"Shoeless Joe" Jackson Reinstatement Denied

Printable View

08-31-2015, 04:36 PM
CrimsonCowboy

"Shoeless Joe" Jackson Reinstatement Denied

Hmmm. Thoughts?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/major...-shoeless-joe/
08-31-2015, 04:51 PM
Knucksie

Before Pete Rose's name ever gets consideration, yes.
08-31-2015, 05:26 PM
Braves1976

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrimsonCowboy

Hmmm. Thoughts?

http://www.baseballamerica.com/major...-shoeless-joe/

Sounds good and about time if true, IMO.
08-31-2015, 06:51 PM
rico43

Way past due. Buck Weaver deserves a look as well.
08-31-2015, 07:05 PM
auyushu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braves1976

Sounds good and about time if true, IMO.

This.
08-31-2015, 07:12 PM
zitothebrave

I'm highly indifferent.

He has the numbers to get in. Let him in.
08-31-2015, 07:59 PM
FreemanFan

If Joe gets back in, Pete should, too. There's plenty of evidence that Shoeless Joe helped throw the Series. Next, the HOF rules need to be changed to allow players 10 years on the ballot instead of being eligible only for years 6-15 after retirement. Otherwise, the BBWAA won't even get to vote for (or against) them.
08-31-2015, 08:12 PM
zitothebrave

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreemanFan

If Joe gets back in, Pete should, too. There's plenty of evidence that Shoeless Joe helped throw the Series. Next, the HOF rules need to be changed to allow players 10 years on the ballot instead of being eligible only for years 6-15 after retirement. Otherwise, the BBWAA won't even get to vote for (or against) them.

Well the difference is Shoeless Joe is dead. Rose would have to be reinstated by the commissioner I believe to get back in but who knows.
08-31-2015, 08:48 PM
JohnAdcox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knucksie

Before Pete Rose's name ever gets consideration, yes.

I think this pretty much ends the thread.
09-01-2015, 12:37 AM
OkieBrave

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2015/9/1...atement-denied

Doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon... That's very unfortunate in my opinion.
09-01-2015, 12:42 AM
smootness

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkieBrave

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2015/9/1...atement-denied

Doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon... That's very unfortunate in my opinion.

Why? The rules are clear.
09-01-2015, 01:10 PM
Knucksie

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreemanFan

If Joe gets back in, Pete should, too. There's plenty of evidence that Shoeless Joe helped throw the Series. Next, the HOF rules need to be changed to allow players 10 years on the ballot instead of being eligible only for years 6-15 after retirement. Otherwise, the BBWAA won't even get to vote for (or against) them.

The big difference between the two is that there never was any actual proof implicating Shoeless Joe with throwing the Series. With Pete Rose, there's mountains of evidence contained in the Dowd Report, along with plenty more details that weren't even included, that he bet on his own team.
09-01-2015, 02:19 PM
zitothebrave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knucksie

The big difference between the two is that there never was any actual proof implicating Shoeless Joe with throwing the Series. With Pete Rose, there's mountains of evidence contained in the Dowd Report, along with plenty more details that weren't even included, that he bet on his own team.

Well Shoeless Joe was in on the fix, but he did hit .375/.394/.563 that series. Which are much better numbers than the 2017 WS and better than his career norms.

That being said, he was issued a lifetime ban, he's been dead for 64 years. At this point probably not even his grandkids can benefit from him being in the Hall. I think putting him in and mentioning the scandal on his plaque is enough.

Same thing for Rose. I'm fine with electing him long after he's gone. He was a great player. But he has a lifetime ban from baseball. He's still alive.
09-01-2015, 04:58 PM
OkieBrave

Quote:

Originally Posted by smootness

Why? The rules are clear.

Zito beat me to what I would have said. He's dead hence the ban for life no longer would apply. Put it on his plaque.
09-01-2015, 05:32 PM
bravesnumberone

Quite a shame. There are some things seriously lacking as far as proof he did it. Wish commissioners would get past their own BS. Kennesaw Mountain Landis repeatedly denying integration of the game is far worse than anything the White Sox did.
09-01-2015, 05:41 PM
zitothebrave

Quote:

Originally Posted by bravesnumberone

Quite a shame. There are some things seriously lacking as far as proof he did it. Wish commissioners would get past their own BS. Kennesaw Mountain Landis repeatedly denying integration of the game is far worse than anything the White Sox did.

I would largely agree. Jackson wasn't listed as being at the meetings and supposedly was illiterate so he couldn't really read or write so it would be easy to get him to sign something. Results on the field were an indicator that he wasn't in on the fix. But IMO he served his crime, let his memory go on.
09-01-2015, 05:44 PM
Braves1976

Quote:

Originally Posted by zitothebrave

I would largely agree. Jackson wasn't listed as being at the meetings and supposedly was illiterate so he couldn't really read or write so it would be easy to get him to sign something. Results on the field were an indicator that he wasn't in on the fix. But IMO he served his crime, let his memory go on.

My take is he was sorta in the wrong place at the wrong time, I don't buy that he was truly guilty but he was on a team that cheated and so he is caught up in it. But either way he has more than served his time, IMO.
09-01-2015, 05:54 PM
Julio3000

Well, I think he was guilty as hell, but the context of the times was a little different. Players played for what teams offered them, or they didn't play at all. The temptation of a big financial windfall meant more in those days.

Interestingly enough, that state of affairs in baseball was greatly influenced by Landis, in his capacity as a federal judge, upholding baseball's antitrust exemption, effectively eliminating any competition.

As stated above, he did more harm to baseball through enforcement of the color line and upholding of the reserve clause and antitrust exemption than any of the Black Sox did in throwing the Series.
09-02-2015, 02:27 PM
Knucksie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio3000

Well, I think he was guilty as hell, but the context of the times was a little different. Players played for what teams offered them, or they didn't play at all. The temptation of a big financial windfall meant more in those days.

Interestingly enough, that state of affairs in baseball was greatly influenced by Landis, in his capacity as a federal judge, upholding baseball's antitrust exemption, effectively eliminating any competition.

As stated above, he did more harm to baseball through enforcement of the color line and upholding of the reserve clause and antitrust exemption than any of the Black Sox did in throwing the Series.

Not true about it being less harmful.

Baseball was considered finished at the time. The decision was made to restore the integrity, since it no longer had public trust in the game as an institution. As problematic as it was with Jackson & some others deserving Hall consideration, the game would not have otherwise survived.