Is it time... Rose and Joe Jackson in HOF?

[mrcharlie]

To begin with my thoughts.

Jackson is long overdue.  He is penalized for his "participation" in 1919 gambling scandal.  He hit very well over the course of that series, though he did muff a key play in the outfield.

His career speaks for itself.  He was a premier player in his time... The Babe thought highly of him.

Rose is a different and difficult call for me.  I don't like him for one play...he leveled Ray Fosse in an All-Star Game.  Fosse was never the same player. I believe it was Fosse's rookie season as well.  What a shame to make that play in an exhibition game.  Fosse went on to be involved in MLB (broadcasting A's games many years).  I believe MLB will remove Rose from banishment once he passes away.  Meaning he could very well end up in the HOF.

So; to summarize...  Jackson YES:  Rose: NO

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Schmoeman5]

Shoeless Joe is long past overdue. So is Rose. The Fosse incident in an "exhibition" game is Rose's signature moment. That game meant something to all those players. Different Era to be sure. I never liked Rose as a person but I sure admired his hard nosed approach for every game. I don't like the fact that he did bet on baseball. But 4200 hits. Come on. I think they should put his Plaque in Cooperstown. Maybe do it quietly without the induction ceremony. But then you're going to open up a whole can of worms on the steroid era. Totally separate issues, I know. But that's human nature. JMTC. And just to add on Fosse has at least 1 ring with the A's. It would have been poetic if it came at the expense of the Reds. I don't remember.

[Schmoeman5]

16 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

Shoeless Joe is long past overdue. So is Rose. The Fosse incident in an "exhibition" game is Rose's signature moment. That game meant something to all those players. Different Era to be sure. I never liked Rose as a person but I sure admired his hard nosed approach for every game. I don't like the fact that he did bet on baseball. But 4200 hits. Come on. I think they should put his Plaque in Cooperstown. Maybe do it quietly without the induction ceremony. But then you're going to open up a whole can of worms on the steroid era. Totally separate issues, I know. But that's human nature. JMTC. And just to add on Fosse has at least 1 ring with the A's. It would have been poetic if it came at the expense of the Reds. I don't remember.

Fosse won 2 rings with the A's but he wasn't on the 1972 team that beat the Reds

[Riverbrian]

I honestly don't care for imperfect people passing judgement on imperfect people.  

There are 346 individuals in the hall of fame. I've never met any of the 346 but I'm willing to bet that out of those 346... some of them may not be saints. We don't know if any of those 346 elected baseball people are buying up real estate in Florida and tossing old people out into the street. We don't know who from that 346 kick puppies for the fun of it.  

There are approximately 380 or so people who vote on who goes into the hall of fame. We don't know anything about the people who vote. The odds are that some of them who are passing judgement on Barry Bonds might doing something cringe worthy stuff in their own personal lives. 

What did the player do on the field? How does he compare to his peers on the field? Did he put butts in the seat? That's should be the criteria.

Pete Rose would get my vote however, in consideration of the process.... I don't think I would want a vote.   

 

[RpR]

NO!

[Parfigliano]

On 5/10/2024 at 10:41 AM, Riverbrian said:

I honestly don't care for imperfect people passing judgement on imperfect people.  

There are 346 individuals in the hall of fame. I've never met any of the 346 but I'm willing to bet that out of those 346... some of them may not be saints. We don't know if any of those 346 elected baseball people are buying up real estate in Florida and tossing old people out into the street. We don't know who from that 346 kick puppies for the fun of it.  

There are approximately 380 or so people who vote on who goes into the hall of fame. We don't know anything about the people who vote. The odds are that some of them who are passing judgement on Barry Bonds might doing something cringe worthy stuff in their own personal lives. 

What did the player do on the field? How does he compare to his peers on the field? Did he put butts in the seat? That's should be the criteria.

Pete Rose would get my vote however, in consideration of the process.... I don't think I would want a vote.   

 

What if Pete Rose as manager (player on off over the whole field) is betting on that field?  Evidence says he was and did?

[h2oface]

I think there should be a Hall of Shame in the Hall of Fame, and all that deserve both, should be in, and in it. Rose, Jackson, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Canseco, Clements, etc. All in the special Hall - an actual hall and not a room - in the HOF. They are part of baseball's notorious history, and some of the best players of all time. Would it be an honor? Well, kind of. They don't deserve their behavior to be hidden. They don't deserve to be in without the caveat. So make a special Hall of Shame. Tell the sordid story of peer pressure, greed, and bad choices that taints their greatness. It is part of Baseball's story, and it certainly is famous.

