the sport. It just doesn't add up to me. If banning is going to take place, then let's include with players who break criminal laws, as well as those who commit a rule book infraction. The way it is now, a player could batter his wife and provide school kids with drugs, but after his 3 or 4 months in jail he would be back on the diamond. But place a few lousy bets, and you are gone for life. Just doesn't make sense to me. And to clear up a point, I am dead set against gambling. I don't think it should be legal anywhere. But it surely isn't as bad a habit as some of those which baseball ignores.

DoubleX

06-26-2005, 09:02 PM

Great post, klsm54, and since it's the first post I've read from you on these boards, let me just say welcome.

I think you make some great points about baseballs standards of morality. The only reason I believe betting is viewed as a cardinal sin in baseball is that it is an activity that can (and has) directly hurt the integrity of the game. Players/managers are in a unique position when it comes to betting on baseball in that they are participants in it. The question then arises that if a player/manager is betting on a game, are they doing something to effect the outcome of the game to aid their bet?

Anyhow, I do agree with your points and believe that if baseball is so condemning of gambling, it should rethink how it treats offenders of more serious crimes (drugs, domestic abuse)

moviegeekjan

06-26-2005, 09:50 PM

It's not that baseball overlooks laws that society deams more serious (violations of those laws lands people in prison ... and I don't recall any HOF players who have been locked up for felonies).

The gambling violation is paramount to MLB (and thus emphasized and posted in no uncertain terms in every MLB clubhouse) because violation of this rule threatens the very integrity of the game. If the public cannot trust that the players are above board and making their best efforts in competition, then the game itself ... is dead.

west coast orange and black

06-27-2005, 09:22 AM

It's not that baseball overlooks laws that society deams more serious... [but] gambling violation is paramount to MLB... because violation of this rule threatens the very integrity of the game...agreed, mgj.

i can not recall ever hearing anyone claim that betting on baseball is, in itself, a more serious action than mentally, spiritually or physically abusing someone. or more aggregious than drug abuse. that would be just silly.

there are crimes against humanity and then there are wrongdoings accorded by organizations and groups. rule 21 falls into the latter.

rule 21 and other wrongdoings, while paling in "seriousness" to crimes against humanity, are deemed necessary for that particular organization or group to continue its practices in the manner that they choose.

baseball has declared that betting on baseball will getcha tossed. period.
what, in itself, is wrong with that?

klsm54

06-27-2005, 10:20 AM

Thanks DoubleX! I am not trying to stir up big controversy here, just that I think Rose should be in the hall. I think a lot more living players should be in the hall. I think it is good for the sport to have it's legends be alive and promoting the sport. Rose broke the rules, but I think the penalty already served, more than befits his wrong doing. I am not certain that any felons are in the hall, but the sport has accepted, with open arms, some very unsavory types, ala Darryl Strawberry. If he had made a miracle comeback and compiled the stats, he would be eligible for the hall. Something doesn't quite fit, in my simple mind... :crazy

I don't condone breaking of any rules set forth by any organization. If you want to be a part of any group, you should abide by the rules. And if baseball doesn't want gambling, then so be it. My argument is over the severity of the punishment.

As far as Jackson is concerned, I think that the record, and his testimony, clearly show that he was in on the planning of the fix. I feel that he just couldn't go through with it, whether through a burning competitive fire, or through being overcome with a sense of morality at the last minute. I think he needed to be punished, severely, and I think he was. Now I think he too should be in the hall.

We live in a society that believes in rehabilitation. We allow felons to run for public office. This is where I think baseball is trying to ride a high horse. Make the rules, enforce the rules, but make the punishment fit the crime. I mean after all, Steve Howes lifetime ban was repealed by making the argument that he NEEDED cocaine to deal with ADD. I just think there needs to be consistency.... :hp

KHenry14

06-27-2005, 02:31 PM

The thing is, perhaps we should make the penalties worse for some off the filed issues rather than lower the one on betting. Take a look at the Dowd report 54, Rose was betting heavliy and was in deep with some bookies. At that time, Pete actually was blowing off the bookies and refusing to pay. For some reason the bookies didn't go after him. but if they had, what if they had told Pete "Uh, Pete, you make sure the Reds lose tonite or Pete Jr. wont see tomorrow" What would he do then? He'd make sure the Reds lost. And that would make the Game no different that the WWE. And that's why he got a lifetime ban.The fact that he then lied about it for 15 years makes his re-instatement extemely unlikey. Had he waited a year, thrown himself on the mercy of the country, admitted he had a gambling addiction, he'd have been in a long time ago. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

And unlike Pete, Jackson did show remorse.

