With that many Sox on the list the Pope may have intervened.
I’d be more inclined towards Jackson the more I read and learn about him.
One of my relatives bought a house in Greenville SC where the Shoeless Jackson museum is. I’ve got a few more books to read about him and the Black Sox before I make my final decision.
Wild applause, comment of the day, non-Diaper Don edition.
Additionally, managers manage games with a look to the future with regards to who is rested and how the bullpen is used. If he had money on a game, he may be more inclined to use up the bullpen which could cost the next couple of games or rest people the day before. It’s not clean.
There is not the slightest doubt that Jackson accepted $5,000 to throw the 1919 World Series. He so testified to a grand jury in 1920, and again at a deposition in a civil lawsuit that he filed against Comiskey in 1924, and his testimony was corroborated by his wife Katie, by Lefty Williams, and by gamblers.
It’s tricky because he kept changing his story. Here is a very long analysis on the SABR web site.
Not that it makes him look better IMHO.
This isn’t a debate that I’m read-up on, so I will just say that Pete Rose has always come across as a complete piece of shit and I wouldn’t believe a single thing that he said. He’s also spent every waking moment since he retired trying to make a cheap buck off baseball. So if you told me that Rose was throwing games I wouldn’t think twice. And if you told me he wasn’t, I’d demand some convincing proof.
I also wonder how we balance cultural norms when considering the actions of Jackson and Rose. In general, I believe that most people should be judged based on the norms of their time. I’m sure each and every one of us will be viewed as a troglodyte for some of our actions and beliefs by some pundits 100 years from now.
Shoeless Joe played in a time in Chicago dominated by the mob and when professional athletes weren’t nearly as well paid, had little to no control over where they played, and professional sports were not nearly the public trusts that they have become. Even if Joe took money from a mobster, does the time in which he played mitigate that at all? I don’t know the answer, but I’d be pissed if Rose got in, I would be mostly indifferent if Shoeless Joe got in after a century of punishment.
I saw Pete Rose play at the old Veterans Stadium when he was with the Phillies. Rose was a phenomenal player and a lousy human being who denied the allegations against him for years and there were people who defended him. Then one day he said “Yeah, I did it.” And those people felt betrayed.
My only interest in this is that I have his Topps rookie card (1963 #537) in my collection and have been holding onto it for years in anticipation of something happening that causes it to skyrocket in value. I’m retired and could use it. Yes, I guess I’ve been gambling on Pete Rose myself.
So is Marge Schott eligible? I’d like to vote against her.
I know this ruling applies to deceased players and doesn’t address the steroid era, but FFS, if Clemens and Bonds aren’t in, does it matter? Why keep anyone out?
She is. She was placed on the permanently-ineligible list by Bud Selig in 1996, but reinstated in 1998.
Clemens and Bonds are both eligible for the Hall, but obviously have not been voted in at this point. Both of them failed to reach the 75% threshold during their ten years of general eligibility, so now it’ll be up to voters on one of the Veterans’ Committees to determine if they ever make it in; it’s up to one of those committees to vote Rose and Jackson in or not, as well.
I don’t think his getting into the Hall is going to drastically increase the value of his card - you’re likely close to peak right now. Get it graded and sell it if you want the money.
I know baseball has a problem with performance enhancing drugs but I didn’t realize the drugs were so strong they could reanimate the dead!
Of course he took the money. He said under oath that he took the money.
That right there justified his banishment.
So is the HOF about what you do on the field or is it about character too? If the latter, why? It’s the Baseball HOF not Great Person HOF.
Note: If Shoeless Joe contributed to throwing the World Series, that’s on the field. Likewise Rose’s betting on baseball. Likewise steroids. But if you’re the best player ever and a piece of shit off the field, why should that ban you from the Hall?
Or perhaps they decided to do it and then some asshole owner tipped Trump off so he could demand it and look powerful.
The latter.
As per the Baseball Writers’ Association of America rules for voting for the Hall of Fame (emphasis mine):
Why is it there?
In part because in the wake of the Black Sox scandal, and other gambling scandals, Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis put the “character clause” in there. But, it also was apparently placed in the rules to encourage voters to vote for players who may not have been the absolute best on the diamond, but were seen as excellent people. As per the second link below:
The Hall of Fame’s standards and rules have changed so many times that I can no longer take it seriously. But I think the steroid guys should definitely get in ahead of the gamblers. What they did was wrong, but they did it to help their teams win, not to pursue some secret private agenda.
So? Cheating is cheating. They cheated to win.