And another thought. To pretend there is an equivalency between notorious cheating and not being a total saint is intellectually dishonest and historically irresponsible.

[Riverbrian]

4 hours ago, Parfigliano said:

What if Pete Rose as manager (player on off over the whole field) is betting on that field?  Evidence says he was and did?

Well,.. in that case... 

 

 

 

[Riverbrian]

17 minutes ago, h2oface said:

I think there should be a Hall of Shame in the Hall of Fame, and all that deserve both, should be in, and in it. Rose, Jackson, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Canseco, Clements, etc. All in the special Hall - an actual hall and not a room - in the HOF. They are part of baseball's notorious history, and some of the best players of all time. Would it be an honor? Well, kind of. They don't deserve their behavior to be hidden. They don't deserve to be in without the caveat. So make a special Hall of Shame. Tell the sordid story of peer pressure, greed, and bad choices that taints their greatness. It is part of Baseball's story, and it certainly is famous.

I agree with this. 

Place it in the basement. Put flames on the wall if you'd like. Spooky sounds from the speakers. 

It will be the most visited area of Cooperstown. 

[Parfigliano]

On 5/10/2024 at 10:41 AM, Riverbrian said:

I honestly don't care for imperfect people passing judgement on imperfect people.  

There are 346 individuals in the hall of fame. I've never met any of the 346 but I'm willing to bet that out of those 346... some of them may not be saints. We don't know if any of those 346 elected baseball people are buying up real estate in Florida and tossing old people out into the street. We don't know who from that 346 kick puppies for the fun of it.  

There are approximately 380 or so people who vote on who goes into the hall of fame. We don't know anything about the people who vote. The odds are that some of them who are passing judgement on Barry Bonds might doing something cringe worthy stuff in their own personal lives. 

What did the player do on the field? How does he compare to his peers on the field? Did he put butts in the seat? That's should be the criteria.

Pete Rose would get my vote however, in consideration of the process.... I don't think I would want a vote.   

 

Sinners and Saints.  Rock and roll is based on this.

[bean5302]

Shoeless Joe Jackson testified in court that he accepted a bribe to throw the World Series. Pete Rose bet on baseball games, and he refused to admit or take responsibility for it.

If the competitive nature of MLB were to be called into question, it could potentially break the sport entirely. All the major sports have intense rules on gambling inside the sport.

[DJL44]

19 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Shoeless Joe Jackson testified in court that he accepted a bribe to throw the World Series. Pete Rose bet on baseball games, and he refused to admit or take responsibility for it.

If the competitive nature of MLB were to be called into question, it could potentially break the sport entirely. All the major sports have intense rules on gambling inside the sport.

And there's only one rule that comes with a lifetime ban - don't bet on baseball games. I can forgive a lot of other stuff but not that one.

[nicksaviking]

I was pretty reverential about the HOF when I was younger, but it really is just a plaque. I no longer identify with the hand-wringing about who gets in and who's left out. These guys all have or have had memorabilia and exhibits in the museum through the years. They aren't banned from the building, they just don't have a bust.

As for the gamblers and the PED guys, it doesn't bother me either way, but I'm not shedding a tear for players who were doing something they weren't supposed to be doing and not getting their day in Cooperstown. I mean, when they were doing these things, they would have known getting caught meant jeopardizing that opportunity. They picked the money that went along with the rule flouting. Seems like telling my kids if they do well on a test I'll take them to DQ, then still taking them even after I find out they got suspended for stealing the answers.

If the HOF wants them in now, go ahead, but it's not some crime against humanity if they don't.

[Rod Carews Birthday]

45 minutes ago, nicksaviking said:

As for the gamblers and the PED guys, it doesn't bother me either way, but I'm not shedding a tear for players who were doing something they weren't supposed to be doing and not getting their day in Cooperstown. I mean, when they were doing these things, they would have known getting caught meant jeopardizing that opportunity. They picked the money that went along with the rule flouting. Seems like telling my kids if they do well on a test I'll take them to DQ, then still taking them even after I find out they got suspended for stealing the answers.

I agree.  None of these guys went into this with their eyes closed.  None of them were misled into thinking "I'm sure this is OK and no one will have a problem with it."  If they really were misled somehow, then they are too stupid to be in the HOF - especially the ones from the modern era.  Why after a few years have passed should we decide to just throw out the rules and give them their privilege anyway?  I think your analogy of your own children says it best. 

[DJL44]

On 5/9/2024 at 4:12 PM, Schmoeman5 said:

you're going to open up a whole can of worms on the steroid era. Totally separate issues, I know. 

