Disgracing the HOF?

[TriviaGod]

Which is worse?
Pete Rose being inducted or Barry Bonds being inducted?

And is it really a disgrace to the players that are not part of these scandals? What about Shoeless Joe Jackson...

[princethomas]

I don't think any of them should go in. Most people talk of the Hall of Fame but haven't been there.

I have been there. Its awesome and guess what. There is a lot of Stuff about Pete Rose and Joe Jackson there. They are Both heavily represented there. It is more than just a club. Its a Baseball Museum and archive. And that means that even Barry Bonds' err... "accomplishments" will be remembered too.

The difference is just that extra honor of being enshrined as a member. And I don't think any of them should be.

[BlueBlood]

princethomas, great points except that Joe Jackson probably didn't cheat and therefore deserves to be honored in the same fashion as the greats...I feel that 90% of the public would be in support of his induction. At least.

[jalbright]

princethomas, great points except that Joe Jackson probably didn't cheat and therefore deserves to be honored in the same fashion as the greats...I feel that 90% of the public would be in support of his induction. At least.

I think 1) you are being overly generous on Joe Jackson's culpability, and 2) at least as importantly, are greatly overestimating the support he has. The man admitted under oath he took money intended to buy his cooperation in the fix. That's a dirty player in my book, one who should never be honored by the game, and I think there's far more people than you think who agree with me (like at least 40%, and probably more than that IMO).

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jackson: NEVER.

Rose: Yes, but the HOF must deal with the fact that he is under suspension. The HOF should, IMO, reverse it's ban on enshrining players under suspension. Then, the HOF should study Rose's actual activities. If they can conclude that Rose did not throw games, or conspire to throw games, he should be inducted.

Bonds: He's not done yet, let's wait and see. A lot can happen in a 5 year waiting period. Just ask Pete!

[SamtheBravesFan]

I think 1) you are being overly generous on Joe Jackson's culpability, and 2) at least as importantly, are greatly overestimating the support he has. The man admitted under oath he took money intended to buy his cooperation in the fix. That's a dirty player in my book, one who should never be honored by the game, and I think there's far more people than you think who agree with me (like at least 40%, and probably more than that IMO).

Jim Albright

Yeah, but word is around here in the Carolinas that Jackson was illiterate and as dumb as a post, and he may not have known what he was supposed to do after taking the money. It is pretty simple to take free money. Anyone can understand that.

Jackson's legend is so great in South Carolina, that they moved one of his residences to West End Field in Greenville AND here in Anderson, named their new South Coast League team the Joes, after him. He's even on the logo.



About ninety years of speculation will probably have this result. ;)

[jalbright]

Yeah, but word is around here in the Carolinas that Jackson was illiterate and as dumb as a post, and he may not have known what he was supposed to do after taking the money. It is pretty simple to take free money. Anyone can understand that.

Illiteracy has nothing to do with verbal agreements, and while I'm willing to believe Joe was a rather dim bulb, I have a hard time believing anyone who isn't mentally challenged (or whatever the PC term is these days) is that stupid, but still smart enough to feel guilty (again, his testimony) but keep his mouth shut about it for a year. Sorry, I'm not buying that angle.

Jim Albright

[SamtheBravesFan]

Illiteracy has nothing to do with verbal agreements, and while I'm willing to believe Joe was a rather dim bulb, I have a hard time believing anyone who isn't mentally challenged (or whatever the PC term is these days) is that stupid, but still smart enough to feel guilty (again, his testimony) but keep his mouth shut about it for a year. Sorry, I'm not buying that angle.

Jim Albright

All right. I was just saying one thing I know. Honestly, I don't really know what to think about it.

[digglahhh]

Illiteracy has nothing to do with verbal agreements, and while I'm willing to believe Joe was a rather dim bulb, I have a hard time believing anyone who isn't mentally challenged (or whatever the PC term is these days) is that stupid, but still smart enough to feel guilty (again, his testimony) but keep his mouth shut about it for a year. Sorry, I'm not buying that angle.

Jim Albright

Lots of revisionist history on the part of those who look at Jackson's WS stats on BBRef and think they've discovered the Rosetta Stone...

[flash143817]

Jackson and Rose were admitted cheaters. Don't let them in.

Bonds has never been proven through tests or admission to have done anything wrong. Let him in.

[jalbright]

Lots of revisionist history on the part of those who look at Jackson's WS stats on BBRef and think they've discovered the Rosetta Stone...

I don't care whether he played to throw the games. He took the money, kept it, and, like a true co-conspirator, kept his mouth shut while he knew his teammates were throwing the sport's biggest championship and for another year for good measure. That alone is reason enough to keep him from being honored by the same sport he conspired against. I've read his sworn testimony to the grand jury, and it can be found on the net at this webpage (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/joejackson.shtml) , and there's no revision of history or even Joe's own testimony in the above recitation of facts.

Jim Albright

[Old Sweater]

I forget. How much money did Joe Jackson, actually get?

[jalbright]

I forget. How much money did Joe Jackson, actually get?

Joe's testimony:

They promised me $20,000 and paid me five [ed. thousand].

$5K was a good year's salary for most ballplayers at the time.

Jim Albright

[Old Sweater]

This is from BBF history section. a Chick Gandil interview.

=================================


When the White Sox returned to Chicago for their final games of the season, Cicotte brought a friend of his to see me, a former big leauge pitcher named Bill Burns. Somehow Burns had got wind of our negotiations with Sullivan; one of our players must have talked. Burns asked that we definetely not accept Sullivan's deal until he could contact a rich gambling friend in Montreal. He said he could top any offer.

Cicotte and I called a meeting of the players that night and told them about Burns. Weaver piped up, "We might as well take his money, too, and go to hell with all of them."

I personally disliked and distrunted Burns and said that we should stick with Sullivan. But I was overruled by the others who voted at least to listen to Burn's proposition when he returned from Montreal.

Later in Chicago I got word from Sullivan that he was bringing a friend from New York to sew up the deal. A meeting was arranged at the old Warner Hotel on the South Side, where many of the players lived. Sullivan introduced his friend as "Mr. Ryan", but, having met this man two years before in New York, I recognized him as Arnold Rothstein, the big shot gambler. His plan was this:

We were to try our best to win the first game behind Cicotte, who was the leauge's leading pitcher. The White Sox were rated as 3-1 favorites in the Series. A win in the first game would boost the price higher. We were then to lose the Series at our convenience. At that time, a World Series was decided by five out of nine games instead of the four-out-of-seven system used today.

