Rose and Jackson have a way in?

[Snorts]

I guess Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe can now be voted in to the HoF.  One of the old timer panels can recommend them for a vote, or something like that.

Both have been banned from consideration for gambling concerns.  Pete gambled on games while he was a player, including games he played in.  I am pretty sure he has admitted to that.

Jackson was a part of the famous "Black Sox" scandal wherein 8 Chicago White Sox players took money from gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series.  Jackson also admitted to taking money (5,000 dollars, a hell of a lot of money back then), then tried to recant it to the point of being called out for perjury in a later lawsuit.  He knew what he was doing, admitted to it in a Grand fucking Jury hearing, then tried to walk it back.  Do NOT listen to people try to tell you he was too stupid to know what was going on, or never took any money, etc.  He was as filthy dirty as the rest of them.  He took the money, knew what it was for, and kept it.  The man owned several businesses in his lifetime that he managed, he was illiterate but not stupid.

He played good, eh?  Recent looks at that question show that the Sox actually, probably, only threw a couple of games because the Gamblers quit paying them.  It was a 9 game Series that went 8 games.  A close look at things showed Joe played extremely well in the "real" games, and extremely poorly in the "fake" games.  Anyway.

Jackson, by being tossed before he had a chance to grow old, has artificially inflated stats, but that's OK.  He was a truly gifted player.  He would STILL had eye popping numbers even with several years of advancing age.

So.  Should gamblers be allowed into the HoF?  Should there be some sort of "character" clause in Cooperstown?  I like the idea, but also realize my boomer sentiments have fallen out of favor with a lot of younger folks.

Jackson and Rose are absolutely deserving to be in the HoF based on their playing.  Should consorting with gamblers DQ them? 

[DirkPiggler]

I guess Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe can now be voted in to the HoF.  One of the old timer panels can recommend them for a vote, or something like that.

Both have been banned from consideration for gambling concerns.  Pete gambled on games while he was a player, including games he played in.  I am pretty sure he has admitted to that.

Jackson was a part of the famous "Black Sox" scandal wherein 8 Chicago White Sox players took money from gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series.  Jackson also admitted to taking money (5,000 dollars, a hell of a lot of money back then), then tried to recant it to the point of being called out for perjury in a later lawsuit.  He knew what he was doing, admitted to it in a Grand fucking Jury hearing, then tried to walk it back.  Do NOT listen to people try to tell you he was too stupid to know what was going on, or never took any money, etc.  He was as filthy dirty as the rest of them.  He took the money, knew what it was for, and kept it.  The man owned several businesses in his lifetime that he managed, he was illiterate but not stupid.

He played good, eh?  Recent looks at that question show that the Sox actually, probably, only threw a couple of games because the Gamblers quit paying them.  It was a 9 game Series that went 8 games.  A close look at things showed Joe played extremely well in the "real" games, and extremely poorly in the "fake" games.  Anyway.

Jackson, by being tossed before he had a chance to grow old, has artificially inflated stats, but that's OK.  He was a truly gifted player.  He would STILL had eye popping numbers even with several years of advancing age.

So.  Should gamblers be allowed into the HoF?  Should there be some sort of "character" clause in Cooperstown?  I like the idea, but also realize my boomer sentiments have fallen out of favor with a lot of younger folks.

Jackson and Rose are absolutely deserving to be in the HoF based on their playing.  Should consorting with gamblers DQ them? 

I'd rather have a vasectomy sans anesthesia than give Rob Manfred credit for anything, but I think he handled this right. 

The ban was for life.  Those guys are no longer alive.  They didn't get to enjoy the benefits of HoF enshrinement.  By letting them in posthumously we can honor their careers and accomplishments and still point out their downfall. 

It kind of seems hypocritical to take such a drastic stance on gambling while nearly every team is sponsored by a gaming corporation, and some teams have sports books inside their stadiums. 

[obijuana]

There is a 0.0% chance anyone banned EVAR makes it to the HOF. As long as holier-than-thou fatass writers pick who's in, Rose et.al. will never get in.

I get the argument about Shoeless Joe and some of the roid guys, but Pete Rose bet on his team to win. Against the rules? Yea. A little unethical? Perhaps. Enough to ban him from the HOF for performance? Not a chance in hell.

[arreferee]

It kind of seems hypocritical to take such a drastic stance on gambling while nearly every team is sponsored by a gaming corporation, and some teams have sports books inside their stadiums. 