I don't see those things as equivalent at all. The penalty for betting on games has been a permanent ban since the Black Sox scandal. People using steroids to try to be in peak physical shape so they can win baseball games is very different than people throwing games to make money for gamblers. The penalty for steroids for the first few seasons was nothing at all. It's cheating, but similar to doctoring a baseball, corking a bat or stealing signs. Even now the penalty is a half year suspension for the first offense. If you want to "suspend" Bonds or Clemens for a couple seasons that's fine with me but they were Hall of Fame players long before they took steroids.

As for Rose in particular, even if they lifted the ban I'm pretty sure the Era Committee would keep him out. The other Hall of Famers don't want him around ruining induction weekend. He's a pretty awful human being.

 

[Schmoeman5]

1 hour ago, DJL44 said:

I don't see those things as equivalent at all. The penalty for betting on games has been a permanent ban since the Black Sox scandal. People using steroids to try to be in peak physical shape so they can win baseball games is very different than people throwing games to make money for gamblers. The penalty for steroids for the first few seasons was nothing at all. It's cheating, but similar to doctoring a baseball, corking a bat or stealing signs. Even now the penalty is a half year suspension for the first offense. If you want to "suspend" Bonds or Clemens for a couple seasons that's fine with me but they were Hall of Fame players long before they took steroids.

As for Rose in particular, even if they lifted the ban I'm pretty sure the Era Committee would keep him out. The other Hall of Famers don't want him around ruining induction weekend. He's a pretty awful human being.

 

It's called comprehension. And obviously you don't. I specifically said they were two separate issues. What I did say was that IF you let in Rose and Jackson, that you would be getting the steroid aisle all in a frenzy saying what about us.

[DJL44]

36 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

It's called comprehension. And obviously you don't. I specifically said they were two separate issues. What I did say was that IF you let in Rose and Jackson, that you would be getting the steroid aisle all in a frenzy saying what about us.

I guess I should have put ALSO in between I and don't because I was agreeing with you, then adding context. If you let in Rose and Jackson then you might as well burn the building to the ground.

[Longdistancetwins]

Time to really consider Joe Jackson.  There are still holes in establishing his guilt, and we are learning more about false confessions in modern times.  Some of these issues are raised in the afterword of this play:

https://www.amazon.com/AINT-SO-Shoeless-Jacksons-Story/dp/B08HQ92WYY

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, Longdistancetwins said:

Time to really consider Joe Jackson.  There are still holes in establishing his guilt, and we are learning more about false confessions in modern times.  Some of these issues are raised in the afterword of this play:

https://www.amazon.com/AINT-SO-Shoeless-Jacksons-Story/dp/B08HQ92WYY

Jackson comes across as a guy playing both sides, even today. How the judicial system works today is dramatically different than how it worked 100 years ago. He knew about the situation, he went along with it, and he admitted guilt to the White Sox's lawyers, and at the grand jury, where the official transcript mysteriously went missing...

It doesn't matter whether or not Jackson tried to throw it. He knew players were going to try and throw it or at least they had agreed to do so, and the White Sox lost with some unusual circumstances. There's plenty of evidence that implicates him, and while he stated he was promised legal immunity at trial, it wouldn't have protected him from baseball's decisions (like Pete Rose). Jackson, like other defendants, refused to testify, and it's widely accepted the evidence was sufficient to convict him and the rest of the White Sox players involved, but a rare instance of Jury Nullification took place instead. (That's where a jury decides whether or not to apply a law at all).

Jackson's situation is somewhat mirrored by the charges and accusations levied against Roger Clemens, only Clemens didn't admit guilt multiple times, and Clemens testified.

Jackson's conduct, and the conduct of the other Black Sox scandal players serves as a warning to MLB players forever more. Do not get involved with conspiracies to throw games, and do not gamble on baseball.

[tony&rodney]

Betting on the game is a sure no. I believe the NBA just banned a player recently. Not really any way to overlook overt fixing that demolishes the integrity of the games.

Steroids are a different tale. Sad the way that so many people abused steroids and caused health issues among other problems. The desire to heal quickly and maintain peak strength in order to compete swept through sports. MLB actually encouraged and advertised the entire steroid era to the max. Do you remember that Sosa-McGuire was featured every single day? Then MLB decided to turn on these guys and made Bonds the poster for badness. While I personally don't doubt that Bonds was involved with PEDs, he was tested more than any other player ever and never tested positive. Ortiz did test positive and is in the HOF. Nonsense by MLB all around. If anything executives from MLB's commissioner's office in that era should be banned well before any of the players.

[Longdistancetwins]

22 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Jackson comes across as a guy playing both sides, even today. How the judicial system works today is dramatically different than how it worked 100 years ago. He knew about the situation, he went along with it, and he admitted guilt to the White Sox's lawyers, and at the grand jury, where the official transcript mysteriously went missing..