KH14

oriolesrockripkenrules888

06-27-2005, 08:59 PM

Jackson wasn't that smart, and really didn't know, Rose knew he could get caught and did it anyways. They set up Shoeless Joe, but still played good in the series

DodgerBlue81

06-28-2005, 12:35 AM

Both, because they both had careers that warrant HOF induction.

THANK YOU. And that's ALL THAT SHOULD MATTER!.

I seriously don't understand how these two guys and Eddie Cicotte as well, are banned from the Hall of Fame. If a player was a great player and has Hall of Fame numbers, then he should be in, period. I don't care if they mention what they did wrong on their plaques, but bottomline is that they should be enshrined. That the sport's all-time hit leader and a player with a .356 career average, (2nd all-time) are not in the Hall of Fame is a total disgrace. Hall of Fame should be about performance only!

west coast orange and black

06-28-2005, 12:42 AM

ok, so to hell with the rules of baseball!

to hell with the laws of society, as well?

DodgerBlue81

06-28-2005, 01:07 AM

Dude, it's not like they were serial killers. They are 2 legendary players and should be in the building with the rest of the greatest players. I don't mind them being banned from participating in baseball as a player or as a manager or coach, but players that great should be in the Hall of Fame!

west coast orange and black

06-28-2005, 10:08 AM

...players that great should be in the Hall of Fame!so, it comes back to saying "to hell with the rules of baseball"?

(the rules of baseball that govern things such as the hall of fame?)

Barnstormer

06-28-2005, 12:27 PM

The rules of baseball don't actually govern the hall of fame, the hall is a non-profit institution and museum with an independent board of directors, and it makes its own rules. However, since one of those rules is that nobody on MLB's ineligible list can be elected, MLB has a de facto veto on making Jackson and Rose eligible.

By the way, as far as I can tell there are about 20 people on baseball's "ineligible list" - 19 guys all banned from 1920-24 for gambling (including the Black Sox), and Pete Rose 60 years later. Very elite company.

DoubleX

06-28-2005, 01:35 PM

THANK YOU. And that's ALL THAT SHOULD MATTER!.
I disagree. The Hall of Fame is meant to honor what is best about the game. Putting in individuals that have sullied the integrity of the great game with their misdeeds is not a good way to celebrate what is good about the game. There are thousands of players that played the game the right way, and a couple hundred of those players are in the Hall. It degrades their achievements and approach to the game to be lumped in with others who did not approach the game with the same reverence for its integrity and tradition.

DodgerBlue81

06-28-2005, 04:07 PM

ENOUGH with this integrity stuff, it doesn't degrade any achievements, if anything some of the mediocre players who don't belong degrade the Hall of Fame more than Jackson, Cicotte, and Rose would who clearly belong. The Hall of Fame is a bogus, phony, lying institution that claims that the retired legends of the game are all enshrined there. Complete crap, again how can they claim that when the sport's all-time hit leader is not there, and the player with the 2nd highest career average isn't there either. That's 2 major legends that are missing. Yet the Hall of Fame doesn't mind enshrining mediocre and slightly above average players that shouldn't be there but were elected by their friends. The Hall of Fame should claim that most of baseball's retired greats are there, since some un-banned players who are missing are a lot more deserving than some that are already there. I bet some of the Hall's so-called "heroes" also gambled on baseball but were never caught, and many were worse individuals than Rose, Jackson, and Cicotte.

Geez, wasn't it enough that they were banned and their careers were ended? There should be a separation between honoring a great player in the Hall of Fame and allowing him to continue participating in baseball. I don't have a problem with them being banned from participating as players, managers, coaches, etc. but give them credit as great players and put them where all of the greatest players belong, that way you can have a more complete and legitimate Hall of Fame. It's not like they were serial killers or child abusers, but I guess that according to baseball, gambling on baseball is worse.