Rothstein said nothing until we asked for our $80,000 in advance. He asked calmly, "What's to assure us you guys will keep the agreement?" We offerd him our word. He answered, "It's a weak collateral."

The deal was about to fall apart when Rothstein came up with a compromise. He would give us $10,000 in advance and pay the remaining $70,000. in installments over the first four games, each payment amounting to $17,5000.

We asked Sullivan and Rothstein to come back in an hour. I got the gang together and we decided to accept the deal. Rothstein returned and gave us ten $1,000 bills. When the gamblers left we entrusted the money with Cicotte until it could be changed inconspicuously. He put the bills under his pillow. At Rothstein's insistence, we had given our solemn word that no other gambler would be tipped off, but as soon as he left, we agreed to take any money we could get from Burns, too.

=========================

Is there a link that shows if any charges or convictions were brought against the above gamblers in bold print, for the 1919 WS fix?

[digglahhh]

I don't care whether he played to throw the games. He took the money, kept it, and, like a true co-conspirator, kept his mouth shut while he knew his teammates were throwing the sport's biggest championship and for another year for good measure. That alone is reason enough to keep him from being honored by the same sport he conspired against. I've read his sworn testimony to the grand jury, and it can be found on the net at this webpage (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/joejackson.shtml) , and there's no revision of history or even Joe's own testimony in the above recitation of facts.

Jim Albright

I think you might have misinterpreted my comment. I'm in complete agreement with you.

What I meant was that like once a month we get a post from somebody who questions Jackson's participation in the scandal. How many times have hear "look at his batting record in the WS." Like those who found him guilty didn't know what he did in the series, like we haven't seen this new piece of case-breaking evidence...

A lot easier to look at some numbers on a page than to do some reading and research though.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

Bonds has never been proven through tests or admission to have done anything wrong. Let him in.

Because Bonds has engaged in skilled linguistic evasion as advised by a high-priced lawyer, he must go into the HOF. Yeah, that sounds good.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Illiteracy has nothing to do with verbal agreements, and while I'm willing to believe Joe was a rather dim bulb, I have a hard time believing anyone who isn't mentally challenged (or whatever the PC term is these days) is that stupid, but still smart enough to feel guilty (again, his testimony) but keep his mouth shut about it for a year. Sorry, I'm not buying that angle.

Jim Albright

I dismiss the "Jackson was too stupid to know what he was doing" argument. Jackson was a business owner for many years after he retired.

[Ubiquitous]

Must go? No it is up to the writers to put him in. Are they going to? I kind of doubt that they are going to be in a real big hurry to put him in. He'll probably get in eventually one way or the other because that is how the pendulum swings but I wouldn't be surprised if it takes the writers a very long time to put him in and possibly not be the ones to do it.


I would also add that if what Bonds is doing is considered "skilled linguistic evasion" I wonder what you would call Clinton's performnce? Nothing really skillful about what Bonds has said. He has routinely said now that he does not take PED's and to his knowledge (up until of course the amphetamine bust) he has never unknowingly taken PED's either.

[jalbright]

I think you might have misinterpreted my comment. I'm in complete agreement with you.

What I meant was that like once a month we get a post from somebody who questions Jackson's participation in the scandal. How many times have hear "look at his batting record in the WS." Like those who found him guilty didn't know what he did in the series, like we haven't seen this new piece of case-breaking evidence...

A lot easier to look at some numbers on a page than to do some reading and research though.

You're absolutely right, I did misinterpret your meaning. I apologize for misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification. My confusion did have the salutary effect of inducing me to add the grand jury transcript to the discussion, though. To me, the most damning part of the case against Joe Jackson is that very testimony. It's awfully hard to explain away with a credible argument. at least IMHO.

Jim Albright

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

I would also add that if what Bonds is doing is considered "skilled linguistic evasion" I wonder what you would call Clinton's performnce? Nothing really skillful about what Bonds has said. He has routinely said now that he does not take PED's and to his knowledge (up until of course the amphetamine bust) he has never unknowingly taken PED's either.

First of all, my point isn't that Bonds doesn't belong in the Hall, necessarily - I just think it doesn't follow that Bonds should be in the Hall just because nothing has been proven yet. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean you get to go into the HOF in a possibly temporary absence of proof. Just because there is no smoking gun now, while Barry Bonds remains an active player, doesn't mean there won't be any proof provided after Bonds' eventual induction.

Let's have a scenario: suppose Bonds breaks the record HR this year and retires after this season. The HOF voters decide that Bonds' career was so stellar that they are going to go ahead and waive the five-year waiting period and induct Bonds into the HOF immediately. Fast forward a couple of years, and Bonds' steroid use is proven in a court of law. Well, why were they in such a rush to put him into the HOF in the first place while there was smoke all around, pointing to a possible fire? Wouldn't it have been more prudent to wait to see if the smoke cleared, or if that smoke meant that a fire was raging within? What harm does it do to make Bonds wait a little bit? Many all-time baseball immortals had to wait a while before getting their due in Cooperstown.

As for the linguistic evasion, I have a hard time believing you don't see that. I don't know if you're playing devil's advocate or not, but let's examine the known:

- Barry Bonds was once profiled in a magazine article some five years ago or so. This article showed in detail the sort of extensive and precise science Team Bonds was using to keep abreast of Barry's health - blood testing, strict diet and nutrient monitoring, analysis of all kinds. You got the idea from the article that if there was a stray paramecium floating around somewhere it shouldn't have been, Team Bonds would have found it and expelled it. The article made us believe that the body of Barry Bonds was more closely monitored than Area 51.

- Later, Bonds is asked in court about his use of the "cream" and the "cool", and Bonds' response is that he took them, not knowing what they were.

So by one account, Bonds is extremely careful about what goes into his body; by his own account, under oath, Bonds is now Jimi Hendrix - just hand me any random drug and I'll take it, I don't give a flying pig what it is.

These two accounts do not jibe, and in my view it makes him look guilty. Not to say that he is guilty, not to say that I am judge or jury, only to say that I have an opinion and in my opinion, based on what I have been observed, fully aware that I am do not have access to all the facts, or even many of the facts, Barry Bonds looks like a steroid user. I have an open mind, and as such my opinion is subject to change.

As far as Clinton goes, that's well off-topic; I'll only say that it's interesting that you mentioned his name in response to my use of the phrase "skilled linguistic evasion". I absolutely wasn't the one to bring him up.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There can be no doubt, whatsoever, that Jackson, at the very least, had knowledge of the fix prior to its happening. I don't buy the "dim bulb" argument; Jackson was illiterate, or close to it, but he wasn't Rube Waddell, either. I believe Jackson knew exactly what the fix was about, and I believe that he was, at the least, trying to get his cut out of the deal without slacking on the field. That he played hard (according to his advocates) is great, but he had an obligation to blow the whistle, and he knew it, and he didn't. And he didn't for self-serving reasons; he wanted his cut.

