Who is Worse Cap Anson, Joe Jackson , Pete Rose or Mark Mcgwire?

[zahavasdad]

For those who believe Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose and Mark Mcgwire were a disgrace for baseball

How about CAP ANSON, who was a Klansman and had ALL blacks kicked out of the major leagues for 70 years.

Shoeless Joe might have thrown the world series, but Cap Anson kept Satchel Paige, Cool Papa Bell ,Josh Gibson and other OUT of the majors

[leecemark]

--I don't think Anson can take all the credit for that. American society was racist and baseball was a part of that. For that matter Anson was dead before Paige and Gibson ran into the color line.

[Chickazoola]

Don't forget that Anson didn't own a team. It took a collusive effort on the part of organized baseball and its owners to keep blacks out of baseball. Don't hate the player hate the game. Anson's role in baseball's segregation has been embellished greatly. If owners wanted black players they would have signed them, simple as that. The protestations of one very popular player would have meant little in the face of a league wide effort to integrate.

Jackson and Mcgwire are more representative of bigger problems within baseball, but they are/were merely small players in a bigger scheme of things(Steroids and Gambling). Neither one was the cause of the problems, they just became symbols of the problems.

Rose is a unique case as you can't really parallel his actions with anyone elses, but I don't think his actions really harmed the game at all. It really only hurt himself.

To sum it up
Anson was a racist,
Jackson was a naive pawn,
Mcgwire used roids
Rose had a gambling problem.

From a purely societal standpoint, Anson is definitely the worst guy. From a baseball standpoint I don't think any of them had a tremendously negative impact, or at least the positives I believe outway the negatives.

Anson helped make baseball a success in Chicago, by becoming a star there and recruiting the best players to play in Chicago. Without him who knows what would have happened.

Mcgwire helped save baseball with the homerun chase.

Rose and Jackson were both incredible talents who contributed positively to their teams.

[zahavasdad]

Cap Anson certainly had a role in kicking blacks out the game in the 1880's leading to the gentlemens agreement not to sign black players until Rickey Broke it.

While Anson did not directly keep Paige , Gibson and Bell out of the majors, his actions in the 1880's led the groundwork for segragsation until 1947.

BTW what great accomplishment is 3000 hits in 27 years of playing, thats only little over 100 hits a season.

[jalbright]

Cap Anson certainly had a role in kicking blacks out the game in the 1880's leading to the gentlemens agreement not to sign black players until Rickey Broke it.

While Anson did not directly keep Paige , Gibson and Bell out of the majors, his actions in the 1880's led the groundwork for segragsation until 1947.

BTW what great accomplishment is 3000 hits in 27 years of playing, thats only little over 100 hits a season.

Anson, while he lead the movement toward the color line, was only part of that movement. Indeed, American society was hung up enough on race that if Cap Anson had never existed, someone else would have led the same movement. Furthermore, others continued that movement for about four decades after Anson was out of the game.

As for Anson's hitting--he never played in a season of over 80 games until he was 28. He didn't play in a season of over 90 games until he was 31. He didn't play in a season of over 120 games until he was 34. He didn't play in a season of over 130 games until he was 36. He only once played in a season of over 140 games, and that came when he was 40. He played a few more years, but the schedule was never again over 132 games. Being able to stay fit enough to play a young man's game for so long in an era when so many were washed up by their early 30's is notable in itself, but 3000 hits in that time was quite an accomplishment given how many fewer games there were per season. Remember, 100 hits in an 80 game season is the basically the same level of accomplishment as 200 hits in a 160 game season.

Jim Albright

[Brian McKenna]

Form my understanding of baseball history, Cap Anson neither owned a club nor made decisions for the hundreds of professional teams in organized baseball. Also, I believe Anson was out of the majors by 1899. How in the world did he set policy for all of ML baseball for over 60 years?

Considering that Anson was the only 19th century player to appoach 3,000 hits is a significant achievement. Failure to see that denotes a misunderstanding of the game or merely an uninformed/biased perspective. If many would get past themselves (applying a slew of normative values to history), perhaps the baseball community as a whole could focus on the true task of historical understanding - unearthing new and pertinent material - instead of rehashing everyone's feelings from a 2007 perspective.

Anson's actions didn't lead to anything. ML owners of the day emulated the robber baron types of the 19th century. If one believes that a player or manager dictated policy to these men - well again - just a complete lack of understanding of the game.

Do you have proof that Anson was a Klansman or is this just more ranting?

To sum it up:
Anson was one of the significant figures in early baseball history for many reasons
Jackson was a part of game-fixing at the sport's premier showcase
Rose was a trusted manager who bet on (and perhaps more) baseball and his own team
McGwire is merely among a slew of PED users

The fact that Jackson, Rose and McGwire were "incredible talents" only goes against their case IMO.

[RBi]

BTW what great accomplishment is 3000 hits in 27 years of playing, thats only little over 100 hits a season.


First off it is 3418 hits and FYI he averaged 126.6 hits per season. (lowest average per season compared to players with more career hits than him... 6 players)

Career hits:
7. Anson 3418
6. Yaz 3419
5. Speaker 3514
4. Musial 3630
3. Aaron 3771
2. Cobb 4189
1. Rose 4256


Hits per season:
Anson 126.59
Yaz 148.65
Speaker 159.73
Aaron 163.96
Musial 165.00
Cobb 174.54
Rose 177.33





Here is something else to think about tho.

he also had the lowest atbats per season in his career 380.

Anson 380.63
Speaker 463.41
Cobb 476.42
Musial 498.73
Yaz 521.22
Aaron 537.57
Rose 585.54

Anson was 2nd only to Cobb on the hits per game:

Yaz 1.03
Aaron 1.14
Rose 1.19
Musial 1.20
Speaker 1.26
Anson 1.35
Cobb 1.38

and 3rd best on atbats per hit:

Cobb 2.73
Speaker 2.90
Anson 3.01
Musial 3.02
Aaron 3.28
Rose 3.30
Yaz 3.51

The race card does not hold any water for me because that was the times these players lived in. was it right? no... but it happened...

Another great point: 3 of the 4 players you want to compare isn't in the hall of fame, yet you pick the HOF forum to discuss it.

Hmz... I guess Anson has enough clout to pull that off at least.

[Brad Harris]

From a baseball standpoint, it's got to be Jackson, who conspired to throw a World Series. His "crime" was the most grievous.

[RBi]

From a baseball standpoint, it's got to be Jackson, who conspired to throw a World Series. His "crime" was the most grievous.