DoubleX

06-28-2005, 09:17 PM

I don't think players (and this especially rings true for 7 of the 8 Black Sox, with Buck Weaver excepted) should be rewarded for dishonoring the game that gave them a livelihood, that gave them fame. Give them credit as players you say? As players they chose to dupe the public that loved them and to cheat the integrity of the game, and this is to be honored in the Hall of Fame, amidst a collection of players that respected the game and approached it the right way? You're telling me that you'd want to honor a player for his baseball achievements if he had 3000 hits but also was known to throw games? You'd want to honor and endorse that approach, reward a player that didn't care for winning, for the fans, for playing the right way and enjoying playing a game for a livelihood, just because they had pretty statistics? There is more to being a player than just statistics, and in that respect the names you mentioned have failings. I think Cooperstown is right to keep out the Black Sox - as players they conspired to throw the World Series, and no statistics can ever make up for that. Players like that should not be honored because they dishonored the game. By accepting those players into the Hall of Fame the Hall would be sending the message that it accepts the corruption of the game's integrity that those players made.

DodgerBlue81

06-29-2005, 02:52 PM

I understand all that, but I would still prefer to see a Hall of Fame with ALL the legends of the game.

DoubleX

06-29-2005, 04:55 PM

Well I guess that all depends on how you define legends. I don't consider players that conspired to throw the World Series legends of the game in the least.

DodgerBlue81

06-29-2005, 05:05 PM

See people like you won't even give these guys credit for anything, they were GREAT players whether you admit it or not.

Oh yeah, Joe Jackson had an excellent World Series in 1919.

.375 1 HR 6 RBI

While he knew what was going on, he certainly gave full effort. Someone trying to lose doesn't hit .375 and commit no errors in the field.

DoubleX

06-29-2005, 07:20 PM

First, I must ask if you have read Jackson's Grand Jury testimony? I feel like I have to repeat these lines almost everyday around here - Jackson, from his own mouth, knew of the conspiracy, agreed to be a part of the conspiracy, accepted money as part of the conspiracy, and was disappointed when he wasn't given more money by Chick Gandil as promised him. Plus, there are eye witness reports that Joe did come up slow on fly ballls and allow them to dunk in when he normally would have reached them.

Jackson didn't have to try to throw the series, Eddie Cicotte and Lefty Williams made it easy for the rest of the team to lose. Throw in some well-timed gaffes by the likes of Chick Gandil and Swede Risberg, and Joe could just sit back and look good and make money. I think in many ways that it's more heinous - Joe wanted and accepted money for the misdeeds, but he himself didn't commit them - he willingly profited from the misdeeds of others. Though I do wonder about his 2 strikeouts in the series. He struck out 10 times all season, so twice in one series does seem like a lot. I wonder what kind of situations those were.

And then everyone says, "well Joe went to Comiskey, he felt guilty." That was after the fact, the series had been thrown, and after it was apparent Joe was not going to receive the full amount promised to him. Although I don't recall the exact amount he actually did receive, I don't believe it amounted to much more than the winners share. So one can see why Joe had his bout of good conscience - it was easy for him to question motives and his involvement when he didn't receive the money promised to him, gave him (and other involved such as Happy Flesch and Lefty Williams) a retrospective sense of "was it worth it?" If they had received the sum promised to them, I'd be willing to be that they'd keep their mouths shut.

Again, I beg everyone here who hasn't done this already, before you post about Joe and romanticize his involvement in the scandal, please read his grand jury testimony and at the very least Eight Men Out. Don't be fooled by his gaudy statistics, Joe was in on it, accepted money for it, and was disappointed when he wasn't given more money for it.

See people like you won't even give these guys credit for anything, they were GREAT players whether you admit it or not.

I give them plenty of credit for being great players. I am well aware of their accomplishments and statistics. But as players they also corrupted the game - they dishonored the game and they dishonored themselves and they should not be honored and rewarded for their misdeeds as players.

And please stop with the "people like you" thing. Perhaps if you took some time to actually get to know some of the people here, you'd see there is a lot more than meets the eye and that you've discovered a mecca for intelligent baseball talk. As for myself, look around in some of the other posts in this forum and you'll actually see that I've been one of the biggest proponents of elected Pete Rose to our Hall of Fame here. You should check that out sometime, you might learn a thing or two.