I believe that Jackson and Rose should NOT be lumped together. Their offenses are NOT of equal severity, not even close. Rose's gambling was wrong, but there is NO EVIDENCE that he threw games. Rose's persona, revolting as it is, should not be the reason he is outside the HOF. His actions are NOT the actions of the Black Sox, and he should be dealt with on that basis. Ditto Barry Bonds, about whom there is MUCH innuendo, but little in the way of proof.

The HOF, and MLB, are about to have a big PR problem. If the anti-steroid fever keeps going, and Bonds is tarred and feathered, with or without proof, then baseball will be in a situation where the all-time hits leader and the all-time HR leader are not enshrined in the HOF, and possibly unable to be enshrined. Is THAT good for baseball? Somehow, I don't think so. Bonds and Rose are NOT THE BLACK SOX; it's in baseball's interest that we stop treating them like they are.

[DoubleX]

Every now and then we get these thread romanticizing the great Shoeless Joe Jackson, or at the very least, saying he was some unwitting rube who ran with the wrong crowd. The record shows, from his own mouth no less, that he took money as part of the fix and that he complained to Gandil when he didn't get more money as promised in the fix. This to me suggests that he was very aware and willing. As for whether he understood what was going on, as others have pointed out, he did go on to run his own business, but at the core of it, he must have known right from wrong. As Herman Edwards said, "you play to win the game." He must have known that a plan to deliberately lose the game was wrong. As for his stellar play in the WS, that can be questioned as well. How well did he play in the games that were fixed as opposed to the games that were not fixed? There are reports that balls would drop in for hits near him that he would otherwise seem capable of catching. He struck out twice in the series, which might not seem like much, but he struck out just 10 times the whole year - so what kind of situations were these strikeouts? Jackson also didn't have to do much to help the team lose, as the pitchers and errors by guys like Risberg and Gandil were doing more than enoguh. But, there is a stark contrast in Jackson's play between the five losses and three wins. For example, he hit .285 in the five losses, but .500 in the three wins. He had three RBI in both, but in the losses, all of his RBI came in the final game of the series, Game 8, and after Lefty Williams had already done the damage in his .1 inning of work (isn't there also debate as to whether the fix was actually on for Game 8, and that perhaps the players actually played to win, but the gamblers got to Williams?). His two strikeouts also came in the losses. In three of losses, he was just 1 for 12, for a .083 batting average.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

Ditto Barry Bonds, about whom there is MUCH innuendo, but little in the way of proof.

The HOF, and MLB, are about to have a big PR problem. If the anti-steroid fever keeps going, and Bonds is tarred and feathered, with or without proof, then baseball will be in a situation where the all-time hits leader and the all-time HR leader are not enshrined in the HOF, and possibly unable to be enshrined. Is THAT good for baseball? Somehow, I don't think so. Bonds and Rose are NOT THE BLACK SOX; it's in baseball's interest that we stop treating them like they are.

1) Again I ask: why does it follow that because there is little proof YET, Bonds should go in ASAP? Why not be prudent and wait until we hear more?

2) So, regardless of how those gains are achieved, the all-time Home Run King gets a free pass into the HOF? So if the HR King (a fictional HR King, not Bonds or Aaron) is juiced from the first day he played in the majors, his team steals signs during every game, he makes deals with opposing pitchers to feed him favorable pitches - this guy should still be enshrined? Because that's what I read here. You seem to feel that no matter what, the HR king should be in the HOF. In fact, you even said so: "with or without proof". Please tell me I read it wrong.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Sheesh, sorry. I regret ever bringing that up about Jackson. I know he admitted to everything; I know he felt guilty about it. And that's it.

I can live with him not being in the Hall of Fame. I guess what I can contirbute to this discussion is that Jackson has been romanticized to a point, so much so that they named the new Anderson baseball team after him. I would guess that some people around here in the Carolinas don't really want to know anything about the actual case. Again, oh well.

[Ubiquitous]

- Later, Bonds is asked in court about his use of the "cream" and the "cool", and Bonds' response is that he took them, not knowing what they were.

So by one account, Bonds is extremely careful about what goes into his body; by his own account, under oath, Bonds is now Jimi Hendrix - just hand me any random drug and I'll take it, I don't give a flying pig what it is.


I don't think you quite understand what he claimed he thought the clear and the cream were. The clear he said he was told was flaxseed oil, and the cream was an arthritis cream one puts on the joints. He never claimed he was taking random drugs that he didn't know what they were. Is he lying? Probably, but I fail to see how it skillful linguistic evasion. It is a basic lie, one that most people see through. I would think a skillful linguistic evasion would do a better job evading then that.

[Ubiquitous]

1) Again I ask: why does it follow that because there is little proof YET, Bonds should go in ASAP? Why not be prudent and wait until we hear more?

2) So, regardless of how those gains are achieved, the all-time Home Run King gets a free pass into the HOF? So if the HR King (a fictional HR King, not Bonds or Aaron) is juiced from the first day he played in the majors, his team steals signs during every game, he makes deals with opposing pitchers to feed him favorable pitches - this guy should still be enshrined? Because that's what I read here. You seem to feel that no matter what, the HR king should be in the HOF. In fact, you even said so: "with or without proof". Please tell me I read it wrong.


Who says Bonds should go in ASAP?

[Captain Cold Nose]

1) Again I ask: why does it follow that because there is little proof YET, Bonds should go in ASAP? Why not be prudent and wait until we hear more?

2) So, regardless of how those gains are achieved, the all-time Home Run King gets a free pass into the HOF? So if the HR King (a fictional HR King, not Bonds or Aaron) is juiced from the first day he played in the majors, his team steals signs during every game, he makes deals with opposing pitchers to feed him favorable pitches - this guy should still be enshrined? Because that's what I read here. You seem to feel that no matter what, the HR king should be in the HOF. In fact, you even said so: "with or without proof". Please tell me I read it wrong.

Why do you keep saying ASAP? There isn't the slighest indication they're going to waive the wait period for Bonds, not has anyone here advocated that.

You're throwing way too many baseless ifs out there. Plain and simple, Bonds has not broken baseball's one unbreakable rule nor is there the slightest legitimate speculation he has. If Bonds or any HR king does break that rule, I can't think of any regular poster on these boards who would advocate his induction.