I tend to agree. In my opinion it is hard to argue with your point.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Don't forget that Anson didn't own a team. It took a collusive effort on the part of organized baseball and its owners to keep blacks out of baseball. Don't hate the player hate the game. Anson's role in baseball's segregation has been embellished greatly. If owners wanted black players they would have signed them, simple as that. The protestations of one very popular player would have meant little in the face of a league wide effort to integrate.

Jackson and Mcgwire are more representative of bigger problems within baseball, but they are/were merely small players in a bigger scheme of things(Steroids and Gambling). Neither one was the cause of the problems, they just became symbols of the problems.

Rose is a unique case as you can't really parallel his actions with anyone elses, but I don't think his actions really harmed the game at all. It really only hurt himself.

To sum it up
Anson was a racist,
Jackson was a naive pawn,
Mcgwire used roids
Rose had a gambling problem.

From a purely societal standpoint, Anson is definitely the worst guy. From a baseball standpoint I don't think any of them had a tremendously negative impact, or at least the positives I believe outway the negatives.

Anson helped make baseball a success in Chicago, by becoming a star there and recruiting the best players to play in Chicago. Without him who knows what would have happened.

Mcgwire helped save baseball with the homerun chase.

Rose and Jackson were both incredible talents who contributed positively to their teams.

I agree with this post with the exception of your assessment of Jackson. Jackson, while a rather dim intellectual bulb, was, nonetheless, well aware of what he was doing. He was taking a bribe to help throw the World Series. This undermined baseball far more than anything, Anson, McGwire, or even Rose did.

I don't find the defenses put forth by Jackson apologists particularly convincing. There are those who make the argument that Jackson played hard, but kept his mouth shut to be able to get a payoff. What does that say for Jackson? He could have stopped the fix, but he chose not to. And his knowledge of the fix came from sitting in on meetings where the fix was discussed. He was a conspirator. He wasn't Chick Gandil, or even Swede Risberg (the heavies in the scandal, with Gandil, reputedly, the architect of the entire scheme). He wasn't Eddie Cicotte (who got his cash up front; he was smarter than the other Black Sox). But he knew what was going on, was part of the conspiracy, and was looking to cash in. The argument that he "played well" in the Series is tantamount to "he covered his butt" to make his actions not look obvious.

As a human being, I would probably rank Pete Rose last on this list; he was as nauseatingly selfish an individual as it comes. McGwire is the best of this bunch. Anson comes third; he was more cynical than Jackson, but his "racism" and alleged role in banning blacks and establishing segregated baseball is overstated. Jackson, though, did the most harm to baseball, and I don't see how this can be seriously in dispute.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Here's an article on Cap Anson's racism. (http://www.capanson.com/chapter4.html)

Here's Cap Anson's obituary in The New York Times. (http://thedeadballera.com/Obits/Anson.Adrian.Obit.html)

The thing that jumped out at me was Anson's friendship with Judge Landis, the man who deserves most of the blame for the color line in baseball lasting as long as it did.

[zahavasdad]

I am not defending Jackson, Rose and McGwire but the point is either the hall of fame is for One the Field exploits ONLY or On the Field AND Off-the-field behavior.

The Hall is FULL is scoundrals

Lets not forget Cobb and Speaker Conspired to THROW a game and there is actual proof, but they were given a pass because they were Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker..

Either the same standard applies to everyone or to no-one.

So either Cap Anson , Cobb , Speaker, Jackson,Rose and McGwire Belong or NONE of them belong.

And I do feel that Cap Anson being the most prominent player in the majors and a Klansman did the MOST damage to the game. The other 3 did the damage to themselves, After the Black sox, the game quickly cleaned itself up which was a good thing, after ANSON the game kicked out the Walkers and became a WHITES ONLY

[zahavasdad]

Another great point: 3 of the 4 players you want to compare isn't in the hall of fame, yet you pick the HOF forum to discuss it.

I put it here because the 3 are out of the Hall because of their Off-the-field exploits, Based on any other on-the-field critera they belong.

IMO Cap Anson has a similar Off-The-Field NEGATIVE Presence towards the games (He was a racist) yet he is in.

[Los Bravos]

Anson should be in the Hall, but he's still far and away the worst offender on this list.

[Brad Harris]

I put it here because the 3 are out of the Hall because of their Off-the-field exploits, Based on any other on-the-field critera they belong.

What Jackson did was both on the field and against the rules. Significant difference from McGwire and/or Rose.

[Chickazoola]

I should have clarified, I am not a Jackson apologist, just pointing out in the scheme of things he didn't organize anything, he went along with the fix and he was complicit in it, but he was more or less naive about the long term consequences of his actions. All of those involved were.

My point is that he contributed positively to his teams save for the 1919 WS which obviously blights his career record. Ditto for Rose, I think 4000+ hits and multiple WS rings outweighs his gambling on baseball in terms of positive contributions.

Both of their punishments are just, and I am cool with it. I just feel they did a lot good too and that shouldn't be ignored.

[zahavasdad]

What Jackson did was both on the field and against the rules

And what about Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb??

[Fuzzy Bear]

I should have clarified, I am not a Jackson apologist, just pointing out in the scheme of things he didn't organize anything, he went along with the fix and he was complicit in it, but he was more or less naive about the long term consequences of his actions. All of those involved were.

My point is that he contributed positively to his teams save for the 1919 WS which obviously blights his career record. Ditto for Rose, I think 4000+ hits and multiple WS rings outweighs his gambling on baseball in terms of positive contributions.

Both of their punishments are just, and I am cool with it. I just feel they did a lot good too and that shouldn't be ignored.

While Rose is, on a personal level, a scumbag, what he did was not as serious as Jackson did. Rose did something in his personal life that could have led to throwing games. Serious stuff, but there is NO evidence that Rose threw games.

Jackson threw games, and took money for it. That produced more harm to the sport than anything the other guys did.

The hue and cry against Cap Anson is, IMO, a lot of political correctness run amok. Anson bears responsibility for his own actions, but baseball's move to racial segregation in Anson's time was a part of all of American society moving toward racial segregation, North as well as South. To put things in perspective: It was highly controversial when Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House. People thought this demeaned the White House and the Presidency. Ridiculous, of course, but mainstream opinion in many places at the time this happened.

Anson was not a moral leader, and that is unfortunate, but he was a product of his time, and does not deserve to bear the burden of sole responsibility for the color bar in baseball. It is fair to wonder what would have happened to baseball if Anson had actually supported blacks in baseball. My guess, given the history of the day, is that Anson would have lost standing, and someone else would have been tagged with the segregationist label. Anson, alone, did not impose the color bar in baseball, and Anson, alone, could not have stopped it from happening.

[Chickazoola]

What Jackson did was both on the field and against the rules

And what about Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb??