Even as we can agree to disagree on the extent of Joe Jackson’s guilt, we do agree that the judicial system is “dramatically different” today where Jackson would have his own lawyer.  He would not be coached by the White Sox lawyers whose interest was to protect club owner Charles Comiskey and quite likely conceal Jackson’s attempts to tell Comiskey what he knew.  

[Shaitan]

On 5/15/2024 at 3:43 PM, nicksaviking said:

I was pretty reverential about the HOF when I was younger, but it really is just a plaque. I no longer identify with the hand-wringing about who gets in and who's left out. These guys all have or have had memorabilia and exhibits in the museum through the years. They aren't banned from the building, they just don't have a bust.

This, 100%.

It's just a game and MLB is a for-profit enterprise selling tickets to look at plaques. These players may be currently banned, but the did just fine economically. They just have one less award on their bookshelf than some of their peers. So what?

[Cornholio]

There may be some shady people in the Hall, but Rose is probably the worst. Tax evasion, large gambling debts to bookies, he even allegedly ran a child sex ring in Florida every spring. He took a 14 year old girl on road trips with him when he was 32. When he was asked about it he said he thought she was 16. Owing large amounts of money to bookies makes me think he probably threw games as well. It is all mentioned in the Dowd report. 

[bean5302]

On 5/17/2024 at 9:30 PM, Longdistancetwins said:

Even as we can agree to disagree on the extent of Joe Jackson’s guilt, we do agree that the judicial system is “dramatically different” today where Jackson would have his own lawyer.  He would not be coached by the White Sox lawyers whose interest was to protect club owner Charles Comiskey and quite likely conceal Jackson’s attempts to tell Comiskey what he knew.  

Joe Jackson made the equivalent of $200k annually in modern times so he certainly could have afforded his own attorney back then. Of course, Jackson was illiterate, and he didn't have the MLBPA protecting him to make sure he was properly represented. That said common sense, and advice from the guys he was conspiring to ruin the World Series with would have been expected. In modern times, the Houston Astros absolutely had attorneys meeting with the players when the investigation opened up into the sign stealing/tech/garbage can scandal, and that's just an internal MLB thing, not a legal thing.

In any case, Jackson was acquitted through sheer popularity despite more than enough evidence to convict him so it doesn't even matter. He came out looking as good as he possibly could have, but the commissioner rightfully ended his career by banning him, similar to Trevor Bauer recently.

There's quite the sentiment in recent years to re-write history, damning the popular, and rejuvenating the unpopular. Undoubtedly, The Field of Dreams has been a major key to Shoeless Joe Jackson's restoration, casting him as a forlorn character. The act of rescinding the ban has no effect on Joe Jackson as he's been dead for 70 years. It's also worth noting that MLB has been reviewing his case over the years and they've never decided to act. There's enough evidence there.

[Mike Sixel]

Nope. Rose knew the rules. Nope.

[VivaBomboRivera!]

[Seth Stohs]

On 5/9/2024 at 3:18 PM, mrcharlie said:

To begin with my thoughts.

Jackson is long overdue.  He is penalized for his "participation" in 1919 gambling scandal.  He hit very well over the course of that series, though he did muff a key play in the outfield.

His career speaks for itself.  He was a premier player in his time... The Babe thought highly of him.

Rose is a different and difficult call for me.  I don't like him for one play...he leveled Ray Fosse in an All-Star Game.  Fosse was never the same player. I believe it was Fosse's rookie season as well.  What a shame to make that play in an exhibition game.  Fosse went on to be involved in MLB (broadcasting A's games many years).  I believe MLB will remove Rose from banishment once he passes away.  Meaning he could very well end up in the HOF.

So; to summarize...  Jackson YES:  Rose: NO

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

Eight Men Out is such a great movie, and if it's factual, and Jackson did take money, and he did agree to it, then he shouldn't be in the HOF. 

Likewise, Rose literally bet on his own team's games as a manager. Absolutely can impact the game. 

I've heard some talk about how Rose should be in the HOF now for a couple of reasons. The big reason given is because MLB is totally promoting the betting sites. Bally's. Daily Sports betting. It's becoming legal in more and more states.  But again, all that has nothing to do with the fact that Rose broke the rule that everyone knew the punishment. 

[Seth Stohs]

I'd add this too... Rose is mentioned in the Hall. He is acknowledged as the all-time hits leader. There are plenty pieces of his memorabilia in the Hall of Fame. He shouldn't get into the Hall of Fame... but he should be (and is!) recognized for aspects of his career.