There's a great many of us who have been the actual HOF in Cooperstown, princethomas. And when people say anyone shouldn't get in, it is in reference to the voted-in membership, not just an appearance in the museum itself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

1) Again I ask: why does it follow that because there is little proof YET, Bonds should go in ASAP? Why not be prudent and wait until we hear more?

2) So, regardless of how those gains are achieved, the all-time Home Run King gets a free pass into the HOF? So if the HR King (a fictional HR King, not Bonds or Aaron) is juiced from the first day he played in the majors, his team steals signs during every game, he makes deals with opposing pitchers to feed him favorable pitches - this guy should still be enshrined? Because that's what I read here. You seem to feel that no matter what, the HR king should be in the HOF. In fact, you even said so: "with or without proof". Please tell me I read it wrong.

Bonds shouldn't be considered for the HOF until 5 years after he retires. That's a long way off, and a lot can happen.

What is happening "with or without proof" is the endless innuendo about Bonds using steroids. There's a world of difference between one "thinks" Bonds did and what constitutes "proof" that Bonds used steroids. And even if Bonds used steroids, did he use steroids for so long as to significantly enhance his stats? How can one say THAT with any positivity? Were some of the substances Bonds used (if he used them) legal substances (like creatine)?

There is also the issue of the context of the time. What if 75-90 percent of all MLB players were roiding? What then? Doesn't that make Bonds' alleged use of steroids a reflection of the condition of the times? Yes, such a condition DOES cheapen the HR record somewhat, but it doesn't change the fact that Bonds was the greatest player of his generation.

The term "cheating" is used in describing Bonds, Rose, and Jackson. This, in reality, is a totally inaccurate term for all three.

Jackson wasn't a "cheater"; he was a dumper. His actions went directly to the integrity of the game.

Rose was a "gambler". He bet on his own team, even, and that is serious, but he never bet on his team to lose, and never threw a game.

Bonds, if he did use steroids, used them to be the best he could be, in a context where, if I believe what I read, many, many others were doing the same. He was doing what athletes are encouraged to do from all quarters. And if the steroid scandal is all some have said it is, then it is HIGHLY unlikely that MLB management wasn't turning a deliberate blind eye to the roiding.

I believe that Bonds' use of steroids (if he used them) is something relevant to his place in baseball history, but it's NOT something that should keep him out of the HOF, IMO. His accomplishments need to be looked at in a particular context, but Bonds was/is a great player, Hall-worthy in terms of performance, even if you adjust his stats to take in the steroid factor. Furthermore, I believe that steroids are a condition of the time, and not an isolated matter of a few stars roiding. Do we throw out a whole generation of baseball history just because of steroids?

[lollar]

I don't believe what Bonds allegedly did is even near as bad as Jackson or Rose. If fans were to find out games were not on the level and a winner was pre-determined, then very very very few people would pay attention.

What Bonds did is actually the opposite of what many Black Sox did, trying harder to win and not lose. And what Bonds did before 2001 was still HOF worthy.

Another thing is cutting or doctoring a baseball by a pitcher is MUCH more of an advantage to them than 'roids are to a hitter...if the ball is moving funny and doctored, a player on steroids won't hit it much anyway. The way Bonds had an incredible sense of the strike zone and nearly always made contact with the fat part of the bat has nothing to do with steroids. It helped him hit the ball harder and farther, but had nothing to do with his hand eye coordiation (as far as we know).

IMO the gambling side is ten times worse than steroids.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

As to the ASAP comment: I don't think anyone advocating a Hall of Famer who thinks that player shouldn't get in on the first ballot, especially a player with Bonds laundry list of accomplishments. In other words, when I hear someone say "Bonds should get into the HOF", I'm certain that person is implying, "On the first ballot".

If I were a voter, I would wait to see if any more facts came in about his steroid use. If I could be convinced that he played clean, then I'd vote him in. Remember, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". (Simpson, OJ)

I'm also not swayed by the "everyone else is doing it" defense. That doesn't exonerate Bonds - it makes him guilty along with all the other juicers.

[Captain Cold Nose]

As to the ASAP comment: I don't think anyone advocating a Hall of Famer who thinks that player shouldn't get in on the first ballot, especially a player with Bonds laundry list of accomplishments. In other words, when I hear someone say "Bonds should get into the HOF", I'm certain that person is implying, "On the first ballot".

If I were a voter, I would wait to see if any more facts came in about his steroid use. If I could be convinced that he played clean, then I'd vote him in. Remember, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". (Simpson, OJ)

I'm also not swayed by the "everyone else is doing it" defense. That doesn't exonerate Bonds - it makes him guilty along with all the other juicers.
You yourself mentioned waiving the five-year rule for Bonds. That's a bit deeper than your average first-ballot HOF'er.
If they can't find anything between the last couple years of searching and the six or so years before Bonds is eligible, then either the fact-finding process is incredibly inept or what's there isn't enough.

[Old Sweater]

Jackson wasn't a "cheater"; he was a dumper. His actions went directly to the integrity of the game.

Rose was a "gambler". He bet on his own team, even, and that is serious, but he never bet on his team to lose, and never threw a game.

Jackson took money from a gambler and cheated the game, but yeah, he was part of a dump.


Rose paid money to gamblers for years and was a fixer, at the management level. Who is to say that Rose didn't get so far in debt to gamblers that he didn't try to throw a few games for the gamblers? Guess you could take lying Pete's word for it.


Few things fixer can do at management level when spot betting on your team to win.

1/ leave a ace in to long

2/ go to the bullpen extra early

3/ play a starter that has a nagging injury

4/ Cost your teams victorys in the long run of the season, which intentionally or not, is the same thing as throwing games for gamblers since gambling was the cause. So I guess you could call Rose, not only a fixer but also a dumper.

[StanTheMan]

Jackson and Rose were admitted cheaters. Don't let them in.

Bonds has never been proven through tests or admission to have done anything wrong. Let him in.

The HOF is NOT a court of law... and does NOT need "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Nor should it. Please see McGwire, Mark and his 25% of the vote. The writers got that one 100% correct in my opinion. Big Mac is about 25% electable at this point. McGwire's records are honored in the HOF right now, as is Rose, and Bonds, and Eddie Cicotte, who was one of the Black Sox from 1919. Records on the wall is one thing, and a nice way to honor a player's career.

A plaque on the wall is something completely different, and absolutely permanent.

Neither Bonds, nor Rose, nor Jackson should get in.