Their case was based on some anecdotal evidence by Dutch Leonard, and during the time that their case was being discussed, Dutch Leonard refused to testify against either one. So the case was never really pursued to its fullest. What we are left with now is primarily hearsay, and while it seems likely there was something to it, they were never formally punished or banned by MLB.

Jackson's guilt is unquestionable, Speaker and Cobb's is open for much debate.

[zahavasdad]

Jackson's guilt is unquestionable, Speaker and Cobb's is open for much debate.

That Jackson took the money, is unquestionable, that he tried to actually throw games is debatable and we will never know for sure.

[soberdennis]

Jackson hit .375 in a world series he supposedly threw, leading all players. His ignorance is well documented and unfortunate. I wonder if things may have been different if he had been educated.
I think the biggest problem with Rose is his constant denial of wrongdoing. It has long been considered wrong for players to bet on games, especially ones you are involved in. In fact the Black Sox Scandal was what has brought that to the forefront.
Personally I think they both belong in the Hall of Fame. I will settle for simply-if one is out, they should both be out. If Rose gets in, Jackson should get in.
As for McGwire and so many others, it is a lot of speculation as to whether they used Steroids. The fact he took the Fifth Amendment before Congress seems to be held against him. Does that suddenly make him guilty? The only thing I am certain he is guilty of is exercising his rights. I have already expressed some disappointment that he did not go in with Cal and Tony, even though it may have turned out for the best. I hope he eventually gets in.
As for the one man who is in, Anson was definitely a racist. But we are talking about the 1870s and 1880s. His views were commonplace and acceptable back then. Today I consider those views wrong. But I am not certain that I would have felt the same way 70 years ago, much less 125 years ago. Even though I don't agree with them I can accept his views in that context.

[Fuzzy Bear]

That Jackson took the money, is unquestionable, that he tried to actually throw games is debatable and we will never know for sure.

That, to me, is the alpha and omega of the issue.

Jackson took money from gamblers. He KNEW there was a fix on; he was part of a conspiracy to throw the WS and did nothing.

What keeps a sport alive is the idea that the outcome of the game is determined by the honest abilities and performances of the players. When a dishonest outcome is arranged by payment of bribes, a sport ceases to be a sport; it becomes entertainment, not unlike WWE (although at least we understand that WWE is a scripted event).

What Jackson did was more harmful to BASEBALL, THE SPORT AND THE INSTITUTION than what Rose did (a potential, but not actual harm), what McGwire did (assuming he did steroids, he did so to be the best he could be), and what Anson did (which was a reflection of his time). What concerns me is that people have trouble seeing the distinction. Jackson's actions appear to be the most benign, but they are the actions that most directly lead to the end of baseball as a sport and the beginning of baseball as a sham.

[Los Bravos]

While Rose is, on a personal level, a scumbag, what he did was not as serious as Jackson did. Rose did something in his personal life that could have led to throwing games. Serious stuff, but there is NO evidence that Rose threw games.

Jackson threw games, and took money for it. That produced more harm to the sport than anything the other guys did.

The hue and cry against Cap Anson is, IMO, a lot of political correctness run amok. Anson bears responsibility for his own actions, but baseball's move to racial segregation in Anson's time was a part of all of American society moving toward racial segregation, North as well as South. To put things in perspective: It was highly controversial when Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washington to the White House. People thought this demeaned the White House and the Presidency. Ridiculous, of course, but mainstream opinion in many places at the time this happened.

Anson was not a moral leader, and that is unfortunate, but he was a product of his time, and does not deserve to bear the burden of sole responsibility for the color bar in baseball. It is fair to wonder what would have happened to baseball if Anson had actually supported blacks in baseball. My guess, given the history of the day, is that Anson would have lost standing, and someone else would have been tagged with the segregationist label. Anson, alone, did not impose the color bar in baseball, and Anson, alone, could not have stopped it from happening.The retreat from post Civil War legal reforms that enshrined racial equality in the nation's laws was a long and complex phenomenon, but to essentially gloss over the utterly vile actions and attitudes of Anson by pointing out that those attitudes were widely shared isn't going to cut it, with me.

He was a grown man and he made his own choices, as you said. To look at them and hold him responsible for the damage that he (at the very least) helped to cause isn't political correctness (a term which has long been utterly meaningless, by the way...another discussion for another time and probably another place), it's basic human decency and respect for the historical record.

As I said, he belongs in the Hall. But he also richly merits the opprobrium that is tossed his way, as well.

[Brad Harris]

Jackson's guilt is unquestionable, Speaker and Cobb's is open for much debate.

That Jackson took the money, is unquestionable, that he tried to actually throw games is debatable and we will never know for sure.

No, but after Jackson took the money for just that purpose and was in on the fix, the burden of proof rests with those who expect the logical conclusion to be that he didn't follow through and throw those games. How Jackson apologists fail to connect the dots from taking the money to throwing those games is a great mystery. If the only person who'll ever really know is Jackson, that's just more damning since the man confessed to having done so. No amount of revisionist history can erase Jackson's culpability, guilt or confession.

As for Cobb or Speaker, even had they been completely guilty of all charges and were allowed to remain in the game, eventually finding election to the Hall, it doesn't mitigate Jackson's guilt nor change what he did to damage the game's and his credibility.

[zahavasdad]

Anson was not a moral leader, and that is unfortunate,

No, but after Jackson took the money for just that purpose and was
in on the fix, the burden of proof rests with those who expect the
logical conclusion to be that he didn't follow through and throw those
games. How Jackson apologists fail to connect the dots from taking the
money to throwing those games is a great mystery. If the only person
who'll ever really know is Jackson, that's just more damning since the
man confessed to having done so. No amount of revisionist history can
erase Jackson's culpability, guilt or confession.

We know Jackson took the money , we know he was a simpleton and we also know he had the best hitting records for either side, If he was Lefty Williams who was obviously throwing games or Fred McMullin who barely played we can say he had no effect.

Jackson was a follower but Anson was a LEADER and a leader has more responsibility. He wasnt called CAP for nothing.

[four tool]

The owners could have ignored Anson's racism if they wanted to--I think Cap is getting too much credit for banning blacks. . And there were a lot of other racists in baseball, even after the color line was broken. For instance, The Red Sox had a chance to get Willie Mays but didn't bother to give him an honest look.

If Cap is going to be condemned, then Landis and several owners should be banned from the hall permanently. Landis did more to harm the game than almost any other single individualin the history of baseball.

[RBi]

If Cap is going to be condemned, then Landis and several owners should be banned from the hall permanently. Landis did more to harm the game than almost any other single individualin the history of baseball.

If we are condemning due to racial views...

Um, how about Ty Cobb?

I look at it somewhat like Barry Bonds, you don't have to like the guy on a personal level but as a player, some things can not be ignored.

They are/were great players.