DodgerBlue81

06-29-2005, 08:08 PM

DoubleX

06-29-2005, 09:00 PM

You support Pete Rose? :clapping

Like I said, check some of the other threads around here. I support Rose here for two reasons: 1) If Jackson is in our Hall of Fame (which he has been since February), Rose certainly deserves a spot by this point in time when we've elected 115 players and can vote for 25 more each month. 2) Rose played hard and played to win, and stomped over anyone who would get in his way. He was a team first guy as evidenced by the fact that while playing on the most dominant team of a decade (the Reds of the 70's), Rose would constantly switch posistions for the good of the team. Did he bet on baseball, sure he did. Did he bet against his own team, I doubt it and have seen no evidence that he did.

DodgerBlue81

06-29-2005, 09:18 PM

I agree :clapping but both should be in the real Hall of Fame too! :D

moviegeekjan

06-29-2005, 09:35 PM

While he knew what was going on, he certainly gave full effort. Someone trying to lose doesn't hit .375 and commit no errors in the field. But did you personally see this series enough to judge whether Jackson REALLY gave his full effort.

Did he run full out on every outfield chance? Did he position himself correctly for each hitter, based on whatever scouting reports they had.

It's also possible that if he gave "full effort," he might have hit .475 for the series.

But the final word is what is already in the records--his testimony. Jackson knew full well what was going on, accepted money (expecting even more payment), and did nothing during the series to stop the fix.

therealnod

06-29-2005, 10:00 PM

He was a team first guy as evidenced by the fact that while playing on the most dominant team of a decade (the Reds of the 70's), Rose would constantly switch posistions for the good of the team.

How about the evidence that as manager of a team Rose inked his name into the lineup when he was all but done rather than play more deserving youngsters while he was in the pursuit of an individual record? I suppose there is some way to wrangle that into the definition of a "team-first" player, though not many that know the man seem to think of him as anything but self-absorbed. :rolleyes:

birdsondabat

06-30-2005, 01:28 PM

With 4,256 hits, a full 1,256 more than the magic "in" number, Rose should be in the hall if he crashed a bus load of nuns into a petting zoo. Gambling is an addiction, but it's looked upon more harshly than alcoholism or other drug use. Pete was/is a prick, that shouldn't matter, MLB could use him to their advantage while he is alive. He should at the very least have a chance at attonement.

ValenzFan

06-30-2005, 05:30 PM

No definitive proof of Jackson throwing anything. Rose admittedly bet on his own team for years, and bet against his own team.
Jackson was also a better baseball player, but that's moot, really.
In my opinion, and until further proof appears, BOTH should be admitted since:

A) I have not seen yet any proof that Pete Rose placed a bet against his own team while playing or managing.
B) No "Black Sox" ban will be fair until Charles Comiskey (then owner of the CWS) is banned as well as responsible of carrying the players to situations that lead to tempting them to throw that World Series.
But Mr. Comiskey has lived "happily ever after" in Cooperstown, isn't him?

If I ever see undisputable evidence that Pete Rose placed bets against the Cincinnati Reds (or any other team he was related to) while playing, managing or any other relation with such team, then I'll be totally agree he deserves an eternal ban. Until then, I'll support his induction.
For Jackson, my position is: if Charles Comiskey deserves to be in Cooperstown, then Joe Jackson deserves it a whole lot more!!

rainout

07-05-2005, 07:46 PM

It seems to me unnecessary to denigrate Jackson to promote Rose.

mac195

07-05-2005, 08:20 PM

Carnivore, I think you are underrating Rose considerably by comparing him to Andre Dawson. He not only played much longer than Dawson, but he did so at a higher rate.

Top seasons by WARP3 (wins above replacement player):

Rose: 10.2, 10.0, 9.4, 9.4, 9.3, 8.2, 8.0

Dawson: 8.6, 8.4, 8.0, 7.4, 7.4, 7.2, 6.3

Despite the terrible seasons Rose tacked on to the end of his career, his still enjoys a considerable advantage over Dawson in win shares per plate appearance (http://members.aol.com/cjmorong/myhomepage/WSperPA.htm).