[petrel]

According to a 2003 Grand Jury testimony, Giambi was given "the cream" and "the clear" and he knew exactly what they were. I find it implausable that Bonds didn't know. (Supposely, "the clear" was not named "the clear" because it was a transparent liquid, but rather because you would show up "clear" on any drug test if taking it.)

Of course, like some other poster said, I'm not wedded to this theory; new facts or experience may lead me to conclude otherwise.

As to Shoeless Joe's supposed idiocy, Joe owned a liquor store in South Carolina at the end of his days. I find it implausable that Jackson would be on-the-ball enough to know the ins and outs of running a business -- ordering inventory, dealing with late deliveries, keeping a balance sheet (or at least knowing who could keep one for him) -- but somehow be so clueless as to believe he wasn't being offered money to throw a baseball game.

--Pet

[lollar]

Jackson knew all about what was going on in the fix....give me a break. He felt guilty and was confused and knew he was doing the wrong thing. It's debatable as to whether or not he threw the games. Remember, he did return his five grand to Comiskey (not the smartest thing to do), but the rotten human being didn't want the money...

[Ubiquitous]

Jackson did not return the money. Or I should say he did not try to give it to Comiskey, since you can't return money to Comiskey that isn't Comiskey's.

The view that Joe was trying to give Comiskey the money is pure conjecture. Joe himself never says that was what he was trying to do. Joe said he went to see Comiskey after the series and wanted to show him the money as proof of what happened. Then later on when Comiskey's lawyer went to see Joe to get him to sign a contract Joe asked what he should do with the money. He said keep it. But at no time does Joe ever say that was trying to give it back. If anything by the time Joe signed his contract for the 1920 season the money was already in the bank and being spent.

[DoubleX]

The view that Joe was trying to give Comiskey the money is pure conjecture. Joe himself never says that was what he was trying to do. Joe said he went to see Comiskey after the series and wanted to show him the money as proof of what happened. Then later on when Comiskey's lawyer went to see Joe to get him to sign a contract Joe asked what he should do with the money. He said keep it. But at no time does Joe ever say that was trying to give it back. If anything by the time Joe signed his contract for the 1920 season the money was already in the bank and being spent.

Also, Joe, according to his Grand Jury testimony, was disappointed when he wasn't paid as much as originally promised. It's easier to have a bout of conscience when you're disappointed. Had Joe received the full amount promised, which was substantially more than he actually did receive, I'd say it's much more likely he would have kept everything to himself.

[Sockeye]

Jackson: Absolutely

Rose: Certainly

Bonds: Definitely

[bbfirebird]

The whole subject of suspected steroid users and the HOF is a tough one. Most people would agree that steroid use was very widespread beginning in the early 90s (the so-called "steroid era"). So if you don't allow Bonds, how can you be sure of ANY player from that era? Surely if any steroid-using player is ever allowed into the HOF, Bonds would also have to be inducted.

But, where do you draw the line? Steroids affect a player's performance, but so do amphetamines ("greenies"), in that it makes the ballplayer more alert and gives him more energy. Do you now not allow any player who uses those into the hall? What about the fact that managers and owners may have known that players were using steroids, but turned a blind eye?

You could also debate whether modern supplements are unfair to the sport, since players in the early days didn't have them. The same thing goes for high dollar contracts. Modern-day contracts include clauses that dictate certain behavior, and cause players to take better care of themselves. If Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez behaved like Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle- out late partying, coming to the stadium hungover, etc., they'd probably be let go, or at the very least suspended. On the same side, what would Mantle's career have been like if he had had access to modern-day training and supplements? Players back then also did not have access to the kind of technology like slow-motion cameras in the dugout to study the pitcher they are about to face, among other things.

The bottom line is that baseball, as with anything else, changes over time. As the payrolls get bigger, players are put under more pressure to perform- which is where steroids, supplements, amphetamines, etc come in. However, it's not one player using steroids among an entire league of squeaky-clean athletes. It's probably more like steroid-using pitcher against steroid-using batter.

Taking all this into account, you really can't compare Babe Ruth's numbers and performance against Barry Bonds, because they played in different eras under completely different circumstances with different technology, medical advances, etc. One player who was only a semistar 60 years ago could have been a superstar had he had the advances that the modern players have. On the same token, a modern superstar may only have been a halfway decent player 60 years ago without those advances.

I think that maybe the solution is dividing the HOF into different eras to account for these changes and the changes in the game. That way the sanctity of the records and acheivments of Ruth, DiMaggio, Williams, etc stand on their own under the circumstances of the era. Likewise, Bonds, McGwire, and other modern players are judged not against players of yesteryear but against their contemporaries.

[bigtrain]

To take a different look at Joe Jackson just think of what would happen if he did get inducted. Joe Jackson's story is taking on mythological status. Next to Babe Ruth's called shot Shoeless Joe innocence is the second greatest mystery in baseball.

As much as I like Jackson and believe he was innocent I still don't want to see him inducted. What will it prove now? He is gone. It would only serve as the final chapter on a great mystery book that should never be closed.

[UTforever22]

I think 1) you are being overly generous on Joe Jackson's culpability, and 2) at least as importantly, are greatly overestimating the support he has. The man admitted under oath he took money intended to buy his cooperation in the fix. That's a dirty player in my book, one who should never be honored by the game, and I think there's far more people than you think who agree with me (like at least 40%, and probably more than that IMO).

Jim Albright

great point, nothing has ever disgraced the game more the the black sox scandal. i wouldn't let him anywhere near cooperstown.

rose i would have said yes to him as soon as 4 months ago, but now he keeps admitting more and more, i am not so convincd he didn't try to trhow games. so no to him also.


Bond/Mguire, Rafi, sosa, cheated on a regular basis. that should never be honored.

[DoubleX]

I haven't made up my mind yet on what to do with steroids players in general. I wouldn't have voted for McGwire this year because I actually feel like it's too soon. I feel like in the next 5-10 years, particularly as more players retire, we'll learn a lot more about what happened in the steroids era, and thus I'd like to hold off until we learn more.

But, I do think there is a big difference between players like the Black Sox and steroids players. The basic goal of the game is to win. Using steroids, while giving themselves an unnatural advantage to excel, was certainly cheating, but it did not undermine the basic tenet of the game, which is to go out there and play to win. The Black Sox, on the other hand, deliberately undermined that basic tenet - they fixed to lose, and when that happens, there's really no difference between baseball and professional wrestling.