[SBBL]

Landis did more to harm the game than almost any other single individualin the history of baseball.

:applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

I agree whole heartedly. I have expressed this opinion in other threads. It is amazing and unsettling how his apologists on this forum then rush in to not only excuse him, but extoll his virtues !

There are times when a persons flaws are so immoral and certian actions so egregious, all other behavior and actions are trumped. Soft peddling the racist obsession and related actions of Landis is akin to claiming Hitler was not that bad because he built roads and made the trains run on time.

This thread begins with the unfortunate use of the word "hate" as it's premise. Hate is a stong word. Landis is the epitome of the pain, destruction and devistation that "hate" inflicts on fellow humans.

[leecemark]

--The color line existed long before Landis was involved in MLB. He certainly didn't do anything to address it and probably deserves some criticism for helping to maintain it. He doesn't deserve all the blame though. No owner made any real effort to sign black players during Landis time as Commissioner. It was not just baseball that was segregated during this time, but most of American society. MLB was actually one of the first major American institutions to integrate.
--In a better world segregation would never have existed. In the real world it was part of the American culture and to blame any one man, be it Anson or Landis or whoever, is extremely simplistic. Yes, Anson deserves censure for his refusing to play with black men. Sure, Landis would have a much more shining legacy had he pushed or integration as Commisioner. Had Landis chosen to end the color line in addition to driving gamblers out of baseball he would rank as clearly the greatest non-playing figure in baseball history. That he did not doesn't make him the devil (or Hitler). It just makes him a flawed product of his times.

[SBBL]

:applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

It is amazing and unsettling how his apologists on this forum then rush in to not only excuse him, but extoll his virtues !


Please see the preceding post. I rest my case.

[zahavasdad]

This thread begins with the unfortunate use of the word "hate" as it's premise. Hate is a stong word.

Cap Anson DID hate blacks and refused to play with them.

Landis died in 1944 , The political climate was differernt after WW II when blacks fought honorably and then denied the right to play in the major leagues. If Landis denied the right of Jackie Robinson to play in 1946 that would made him more evil.

[zahavasdad]

For all you Anson apologists, you seem to be willing to say it was really the owners fault that blacks were kept out of the majors

However in Jacksons case Comiskey was likely one of the causes of the black sox scandal yet none of you seem to be willing to excuse Jackson based on a miserly owner, simpleton who was product of HIS time (Like Anson was a product of his time)

[leecemark]

--The owners did treat the players poorly in many cases and Comisky was perhaps amoung the worst of them. He was not in the on the fix though. If your boss is treating you badly does that mean its okay for you to steal from him?
--Lets say you work for a company that doesn't treat its employees like you think it should. One of your co-workers comes to you and says "hey me and some of the other guys have a scheme to rip the company (and its customers) off and make up for some of the pay we think we ought to be getting". They cut you in on the ill gotten gains. Even if all you do is pocket the money and look the other way are you innocent of wrong doing?
--Maybe Jackson was just an ignorant pawn. Maybe he didn't actively try to throw games. What he did do was enough to get him at least fired, if not prosecuted, by any business anywhere. So even if we agree that his ban was punishment enough and he isn't that horrible a person does that mean we should now honor his career? Does the guy who get fired for dishonesty still get the gold watch? The Hall of Fame is about celebrating what is great about baseball. Regardless of what he did prior to the Black Sox scandal, Jackson's part in that is enough to preclude him from that honor.

[jalbright]

For all you Anson apologists, you seem to be willing to say it was really the owners fault that blacks were kept out of the majors

However in Jacksons case Comiskey was likely one of the causes of the black sox scandal yet none of you seem to be willing to excuse Jackson based on a miserly owner, simpleton who was product of HIS time (Like Anson was a product of his time)

I for one am not giving Anson a pass. He's hardly the only one responsible, as you have seemed to imply. When it comes to the HOF, being a racist or continuing racist policies is not a positive, to be sure. But if we eliminated all those who are racist by today's standards, there'd be a lot of people swept out, I'm afraid. The racists basically proved they were not bigger men than the mores of their times, to their own discredit.

As for Jackson, yes, Commiskey was a lousy man to work for. That said, there's the matter of personal honesty in giving one's best efforts and not selling out one's honor, one's team and teammates, and the game itself for filthy lucre. Jackson dishonored the game, and in no way deserves to be honored by the very game he so directly dishonored because of his actions. Frankly, your approach means that everyone who is unfairly forced to resign would be justified in stealing from the company he or she had been employed by--and that's not acceptable.

Jim Albright

[Mariano_Rivera]

Society was racist and Anson was just a player and manager and though he encouraged segregation actually couldn't do much about it if society was different. What Anson did was morally worst but his actual impact was pretty small.

I`m of the opinion that Jackson took the money but didn't throw the games and I don't think that's really a bad thing.

Rose bet on games but even if he did throw them were they very important games? I don't really know to m,uch about the Rose case.

McGwire cheated and likely encouraged others to cheat. His impact was probably biggest of the four.

I think I`d say what McGwire did was worse because he actualyl had a large impact on many other players.

[jalbright]

Society was racist and Anson was just a player and manager and though he encouraged segregation actually couldn't do much about it if society was different. What Anson did was morally worst but his actual impact was pretty small.

I`m of the opinion that Jackson took the money but didn't throw the games and I don't think that's really a bad thing.

Rose bet on games but even if he did throw them were they very important games? I don't really know to m,uch about the Rose case.

McGwire cheated and likely encouraged others to cheat. His impact was probably biggest of the four.

I think I`d say what McGwire did was worse because he actualyl had a large impact on many other players.

OK, let's start with what you allege that is at least arguably not well supported: 1) where's the evidence Rose threw any games? The only evidence I'm aware of is that Rose bet a standard amount on his teams to win every time he bet. As far as I'm aware, he bet every time he had a chance, so that undermines the argument he was in any way in cahoots with the gamblers. He was in territory he certainly shouldn't have entered, but there's enough to tar the man without getting into unsupported allegations. 2) We know McGwire used the legal supplement andro, and that Canseco alleges he used, that Canseco is vulnerable to charges of sour grapes, and that McGwire's testimony before Congress under oath was a disaster. I'm not even convinced it makes him a juicer, but others disagree. However, I'm unaware of evidence that McGwire was some kind of vocal advocate for juicing, though obviously those folks who believed his success resulted from juicing were given an excuse to do what they thought was simply following suit.

Jackson not only took the money, he kept his mouth shut while the fix was ongoing and thereby helped it continue. He continued to keep his mouth shut for almost another entire season, and only told his story when the story was breaking out in numerous ways. Even then, the story is neatly tailored to minimize his involvement, in a way that calls his credibility on that score into question. Jackson helped a fix of a championship that rocked the sport to its very core. From my perspective, baseball was and is completely in the right to deal with him as a pariah.