WS/648 plate appearances:

Rose - 22.35

Dawson - 20.46

Total win shares:

Rose - 547

Dawson - 340

Rose is a top 50 all time player, Dawson is probably in the 150-200 range.

carnivore

07-06-2005, 10:21 PM

Carnivore, I think you are underrating Rose considerably by comparing him to Andre Dawson. He not only played much longer than Dawson, but he did so at a higher rate.

...

Rose is a top 50 all time player, Dawson is probably in the 150-200 range.
The point was that I compare all HOF candidates to Dawson since I see him as the cutoff ... and as much as I didn't want to say it, Rose does go in ahead of the Hawk.

You make a good point with the individual seasons that Pete's peak was better than I remember, but I still find it really hard to see Rose as a top 50 fifty player. Even if you assume that there are only 10 pitchers in the top 50, that leaves only 5 players at each position. Take a look at each of the 4 positions that Rose played and tell me how he makes the top five.

Appling

07-14-2005, 07:03 PM

The film "Eight Men Out" tells the 1919 Series story exactly as I remember my dad telling me about it 50+ years ago. He was ten years old and a strong White Sox fan in 1919. My dad always insisted that:
* Gandil was the bad guy -- and it was he who made the deal with gamblers;
* Joe Jackson didn't go to any meetings and he didn't throw any games -- but he apparently did take money. He was a victim of circumstance, because he didn't really understand what to do when the smart guys on the team said to take the deal. He didn't agree to throw any games but he did take money.
* Buck Weaver was cheated of his baseball future. Very few players in baseball history would have the courage to "rat" on their teammates -- and whom could he trust if he did decide to spill the beans? He didn't take money. He played hard and tried to win -- but he didn't report the fix.
* Cicotte was the potential deal breaker. If he didn't buy in, the fix wouldn't have happened. And Eddie did it only because he felt Comiskey had cheated him. (Cicotte was promised a bonus if he won 30 games, but then he was "rested" the last three weeks -- missing several starts and ending the year with "only" 29 wins!)

In the long term, the owners came out fine and the gamblers did too. The real victims were Jackson and Weaver. The other players got what they deserved.

ValenzFan

08-03-2005, 04:26 PM

I had the chance to watch that movie, too, and to scan for some info about that happening. I'm fully agree with you in the fact that, other than Jackson and Weaver, all other players got a deserved punishment, but it also supports my opinion that baseball HOF has been way too kind with Charles Comiskey and his responsability in all that matter.
That's why I keep my idea that Comiskey should be kicked out of Cooperstown, or otherwise, Joe Jackson must be allowed in.

Bluesteve32

08-03-2005, 04:43 PM

Niether. I am not convinced of Shoeless Joe's innocence and Pete knew the rules but he broke them anyway, because he is Pete Rose and everybody loves Pete Rose; well he thought so.

Tony Robbins

10-06-2006, 03:34 PM

Since it's among the general census that Rose, Bonds, and Jackson don't belong in the Hall of Fame because of steroids and gambling which 'compromised' the integrity of the game, one would ponder if Gaylord Perry then belongs. After all, he cheated, admitted to it, and breezed his way into the Hall of Fame with nobody doubting his integrity. Rose on the other hand, baseball's all time hit leader, is still banned, as well as Jackson, one of the greatest hitters ever, and Bonds, baseball's single season homerun king, may indeed be banned. So whats everyones thoughts, please vote on my poll, and share your thoughts on this subject.

Thanks.

hubkittel

10-06-2006, 04:34 PM

my general thoughts on the subject:

1. perry: cheated but in an "acceptable" way; spitballs, corked bats, stealing signs, etc are acceptable forms of gaining a competative advantage. i have no problem with him in the HoF.

2. bonds: let's stipulate for the sake of argument that he knowingly used peds; that seems to be an "unacceptable" form of cheating. he was still the best player in the game before the ped usage. if you want to downgrade him historicly because of this, fine. he's going into the HoF.

3. rose: admitted gambling on baseball; no evidence that he ever bet against his own team or was involved in fixing games. his continued ban is more a result of not fessing up when he got caught than the nature of the original "crime" itself. there is no difference between what rose did and what paul hourning did in the 1960's. they eventually put hourning in the football HoF and i believe at some point rose will go in (maybe they can do it posthumously to avoid a boycott of his speech by living hall of famers).