[StanTheMan]

The whole subject of suspected steroid users and the HOF is a tough one. Most people would agree that steroid use was very widespread beginning in the early 90s (the so-called "steroid era"). So if you don't allow Bonds, how can you be sure of ANY player from that era? Surely if any steroid-using player is ever allowed into the HOF, Bonds would also have to be inducted.

But, where do you draw the line? Steroids affect a player's performance, but so do amphetamines ("greenies"), in that it makes the ballplayer more alert and gives him more energy. Do you now not allow any player who uses those into the hall? What about the fact that managers and owners may have known that players were using steroids, but turned a blind eye? .

I don't follow... but maybe I am oversimplifying things......

IF there are any other players who are suspected Steroid users, like Bonds, who have also been part of federal investigations, have their trainers and or freinds ARRESTED and JAILED for possession and distribution of Steroids, who have been named in works such as Game of Shadows (which is a MUCH MUCH different book than Canseco's), been named in SI as a user, have gained HUGE amounts of weight completely in contrast to their body in the early years of their careers, blamed the juice on "a teammates locker",..... etc etc etc

Then, yeah, I would ABSOLUTELY not vote them in either. See McGwire, Palmeiro, Canseco etc. Where do you draw the line? Safely on the side of the NON-Steriod user. The HOF does NOT need beyond a reasonable doubt, nor should it. Just becasue there are other users, does not mean Bonds, or any other HOF caliber player, gets a pass. Far from it. Honor his records with his name on the wall (it is on the wall today in the records room, along with Rose, Joe Jackson, McGwire, and others) but a plaque on the wall? Never, IMO.

As for managers and owner knowing about it and turning a blind eye? That has absolutely $#@! to do with my opinion... in fact, it is further indictment of their lack of respect for the game, and absolutely is light years away from anything that should be a part of modern opinion, or more importantly a voters opinion in the year 2007, much less 5 yeras after Bonds hangs em up. Look at it this way.... Writers years ago had no problem voting racists into the HOF, which sounds horrible to us... but that writer probably rode a segregated bus to the post office to mail his ballot to Cooperstown, and passed segregated schools and neighborhoods along the way. He then might have stopped by his father, or grandfathers house and heard them say N this and N that. He then went out to dinner at a "whites only" restaurant, and while at the ballpark saw no black players, only "colored only" drinking fountains.

My point is, the mistakes of past society, even the mistakes of owners and key baseball people from just 10 years ago, should NEVER cloud the judgement of you and I, or the current voters.

The writers have painted themselves into a corner on this one. For the last few years, many of them have SCREAMED that they could not believe the owners turned a blind eye... how could they do that, etc. etc. etc. The TV guys scream especially loudly on this subject, placing some of the blame (rightly) on the writers of the day, who also turned a blind eye.

Now information is coming to light, and the writers cannot turn a blind eye anymore, (after all.. they were screaming at the owners for doing just that) as evidenced by McGwire's 25% vote, or whatever he got.

[lollar]

Maybe it's just me, but I find it mind boggling the feds are going after steroids guys. With all the issues in this world, they are going after people that distibute performance enhancing drugs to pro athletes! If that doesn't sum up our government I don't know what does.

Also, steroids weren't illeagle when these guys were allegedly using them. So you can't prosecute players. They just hope to get them to say things under oath where they admit other players names or commit perjury.

I don't care who was taking them. I played baseball in High School and college, and it wasn't exactly a secret guys took stuff. I remember all the huge bodies on the '93 Phillies and how when they were linked to possible 'roids back in '93, the press laughed about it to one another and didn't even make a big deal about it. Now that society is even more politically correct then it was then, if you don't live like a saint and your in the public eye, your the Anti-Christ.

Steroids may be bending the rules quite a bit, but I'm not convinced they make as big a difference as you think. In the mid 90's, I always felt the thimble sized strike zone of the time had more to do with things than anything else. Expansion, forcing weaker pitching into the majors, coupled with the small strike zone, also had a big effect. AND players in this era are naturally going to be stronger.

And like I mentioned earlier, steroids have nothing to do with Bonds ability to see pitches so well, and make contact on the fat part of the bat. That is his hand eye coordination and concentration, which is what made him so great. That's all.

[Ubiquitous]

Steroids were illegal when they were taking them. They were not specifically against baseball rules until 2002, but they were against the laws of the United States of America.

[StanTheMan]

Ubiquitous is exactly right.....

The "they weren't against baseball rules at the time" argument maybe the most dimwitted argument I have ever heard on any subject on any message board. I'm not completely sure if that was what lollar was going for, but JFC people.......

There is no rule in the rulebook stating you cannot poison the other teams gatorade, or jab the sharp end of a broken bat three inches into the thigh of the opposing teams best player before the game. BUT..... there a laws in the USA prohibiting assault and battery or in the case of the poison, attempted murder laws that would definitely supercede any rulebook in any sport.

Same with Steroids. They were, and are 100% illegal on every square inch of soil in this great country.... including every home that Barry Bonds owns, every clubhouse he has ever set foot in, as well as every batters box, etc, etc, etc.

These players CAN, and may be prosecuted, if found in posession or distrubution of these ILLEGAL substances.

[DoubleX]

Ubiquitous is exactly right.....

The "they weren't against baseball rules at the time" argument maybe the most dimwitted argument I have ever heard on any subject on any message board. I'm not completely sure if that was what lollar was going for, but JFC people.......

There is no rule in the rulebook stating you cannot poison the other teams gatorade, or jab the sharp end of a broken bat three inches into the thigh of the opposing teams best player before the game. BUT..... there a laws in the USA prohibiting assault and battery or in the case of the poison, attempted murder laws that would definitely supercede any rulebook in any sport.

Same with Steroids. They were, and are 100% illegal on every square inch of soil in this great country.... including every home that Barry Bonds owns, every clubhouse he has ever set foot in, as well as every batters box, etc, etc, etc.

These players CAN, and may be prosecuted, if found in posession or distrubution of these ILLEGAL substances.

Agreed completely. Just because baseball didn't have a rule doesn't mean it was ok - it was illegal. Baseball shouldn't have to have a rule to prohibit something that is already prohibited - baseball isn't exempt from the law.

[lollar]

No that wasn't what I was going for, just something I mentioned in the post. Steroids can be given by prescription, I know a couple people using them on doctor's orders. My point is that I'm not entirely convinced as to how much of an advantage they give you. It helps you hit the ball farther and may add some power, I'm not yet convinced it makes an enormous advantage however.

I think that lots of players tried them at one time. That doesn't mean they regularly used them. I believe many experimented though. And I believe that's the case in all sports. What I would like to know is why when a pitcher doctor's a baseball people don't make a bigger deal about it. If a ball is moving funny, being on steroids is irrelevant because your not going to hit it anyway, and if you do you won't hit it well (see Whitey Ford, just to name one).