Jim Albright

[Mariano_Rivera]

OK, let's start with what you allege that is at least arguably not well supported: 1) where's the evidence Rose threw any games? The only evidence I'm aware of is that Rose bet a standard amount on his teams to win every time he bet. As far as I'm aware, he bet every time he had a chance, so that undermines the argument he was in any way in cahoots with the gamblers. He was in territory he certainly shouldn't have entered, but there's enough to tar the man without getting into unsupported allegations. 2) We know McGwire used the legal supplement andro, and that Canseco alleges he used, that Canseco is vulnerable to charges of sour grapes, and that McGwire's testimony before Congress under oath was a disaster. I'm not even convinced it makes him a juicer, but others disagree. However, I'm unaware of evidence that McGwire was some kind of vocal advocate for juicing, though obviously those folks who believed his success resulted from juicing were given an excuse to do what they thought was simply following suit.

Jackson not only took the money, he kept his mouth shut while the fix was ongoing and thereby helped it continue. He continued to keep his mouth shut for almost another entire season, and only told his story when the story was breaking out in numerous ways. Even then, the story is neatly tailored to minimize his involvement, in a way that calls his credibility on that score into question. Jackson helped a fix of a championship that rocked the sport to its very core. From my perspective, baseball was and is completely in the right to deal with him as a pariah.

Jim Albright

Suppsedly McGwire got Giambi into using steroids according to Canseco. It makes sense to me that he would have also have persuaded others to use them

That's another area where I`m not exactly an expert but I was under the impression he tried to tell Comiskey about it but he was ignored

[Fuzzy Bear]

That's another area where I`m not exactly an expert but I was under the impression he tried to tell Comiskey about it but he was ignored

I have never heard of this, and this has never been recorded in any account of the Black Sox scandal I have read.

To what degree Jackson bears guilt in the matter is up for debate. Cicotte, Williams, and Jackson all signed confessions, but these confessions were stolen from the State's Attorney's office prior to their criminal trial. The book and movie Eight Men Out indicates that Jackson may have signed a confession in order to play next year; it's quite possible that in this day and age, with Miranda being the law of the land, his confession would have been thrown out (as well as Cicotte's and Williams' confessions).

Even so, all that would have meant was that the Black Sox would never have gone to trial. The Black Sox, after all, were ACQUITTED of all criminal charges, so the legal ramifications of all of this are somewhat beside the point. The facts brought out in trial were enough to show that Jackson had knowledge of a fix and profited from it.

That Charles Comiskey was a scumbag is also beside the point. Comiskey is one of the very few who's plaque I would like removed from Cooperstown. I am personally glad that the White Sox' Stadium is no longer named after him. But, as others have ponited out, Comiskey's behavior is no justification for dishonesty. Period.

[Chickazoola]

Jackson did tell Kid Gleason he wanted to sit out the series, but didn't specify anything about the fix. Gleason refused to sit him out.

Comiskey had suspicions very early on in the series about the fix, but due to acrimony between him and Ban Johnson nothing really came of this info. Eventually Comiskey did his best to cover up the fix in order to protect his investment, but Hugh Fullerton and Ban Johnson went to great lengths to expose the fix.

People tend to misunderstand the reasons for Jackson and Buck Weaver being banned, despite what appears to be strong play on their parts in the series. They were banned because they had knowledge of the fix, sat in on meetings with gamblers, and in Jackson's case took money from gamblers, not because they actually threw games.

Landis stated that any player who had knowledge of a fix or sits in with gamblers while the fixing of games is being discussed and doesn't immediately report it to his team is subject to lifetime banishment from organized baseball.

[four tool]

For all you Anson apologists, you seem to be willing to say it was really the owners fault that blacks were kept out of the majors

However in Jacksons case Comiskey was likely one of the causes of the black sox scandal yet none of you seem to be willing to excuse Jackson based on a miserly owner, simpleton who was product of HIS time (Like Anson was a product of his time)

Despite prevalent racism, individual decisins do count. I do not excuse Jackson for accepting gambling money because his owner was a cheapskate. After all, two wrongs do not make a right.

Landis was on record saying that if they could find a good enough black player, that plauyer could join the majors. And this was in the heyday of Josh Gibson, Satch Paige, Oscar , etc. etc. etc. And white players and scouts were saying they were good enough. Two examples : one scout said any team would love to have Gibbie as a catcher, he was better than Dickey. Dizzy Dean said "If Satch anf I both pitched on the same team, we'd have the pennant sewn up by the 4th of July and could go fishing until the World Series." Yet Landis did nothing to accept the judgements of the baseball people who actually saw the blacks play. THEREFORE, Landis has no excuse for his decisions. If he was appeasing the crowd or the sense of times because of racism, he was a follower, not a leader. If he was so racist that he couldn't accept blacks despite the scouting reports, he was a man of no moral courage or integrity.

[zahavasdad]

Landis might have enforced the racist policy but Anson created it.

I still dont understand why the Anson Apologists are willing for forgive Anson who was an intelligent man and a leader vs Jackson who was an ignorant fool and there is no evidence he actually threw any game.

The real point of this was the hall of fame is full of scoundrals either we let them all in or keep them ALL OUT

and if it means throwing people out, so be it

[Los Bravos]

As I've said, I have no problem with Anson being in on his merits as a player, but to just ignore his dreadful contribution to the erection of the color barrier would be a travesty.

Yes, there were widespread racist attitudes, but anyone who looks at the history of the law from the time right after the war, up until the turn of the century, will see that a great effort was made during the Reconstruction period to remedy the racist laws and practices that had been in place up until then.

You will then see that after a while, there was a backlash and a move to rescind those laws or to ignore them in practice, culminating in the Plessy case of 1896. Anson was part of that. He didn't just flow along with the tide, he pushed it along. For that, he deserves our everlasting condemnation, as a man.

[zahavasdad]

The Hall of Fame is about celebrating what is great about baseball

So why is Cap Anson there??, he was a Racist, certainly not whats great about baseba

[Chickazoola]

The reason Cap Anson is there is because he was a great player, and the people who voted him in very likely didn't care about his actions. I am guessing most of them would have stuck with the party line of "if the black players were good enough they would be in the league".

One man was not responsible for the color line. It was systematic and collusive. No one challenged the color line until Rickey did, but anyone could have done it in the 60 years prior. It is the fault of many not merely the fault of Anson or Landis or whoever else you want to blame. Anson may have been the most vitriolic but the anti-black sentiment was present throughout organized baseball. Tons of anecdotes exist which demonstrate this. He was just most famous player of his time, and his story is most well remembered. Historians have latched onto the "get that ni**er off the field" story because of this fact, but it took the efforts of hundreds of men to make the color line a reality.