4. jackson: admitted being involved in a conspericy to fix baseball games. should never go into the HoF.

LouGehrig

10-06-2006, 04:51 PM

Assuming that Rose does not refer to Don Rose, Bonds does not refer to Bobby Bonds, and Jackson does not refer to Reggie Jackson, the answer is that ALL belong in the Hall of Fame.

When Pete Rose bet on his team while he was manager, he could have affected the outcomes of games and of pennant races since his use of players, especially pitchers, in games on which he bet, might have been different from games on which he didn't bet. If he bet on a game, he might use a closer he otherwise might have rested, etc. You get the idea. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Rose should be banned from being considered for the HOF as a manager.

But even if he bet on games AS A PLAYER, his competitive nature would cancel out any factors betting on a game might produce. It was a non factor. Therefore, no matter what factors were involved, Rose never gave less than 100% when he played. He belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Bonds is so simple. PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE. I know, I know. The recently passed Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act allows the use of hearsay evidence. That is all that is present against Bonds---hearsay. Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Shoeless Joe Jackson belongs in the Hall of Fame. There are many threads and posts on this site to which one can refer to realize that Jackson was duped into the situation.

The most effective action would be for the leader of the free world to give Jackson a presidential pardon. After all, just look up the list of individuals to whom he has already given them.

Gaylord Perry came clean (unlike the baseballs he delivered). Barry Bonds is uppity. This society does not like uppity individuals. Perry was forgiven. Bonds is resented. Rose became contrite too late. Jackson is dead.

Perry belongs in the Hall of Fame. Exactly what is cheating? Is taking a deduction on one's taxes that is exaggerated or cannot be fully documented cheating? Is scuffing up a baseball cheating? Is exceeding the speed limit cheating? Do red light cameras that identify a license plate but not the driver represent cheating by the municipality?

Cheating is rampant in this society. How does one know WHO has cheated? Well, it used to be that one was innocent until proven otherwise. But now that hearsay evidence can be used, how does one resolve the situation when a player or manager accuses a rival of cheating? It is ridulous but that is what exists.

Skin & Bones

10-06-2006, 06:55 PM

1. perry: cheated but in an "acceptable" way; spitballs, corked bats, stealing signs, etc are acceptable forms of gaining a competative advantage. i have no problem with him in the HoF.
Is spitballs " acceptable " because A.) they can't kill someone, or B.) because they don't benefit a pitcher ?

If it's B, your clearly wrong. There's statistical evidence that spitballs benefit a pitcher greatly.

brett

10-06-2006, 07:15 PM

I think it's because the spitball has a game-time penalty. Players knew that throwing spitballs was not punishable by a lifetime ban. They knew the punishment and accepted the risk. If Perry should have been banned, it should have come immediately after getting caught for throwing a spitball. The rules and traditions of the game dictate that throwing a spitball is not punishable by such a ban.

Rose, in my view, is not ineligible. The ban could be lifted but he seems to have done everything to prevent it from being lifted-an acceptable apology etc. I personally think that Rose's situation should have been considered more of a compulsive disease. He should never be allowed to be involved in the decision making process of any team, but if he really wanted, I think he's be in today.

Bonds was a hall of famer after '98. He also is in somewhat of the position that Perry was in, in that he saw other players hitting 60+ homeruns using steroids, and not getting punished. When this happens, a player almost owes it to his team to do the same thing that so many other players are using to gain an advantage against his team. Baseball's lack of enforcement DID justify it because you have a competitive obligation just to give your team the same edge that other teams get.

Jackson is a tough case. If the powers that be believed that he should be banned, how can we pretend to know more almost 100 years later?

Maybe they can put up a plaque for Bonds, Rose and Jackson as three great players who fell.

McGwire is MUCH more suspect than Bonds because his career was apparently resurrected by steroids AND he wasn't going to the HOF prior to the likely beginning of his use in '95, AND McGwire didn't have to face the fact that a cheater had just extended the homerun record from 61 to 70 and nobody was even interested in looking into steroids.

Is spitballs " acceptable " because A.) they can't kill someone, or B.) because they don't benefit a pitcher ?

If it's B, your clearly wrong. There's statistical evidence that spitballs benefit a pitcher greatly.