Maybe it's the fact that by doctoring a ball players aren't using an "alien" substance or something chemical, I don't know. But trust me, it's a much bigger advantage.

[StanTheMan]

Doctoring baseballs is a house made by my 8 year old daughter out of Legos. Steroids are the Khafre's Great Pyramid....

Why?

There is an on field "test" so to speak, for spitballs, scuffing the ball, corking a bat, etc. You can be kicked out immediately for getting caught by the TV cameras, the opponent, the manager, or the umpire, etc. In fact, you don't even need to have any of these things happen. The players can really take care of it themselves. Get caught by the opposing team and your star hitter gets a fastball in the ribs... or in the NL, the pitcher himself gets a little chin music if needed.

Not so with PEDs, which makes them so devious, and so detrimental to the game, IMO.

There is no chance of getting caught during a game, and there is no chance for the players to take care of the situation themselves.

[mwb]

I don't like the idea that players should have to wait forever to determine the extent of the steroids when ikt comes to being elected into the HOF. We may never find out the whole truth. I also don't like the fact that Bonds is the poster child of steriod use. Sure, he's not a great person but he's getting a bad rap. Bonds benefitted more from expansion & smaller ballparks than from steriods. It seems most of the time I see a Bonds HR, it's hit at home in that small ballpark.

I think players should be given the benefit of the doubt because I don't think we'll ever know the full truth. Bonds should definitely be inducted after five years unless something definite comes out.

I used to love Pete Rose. I've always felt that he should be enshrined based on what he did as a player. But so much time has passed & he keeps changing his story. I'm at the point where I really don't care if he doesn't get in. Now after I see him, I feel like I need a shower. He's a slimeball who's always trying to sell his story to the highest bidder. It's sad.

[DoubleX]

Bonds benefitted more from expansion & smaller ballparks than from steriods. It seems most of the time I see a Bonds HR, it's hit at home in that small ballpark.

Since 2001, Bonds has hit 2 more homeruns away then he has at home. Plus, AT&T Park is pretty much a neutral hitting park. Playing in the NL West, Bonds has had to play a lot of games in pitcher friendly Dodger Stadium and Petco, but that's been counter-balanced by playing a lot of games at Coors Field and Bank One.

But yeah, in general, I agree that the diminshing size of ballparks and perhaps juiced balls have figured prominently in the homerun explosion of the past 10-15 years. Expansion is a more interesting issue though. On one hand, there is the strong argument that expansion has diluted pitching staffs by spreading out pitching talent resulting pitchers being on teams that would have been in the minors in an earlier era. However, there's also the argument that the talent pool is not deeper than ever. The influx of Major League quality players from outside the United States is greater than ever and increases by the year (though to that some might argue that it's only replacing waning American talent which pursues other sports more that it used to; of course, that argument can be countered by pointing out that the American pool as a whole is much larger than it was in previous eras).

I actually don't believe expansion is so much of an issue but the way pitching staffs are used now, with increased reliance on the bullpen, is an issue. Many people would argue that it's better to get a fresh pitcher in there for a couple of innings than have your starter keep going, but in general, your relief pitchers are relief pitchers because they are failed starters. Across baseball, there really aren't that many relief pitchers that can be really be considered reliable or who would I rather have in there then my top starters. But teams are not in the mindset that they have to get there starter out after 6 or 7 innings and take their chances with the bullpen. It's good policy in terms of the starter's health, but chances are, when you're pulling your starter, you're putting in an inferior pitcher that probably wouldnt have made it in the bigs if not for the modern over-reliance on bullpens.

[538280]

Plus, AT&T Park is pretty much a neutral hitting park.

The park factors for Pac Bell/AT&T are interesting. 2000-2002 it was probably the toughest park for hitters in the league. Since 2003 it's been basically neutral, anyone have any reasoning for why, I don't know of any dimension changes or anything. Batter's Park Factors by year:

2000: 91
2001: 91
2002: 91
2003: 99
2004: 103
2005: 98
2006: 100

MWB: Bonds may have benfitted from this era being such a big era for power hitting, but it's not hard to adjust for that, just compare a player to the leauge averages. Any meaningful comparison of players from any era has to start with that. Bonds in context of this era is still one of the best hitters and players of all time. He has the three highest OPS+ seasons of all time and his career OPS+ is 3rd all time.

[digglahhh]

Here's another one of my favorite steroid gestapo contradictions.

The Hall needs not follow the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof because it's its own private entity. However, the HOF should keep somebody out of the Hall who used steroids because, even though they were not illegal in the sport, they are deemed illegal by our legal system. That's right, the same legal system that the same people just told us the HOF is not bound to follow...

Which is it guys? Does the law and judicial system matter or not?

[Sweet Lou]

Here's another one of my favorite steroid gestapo contradictions.

The Hall needs not follow the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof because it's its own private entity. However, the HOF should keep somebody out of the Hall who used steroids because, even though they were not illegal in the sport, they are deemed illegal by our legal system. That's right, the same legal system that the same people just told us the HOF is not bound to follow...

Which is it guys? Does the law and judicial system matter or not?
Because the HOF is an honor, not a right. The purpose of the "reasonable doubt" burden of proof is to protect innocent people from spending years in prison or receiving the death penalty. It is not the purpose of the "reasonable doubt" burden of proof to make sure someone gets his "due honor". And the Hall may choose not to honor someone, simply because they choose not to honor them. And that is the right of the HOF.

[digglahhh]

Because the HOF is an honor, not a right. The purpose of the "reasonable doubt" burden of proof is to protect innocent people from spending years in prison or receiving the death penalty. It is not the purpose of the "reasonable doubt" burden of proof to make sure someone gets his "due honor". And the Hall may choose not to honor someone, simply because they choose not to honor them. And that is the right of the HOF.

Yes, the HOF is a private entity and free to set its own standards. I do not dispute that. Their standards can be entirely independent of the burdens of proof required for the criminal, or civil judicial system. However, that means they are also free to determine their own standards on cheating, specifically in relation to PED use. They do not have to view the substances as illegal (in the eyes of the game - and hence, cheating) just because that same disregarded judicial system has deemed the same substances illegal in the eyes of the law. That's my only point, that by the same logical process that allows the HOF to create an independent set of standards for a burden of proof, they are allowed to create independent standards of cheating.

[ARISTOCRAT]

Which is worse?
Pete Rose being inducted or Barry Bonds being inducted?