[jalbright]

The Hall of Fame is about celebrating what is great about baseball

So why is Cap Anson there??, he was a Racist, certainly not whats great about baseba

True, racism isn't a desirable part of anything good. But we can't completely change the past, no matter how painful it is. The HOF would be a useless institution if we threw out people, even for not being good enough players in current eyes. If throwing out player selections which are now viewed as mistakes on talent grounds would greatly devalue the institution, think of how much more you'd devalue the institution if you made it the Hall of Fame and Current Political Correctness. It would be a sad joke.

I'm not going to call Lincoln a racist, as by the standards of his day he was a rather forward thinking white American. Yet, by today's standards, Abe made many a statement which would be considered racist. Abe should be viewed more by the standards of his own time and place than by today's standards. The same for Anson. Anson was hardly forward thinking--but he was representative of the mass (some might say mob) thinking of the time. That isn't to his credit, as he could have risen above his own time and didn't. However, that doesn't mark him as one of the backward-thinking, hate driven souls that carry the same views today. America hasn't erased the issue by any means, but we've come a long way from the 1880's.

Jim Albright

[bryanac625]

I see the likes of Cap Anson and all of those who conspired to keep MLB all-white for years as the big losers. Had teams been willing to sign the best African-American, dark-skinned Latino and Asian players, a whole lot more teams could have made a lot more money. But some were content to maintain the staus quo thinking they came out better that way. Washington Nationals owner Clark Griffith took a pass on integration, choosing instead to profit from the gate receipts of the Negro League games. If I recall, the Nationals did not integrate until the 1950s.

I am disgusted at the thought of people like Anson being honored by the HOF. There is no excuse for his bigotry. But unfortunatley, he wasn't inducted for his social positions.

And who knows how many people in the HOF were- or are- child abusers/molesters or wife beaters? What if one of these guys raped a woman and never got caught for it? I imagine almost anyone in the HOF could be tossed out for something somebody finds offensive.

Cap Anson, Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby all had great careers but their legacies are tainted by their racist beliefs. At some point, their thousands of hits and unbelievable batting averages are not worth it. HOF, fine; but their legacies as men are unacceptable. It just goes to show that you can have a great professional career, but have your reputation damaged by intolerance and ignorance. Buck Oneil is not in the HOF but I personally would take him any day over these losers.

[zahavasdad]

I dont blame Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby for the racism, that was a sign of the times and frankly Ty Cobb was just a bore and a general scumbag (Probably the biggest scumbag in baseball history), Ty Cobb DID conspire to throw a game, that I blame him , to quote someone else here, the baseball hall of fame is for POSTIVE baseball experience, Ty Cobb while setting much of the record book, was NOT a postive baseball experience

The differnce between Ty Cobb and Cap Anson is Blacks were already banned from baseball in Cobbs time and they were banned BECAUSE of Cap Anson.

Its one thing to be a reactive racist like Ty Cobb, but its totally another to be a Pro-active racist like Cap Anson.

It is bothersome to me, that some here call it "Political Correctness" to apologize for Cap Anson, It is NOT political correctness to lobby for the exclusion of others as Cap Anson did.

[Chickazoola]

I dont blame Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby for the racism, that was a sign of the times and frankly Ty Cobb was just a bore and a general scumbag (Probably the biggest scumbag in baseball history), Ty Cobb DID conspire to throw a game, that I blame him , to quote someone else here, the baseball hall of fame is for POSTIVE baseball experience, Ty Cobb while setting much of the record book, was NOT a postive baseball experience

The differnce between Ty Cobb and Cap Anson is Blacks were already banned from baseball in Cobbs time and they were banned BECAUSE of Cap Anson.

Its one thing to be a reactive racist like Ty Cobb, but its totally another to be a Pro-active racist like Cap Anson.

It is bothersome to me, that some here call it "Political Correctness" to apologize for Cap Anson, It is NOT political correctness to lobby for the exclusion of others as Cap Anson did.

They weren't banned because of Cap Anson, he played a role, but hundreds of others did too.

[four tool]

Washington Nationals owner Clark Griffith took a pass on integration, choosing instead to profit from the gate receipts of the Negro League games. If I recall, the Nationals did not integrate until the 1950s.


Perhaps you had a bit of a brain-freeze? Griffin owned the Washington Senators--an AL team. That is not the same team as the current NL Nationals.

[Los Bravos]

They weren't banned because of Cap Anson, he played a role, but hundreds of others did too.You're working hard, but this case isn't going to fly. Anson's word carried a lot of weight. He didn't blow apart an amicable situation, and he didn't do anything all by himself, but he seems clearly to have been the main catalyst for permanently establishing a situation that put a scar on the game that lasts to this day in the historical record.Perhaps you had a bit of a brain-freeze? Griffin owned the Washington Senators--an AL team. That is not the same team as the current NL Nationals."Nationals" was used something of an alternate name for the Senators at times.

[bryanac625]

Perhaps you had a bit of a brain-freeze? Griffin owned the Washington Senators--an AL team. That is not the same team as the current NL Nationals.

Brain Freeze? I don't think so. Sorry to digress on another topic, but the OFFICIAL name of the Washington, DC American League baseball club from 1901 to 1958 was the Washington Nationals (in fact, they were the first team ever to wear a nickname on their jerseys, in 1905). It was not until 1959 that the club, for the first time in its history, wore SENATORS on its jerseys. The team moved to Minnesota after the 1960 season.

Granted, the name of the team was ambiguous. Teams got their names from sportswriters and they were variously known as the Griffs, the Griffmen (early names, for owner Clark Griffith), the Nationals, the Senators, or just the Nats. And FWIW, wearing only a "W" on their uniforms for years didn't help matters, either.

Pics of their 1905 uniform and a replica 1950s pennant.

[Baseball Guru]

Not relevant to the convo but I thought it was funny:

116 years ago on today's date, Cap Anson showed up for the game wearing a wig and a long white beard, much to the delight of the Chicago crowd. Anson wears the costume throughout the game:clapping


Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion:waving

[RBi]

I dont blame Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby for the racism, that was a sign of the times.

To me this claim sums it up for me. You simply want to not like Anson more than any other player. I just wish you would come out and say it and stop trying to convince everyone by saying silly things like what I quoted above.

How can you not blame Cobb and Hornsby for being racist due to it being a "sign of the times" but in the next sentence place 100% blame on Anson. Let's face it Anson played closer to "the times" where racism was accepted by the MASS MAJORITY.

I think you are only taking "today's way of thinking" into consideration when you think about how things were done "wrong" 130ish years ago.