This is what I have a problem with.  Gambling is an unforgivable sin by players but they are encouraging everyone else to do it.  I understand why players shouldn't gamble, but like Rose, if they are gambling on their team to win, who cares?  If they gamble on their team to lose, then we have a problem. 

[Show-Me Hog]

This is what I have a problem with.  Gambling is an unforgivable sin by players but they are encouraging everyone else to do it.  I understand why players shouldn't gamble, but like Rose, if they are gambling on their team to win, who cares?  If they gamble on their team to lose, then we have a problem. 

The theory of A. Bartlett Giamatti, the less famous father of famous character actor Paul Giamatti, is that by betting on his teams on certain days (pitchers, lineups) Rose was by implication saying his team was less likely to win on other days with other pitchers and lineups.

Not sure that information means anything unless it is communicated by the bookie to other gamblers (why would he?), but that was the theory as to why "on your team" was as bad as "against your team."

[arreferee]

The theory of A. Bartlett Giamatti, the less famous father of famous character actor Paul Giamatti, is that by betting on his teams on certain days (pitchers, lineups) Rose was by implication saying his team was less likely to win on other days with other pitchers and lineups.

Not sure that information means anything unless it is communicated by the bookie to other gamblers (why would he?), but that was the theory as to why "on your team" was as bad as "against your team."

I guess I can understand that argument, but I'm not sure how valid it is. 

Side note...I didn't know that Giamatti, the MLB commissioner, was the father of Giamatti, the actor.  Interesting.

[Son of Spam]

No different than when a player is caught with 100 pounds of weed in his car and a gun. BANNED FROM THE LEAGUE FOR LIFE! However, playing again in about 4 weeks.

[vegashog]

that corporate gambling is the thing that it is today is very different than what was going on AT THAT TIME. i don't see the comparison.

the mob ran sports gambling back then. besides the 'morality' of the business then as opposed to now, the fear was having the mafia in the dugout so to speak.

now whether rose deserves to be in, personally i'm ambivalent.

[animal]

There is a 0.0% chance anyone banned EVAR makes it to the HOF. As long as holier-than-thou fatass writers pick who's in, Rose et.al. will never get in.

I get the argument about Shoeless Joe and some of the roid guys, but Pete Rose bet on his team to win. Against the rules? Yea. A little unethical? Perhaps. Enough to ban him from the HOF for performance? Not a chance in hell.

Shoeless Joe maybe because he's so far detached from the current day baseball writers who many of whom were either already writing or at least old enough to remember Pete Rose.

Also I don't know that there's much solid evidence on Shoeless Joe but that may be the hollywood version. He cheated but still hit for like .400 in a world series.

[Lurk]

that corporate gambling is the thing that it is today is very different than what was going on AT THAT TIME. i don't see the comparison.

the mob ran sports gambling back then. besides the 'morality' of the business then as opposed to now, the fear was having the mafia in the dugout so to speak.

now whether rose deserves to be in, personally i'm ambivalent.

Rose was a prick until the day he died, so there's no sentimental reason to care. He died thinking he would never get in, so that's punishment enough. Anybody under the age of 35 probably doesn't know gambling used to be illegal. Put him in.

Oh, it's still run by the mob. 

[Snorts]

I talked a bit about Shoeless Joe in the original post. With the latest evidence (for example the Grand Jury minutes only recently were discovered) it seems pretty clear that Shoeless Joe:
Knew about the fix.
Took and kept money along with other conspirators.
Played great in contested games.
Played horribly in the crooked games.
Admitted it to the Grand Jury.
Later tried to walk it back in other lawsuits.

A shame. He was a terrific player.

[Lurk]

I talked a bit about Shoeless Joe in the original post. With the latest evidence (for example the Grand Jury minutes only recently were discovered) it seems pretty clear that Shoeless Joe:
Knew about the fix.
Took and kept money along with other conspirators.
Played great in contested games.
Played horribly in the crooked games.
Admitted it to the Grand Jury.
Later tried to walk it back in other lawsuits.

A shame. He was a terrific player.

Yeah, fuck that guy.

[BASS]

Arnold Rothstein, notorious new York gangster boss, was the one paying the black Sox players.

If you've watched boardwalk empire, he was a main character on the show.

They touched on it for a half a line in a later episode which was supposed to be 6 or 7 years after the 1919 world series.