And is it really a disgrace to the players that are not part of these scandals? What about Shoeless Joe Jackson...

pete rose, mainly because there are probably players that are already hall of famers who have used ped's.

[Sweet Lou]

Yes, the HOF is a private entity and free to set its own standards. I do not dispute that. Their standards can be entirely independent of the burdens of proof required for the criminal, or civil judicial system. However, that means they are also free to determine their own standards on cheating, specifically in relation to PED use. They do not have to view the substances as illegal (in the eyes of the game - and hence, cheating) just because that same disregarded judicial system has deemed the same substances illegal in the eyes of the law. That's my only point, that by the same logical process that allows the HOF to create an independent set of standards for a burden of proof, they are allowed to create independent standards of cheating.
It's the same system that found OJ innocent in criminal court, and guilty in civil court. Seems to be a double standard.
But also, if it's illegal in the eyes of the law, it IS INDEED illegal in Baseball. So I'm not sure what you are saying.
Lou

[digglahhh]

It's the same system that found OJ innocent in criminal court, and guilty in civil court. Seems to be a double standard.
But also, if it's illegal in the eyes of the law, it IS INDEED illegal in Baseball. So I'm not sure what you are saying.
Lou

Well, if we adopt the legal system's standards of legality, we have to adopt the burden of proof that system requires to prove somebody guilty of breeching those standards.

The legality issue is moot anyway because breaking U.S. criminal law is not grounds to be kept out of the HOF - remember, it is a private entity.

If you determine that steroids are illegal in the game of baseball because they are illegal in the eyes of the law, then you have to determine Bonds to be innocent until proven guilty by the same system you have given the authority to determine the legal standing of steroids.

You can determine that Bonds is guilty of taking steroids independent of the legal burdens of proof too, but then, for the sake of logical consistency, you have to appreciate the argument that steroids were not cheating because they were not against the rules. That doesn't mean that Bonds be prosecuted in criminal court for possession of illegal drugs or whatever, just that it doesn't constitute "cheating" under the independent rules and standards of MLB.

Basically you can't straddle the legal fence, IMO. Either the legal system determines both the burden of proof and the criminality, or it determines neither. Many of the Bonds bashers are perfectly willing to adopt whichever side of an argument casts a most unfavorable light on Bonds without any allegiance to a consistent logical basis to inform each individual decision.

[Captain Cold Nose]

pete rose, mainly because there are probably players that are already hall of famers who have used ped's.

And Pete Rose was a HOF-caliber player who used PEDs (amphetamines).

[ARISTOCRAT]

And Pete Rose was a HOF-caliber player who used PEDs (amphetamines).

But that is not why he is not in the hall of fame.

[Captain Cold Nose]

But that is not why he is not in the hall of fame.

Indeed not. But without his addictions, his name would be out there as "They did this then . . . " along with the others.

[KCGHOST]

Joe Jackson - are you serious?? The guy took money to throw world series games. I could care less whether he followed through on it or not.

Pete Rose - Everyday of his career he passed a sign in the clubhouse that said you would be banned from the game if you bet on baseball. He elected to ignore the rule. Then he lied to us for 14+ years about it. The he releases his latest book the week the HoF announcements are made for Eckersley and Molitor. Let him rot in baseball purgatory.

Barry Bonds - Let events run its course. If five years after he retires and we don't have any more on him than we do today then put him in.

[The Cobb]

Sigh. I'm tired of this argument. I'll sum it up quickly.

Shoeless Joe Jackson: No. He was banned as a PLAYER thus shouldn't be allowed in the HoF.

Pete Rose: He bet on baseball as a MANAGER. Not a PLAYER. He should be inducted as a PLAYER for what he accomplished on the field as a PLAYER. This is a no brainer.

Bonds: He could drown in McCovey Cove and I wouldn't shed a tear. He's a horses ass that cheated. To say he never cheated is gross naivete.

While we're at it....lets crucify Bud Selig as being the biggest pushover in sports history.

[Ubiquitous]

Pete Rose: He bet on baseball as a MANAGER. Not a PLAYER. He should be inducted as a PLAYER for what he accomplished on the field as a PLAYER. This is a no brainer.


Except Pete's problems started when he was a player. They in all probability hit critical mass when he was a manager but he was still breaking rules as a player. Pete broke the rules while being in baseball, he dishonored the game while being an active member and employee of baseball. Cooperstown itself has it in their own guidelines that when deciding on who is worthy of induction you don't just look at what happened on the field but also what happened off the field.

[The Cobb]

They look at things that happen off the field? Is that so? Then how in the hell did Ruth or Cobb hit the HoF?

[Skin & Bones]

They look at things that happen off the field? Is that so? Then how in the hell did Ruth or Cobb hit the HoF?

You do realize that Rose cheated on the field right?

Not that it really matters, because Gambling is far worse. But what he accomplished on the field may not be as natural as you think.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I'm not happy with Bonds or Rose. if I had to pick, it would be Rose because he didn't cheat to get his stats.

[Skin & Bones]

I'm not happy with Bonds or Rose. if I had to pick, it would be Rose because he didn't cheat to get his stats.

Again, that simply isn't true.

[Brad Harris]

There can be no doubt, whatsoever, that Jackson, at the very least, had knowledge of the fix prior to its happening. I don't buy the "dim bulb" argument; Jackson was illiterate, or close to it, but he wasn't Rube Waddell, either. I believe Jackson knew exactly what the fix was about, and I believe that he was, at the least, trying to get his cut out of the deal without slacking on the field. That he played hard (according to his advocates) is great, but he had an obligation to blow the whistle, and he knew it, and he didn't. And he didn't for self-serving reasons; he wanted his cut.

I believe that Jackson and Rose should NOT be lumped together. Their offenses are NOT of equal severity, not even close. Rose's gambling was wrong, but there is NO EVIDENCE that he threw games. Rose's persona, revolting as it is, should not be the reason he is outside the HOF. His actions are NOT the actions of the Black Sox, and he should be dealt with on that basis. Ditto Barry Bonds, about whom there is MUCH innuendo, but little in the way of proof.

The HOF, and MLB, are about to have a big PR problem. If the anti-steroid fever keeps going, and Bonds is tarred and feathered, with or without proof, then baseball will be in a situation where the all-time hits leader and the all-time HR leader are not enshrined in the HOF, and possibly unable to be enshrined. Is THAT good for baseball? Somehow, I don't think so. Bonds and Rose are NOT THE BLACK SOX; it's in baseball's interest that we stop treating them like they are.

Amen, Brother Fuzzy!