There were more important places in the day to day life where blacks were not allowed to be than a baseball field.


I still question why this thread is in the Hall of Fame forum, since only one of the 4 players you originally listed is even in the HoF.

[leecemark]

--This where the logical breakdown comes into play. You simply cannot judge people of the past by the standards of today. From everything I've read of Cap Anson, he was not a particularly nice man. Perhaps he was more racist than the average man of his times, but I am not certain of that. He can not be blamed for the institutional racism of MLB or American society though. He was just a manager/player.
--Suppose a manager, even the most influential one, had said my team won't take the field the first time a Japanese player crossed over. He would have been laughed out of the game. However, when Anson did the same thing with black players the response from the majority was that his view was the correct one. It matched the opinion of most men of the time. The owner of his ballclub could easily have said "you'll get the team on the field or I'll put someone else in charge". The other teams could have said we'll play who we want and you'll take the field or forfeit (this threat actually had to be made 60 years later when the Cardinals did not want to take the field vs Jackie Robinson).
--These things did not happen because segregation was the accepted norm of the times. Only the most enlightened men truely saw the races as equal then, while only the most UNenlightened men see it otherwise now. That is a huge cultural shift and trying to impose the norms of the 21st century on a 19th century man is misguided.

[zahavasdad]

I still question why this thread is in the Hall of Fame forum, since only one of the 4 players you originally listed is even in the HoF.

I am not the moderator, but the thread is about Hall of Fame STANDARDS.

Jackson, Rose and MCGwire are most likely hall of famers for ON THE DIAMOND events , but kept out because of off the field events (You can debate jackson)

IMO Cap Anson is the most despicable Hall of Famer who is there for On the field play but was a scumbag off the field and his Racism directly affected the game unlike Cobbs or Hornsby.

If others can name a more despicable Hall of Famer who doesnt belong there for Off-The-Field play we can use him instead.

Why is Gambling and Steroids reason to keep someone out but Racism keeps someone in, last I checked the biggest Taboo word in English is the N word and everyone has fun in Sin City

[jalbright]

zahavasdad,

I see three areas in this discussion where you and I disagree about Anson:

1) the quality of Anson's play, which you wisely seem to have abandoned as an attack on him;

2) how much personal blame Anson deserves for the color line; and

3) whether or not it is wise to oust someone from the HOF.

As you have dropped number one on the list, I won't belabor it. You seem to want to demonize Anson as though he created the color line all on his own. I'm saying that if Anson had said nothing, the color line would have come about in short order. In fact, I'll go even further: if Anson had taken the enlightened view and espoused it with the same vigor he pushed the color line, he wouldn't have held up the establishment of the color line by more than two or three years. Doing so would have been a noble fight and greatly to his credit, but the outcome would have been the same. When viewed that way, how much different is Anson than Hornsby or Cobb, whom you wish to excuse?

Beyond that, even if I accepted your position on Anson's responsibility for the color line, as odious as the color line is, I would not agree to kick Anson out. He's not honored for his views on race relations, he's honored as a ballplayer. He was a darned fine one, despite his personal views. Moreover, even the Morgan Bulkely's (egregious errors) shouldn't be kicked out, for the reason that while those folks are not worthy, we're better off ignoring them as precedent and leaving well enough alone. Throwing people out of the Hall, even for cause, means the honor isn't permanent--which is worse for the Hall than saying it's a mistake we simply won't repeat. That's true if we talked merely about a person's worthiness in baseball terms. But if we took it and applied it to issues like race relations, we could take it to how inductees treated women (radical feminists could have a field day emptying the Hall), followed the law (think Prohibition), and so forth. It would be a disaster for the Hall, and therefore must be avoided.

Jim Albright

[jalbright]

I still question why this thread is in the Hall of Fame forum, since only one of the 4 players you originally listed is even in the HoF.

It's borderline, but it does get to what elements disqualify one from the HOF, so, as the mod of this forum, I'll let it where it is.

[RBi]

It's borderline, but it does get to what elements disqualify one from the HOF, so, as the mod of this forum, I'll let it where it is.
I agree it is in line with the forum it is in, I usually do not take part in debates outside the Cubs forum. ;) it just hit me wrong at first being in this forum.

The tag line for the HoF forum is: "Who belongs? Who doesn't? Who is banned? What rules?"

I stand corrected.

[zahavasdad]

You seem to want to demonize Anson as though he created the color line all on his own. I'm saying that if Anson had said nothing, the color line would have come about in short order. In fact, I'll go even further: if Anson had taken the enlightened view and espoused it with the same vigor he pushed the color line, he wouldn't have held up the establishment of the color line by more than two or three years. Doing so would have been a noble fight and greatly to his credit, but the outcome would have been the same. When viewed that way, how much different is Anson than Hornsby or Cobb, whom you wish to excuse?

Is it worse to throw someone out the window or spit on their grave. I argue its worse to throw them out because if they werent thrown out, there would be nobodys grave to spit on.

As far as Cobb even his own teamates hated him, I forgot the exact number of people who went to his funeral (I know the number was real small) EVERYONE hated him and nobody looked up to him.

Cobb didnt just hate blacks, he hated EVERYONE .

I am not so familiar with Hornsby, but I think I remember seeing similar feelings by others about him as well.

Anson on the other hand was liked by everyone and respected, Had he taken the high road (or no road) people would have listened

[KCGHOST]

Boys, I think we are, once again, being confronted with newbie greatness. I am always impressed by the patience you show towards these folks. Not being as kind of spirit or as tolerant I might suggest you are throwing knowledge at a teflon brick wall.

[bryanac625]

As far as Cobb even his own teamates hated him, I forgot the exact number of people who went to his funeral (I know the number was real small) EVERYONE hated him and nobody looked up to him.

Cobb didnt just hate blacks, he hated EVERYONE.

This is true, but he did have a special hatred for blacks. However, there's really no way to rationalize his behavior... I mean, if he hated everybody, did his racism even matter?

I like what Dan Gutman said in his book Baseball Babylon: "Ty Cobb was in a fight that lasted a lifetime. And if he were playing today, he probably wouldn't be." The man was clearly psychotic and mentally disturbed by the death of his father, the South losing the Civil War; the presence of African-Americans; and/or whatever else got in his way.

[Chickazoola]

This is true, but he did have a special hatred for blacks. However, there's really no way to rationalize his behavior... I mean, if he hated everybody, did his racism even matter?

I like what Dan Gutman said in his book Baseball Babylon: "Ty Cobb was in a fight that lasted a lifetime. And if he were playing today, he probably wouldn't be." The man was clearly psychotic and mentally disturbed by the death of his father, the South losing the Civil War; the presence of African-Americans; and/or whatever else got in his way.

Cobb was a bad guy, so his racism matters but only so much as his hate for everything else does.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jackson did tell Kid Gleason he wanted to sit out the series, but didn't specify anything about the fix. Gleason refused to sit him out.

Comiskey had suspicions very early on in the series about the fix, but due to acrimony between him and Ban Johnson nothing really came of this info. Eventually Comiskey did his best to cover up the fix in order to protect his investment, but Hugh Fullerton and Ban Johnson went to great lengths to expose the fix.

People tend to misunderstand the reasons for Jackson and Buck Weaver being banned, despite what appears to be strong play on their parts in the series. They were banned because they had knowledge of the fix, sat in on meetings with gamblers, and in Jackson's case took money from gamblers, not because they actually threw games.

Landis stated that any player who had knowledge of a fix or sits in with gamblers while the fixing of games is being discussed and doesn't immediately report it to his team is subject to lifetime banishment from organized baseball.

I do understand this. I also think that these actions, in and of themselves, were more harmful to baseball than anything Rose, Anson, or Cobb did.

Weaver knew it was wrong, and "didn't want to be a snitch". (Schalk, by the way, never believed Weaver was as innocent as he is portrayed in most accounts, according to Bill James in the 2000 Historical Baseball Abstract.) Jackson was, essentially, bribed to keep silent. Landis' position on gambling and taking bribes is the part of his legacy that I DO agree with. Weaver and Jackson were about throwing games, however indirectly.

[Los Bravos]

So was every owner who participated in collusion.

[emath2432]

Boys, I think we are, once again, being confronted with newbie greatness. I am always impressed by the patience you show towards these folks. Not being as kind of spirit or as tolerant I might suggest you are throwing knowledge at a teflon brick wall.

Not sure how to take this... I have not been involved in this thread up to this point...But am I to understand, that because someone registered at a later date then you, that makes them an idiot?

I have over 9,000 posts at another baseball related site (9,584 to be exact), I now will have 2 here... Does the fact I have only 2 here mean my opinion will mean less than someone with over 5,000 here? Does that mean the opinion I was about to post would be a waste of everyone's time, including mine, because I am technically a newb, and therefore a Teflon brick wall?

Sorry, I just had to ask....

If we are discussing what was worse for the game... It is by far the Jackson bit. If we are discussing who was a worse person, Rose and Anson are both scumbags, but both for different reasons... Anson was a product of the times. Anson may have been a leader of the cause, but he was by no means the reason... He is also one of MANY racists in the HOF...

By my own standards, all of them belong in the Hall, because the Hall is a celebration of what was great IN the game... In other words, on the field... Off the field stuff means nothing to me.... I like Barry Bonds. He's an a**, but I don't care about that, all I care about is his on the field performance... I also am a firm believer that the Steroids in the game aren't any worse than the small parks, or diluted pitching when it comes to the new records. Steroids can't hit a curve ball.

McGwire is guilty of nothing but taking an over the counter supplement, and being big...

Rose has been proven of nothing but betting on his teams to succeed.

One thing is for sure, Jim is right, we can't go around taking people out. I have no issue with all 4 making it in eventually, because of the performances on the field.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Not sure how to take this... I have not been involved in this thread up to this point...But am I to understand, that because someone registered at a later date then you, that makes them an idiot?

I have over 9,000 posts at another baseball related site (9,584 to be exact), I now will have 2 here... Does the fact I have only 2 here mean my opinion will mean less than someone with over 5,000 here? Does that mean the opinion I was about to post would be a waste of everyone's time, including mine, because I am technically a newb, and therefore a Teflon brick wall?

Sorry, I just had to ask....

If we are discussing what was worse for the game... It is by far the Jackson bit. If we are discussing who was a worse person, Rose and Anson are both scumbags, but both for different reasons... Anson was a product of the times. Anson may have been a leader of the cause, but he was by no means the reason... He is also one of MANY racists in the HOF...

By my own standards, all of them belong in the Hall, because the Hall is a celebration of what was great IN the game... In other words, on the field... Off the field stuff means nothing to me.... I like Barry Bonds. He's an a**, but I don't care about that, all I care about is his on the field performance... I also am a firm believer that the Steroids in the game aren't any worse than the small parks, or diluted pitching when it comes to the new records. Steroids can't hit a curve ball.

McGwire is guilty of nothing but taking an over the counter supplement, and being big...

Rose has been proven of nothing but betting on his teams to succeed.

One thing is for sure, Jim is right, we can't go around taking people out. I have no issue with all 4 making it in eventually, because of the performances on the field.

It isn't being a newb that is the issue. It is when someone comes right in and acts like they have the answers to everything regardless of what has been said here in the past, that they're the first to figure something out, that they're the only ones who have touched upon a subject.

I'm not referring to you, emath, specifically when I say that. All opinions are pretty much welcome. Welcome to the site.

[KCGHOST]

I truly get tired of newbies and their "the HoF is full of scoundrels" threads. How many is this now? They never listen to a counter argument nor do they have any intention of doing so. They have only the same old tired rhetoric that we have heard dozens of times.

No matter what you think Cap Anson is in the HoF and he is staying there. The fact he is in is not going to get anyone to cut some other miscreant some slack. Likewise Shoeless Joe is not in and he is not ever getting in. Rose is not in the HoF and it is solely his fault. McGwire isn't even in the same class with these other three guys. Maybe as a symbol, but that's it.

[emath2432]

It isn't being a newb that is the issue. It is when someone comes right in and acts like they have the answers to everything regardless of what has been said here in the past, that they're the first to figure something out, that they're the only ones who have touched upon a subject.

I'm not referring to you, emath, specifically when I say that. All opinions are pretty much welcome. Welcome to the site.

Thanks :)

I truly get tired of newbies and their "the HoF is full of scoundrels" threads. How many is this now? They never listen to a counter argument nor do they have any intention of doing so. They have only the same old tired rhetoric that we have heard dozens of times.



Believe me, I understand the sentiment. I was at the site I mentioned above, long enough to see a bunch of newbs come and go... Here is the issue I have with reacting to newb in a negative manner though...

The last site I was at had near 10,000 members... 100's of them active at one time (about 5 years ago). Over time, a lot of the veterans started treating a lot of the newer people like they weren't a part of the family (mostly due to a current events forum, that got way too political, and argumentative...) A lot of the newer people left... Over time a lot of the vets left too... Now the site has maybe 20-25 regular posters... It's all but dead... Now a few people come along every once in a while, but they rarely stay. Certain vets still seem to treat newbs the same way...

You take all these people for granted, and one day all your online friends are gone... You start to yearn for the days when you had some newbs come on and post 4 different threads rehashing something you just talked about 2 days ago... At least there was something going on...