Hall of Fame Trial - "Shoeless Joe" Jackson...does he belong in the Hall?

[splitterpfj]

I'd like to hear your opinions...

 

http://www.baseballintheblood.com/?p=221

[3and2Fastball]

Yes, I think he should be in the Hall of Fame. He's was found "Not Guilty" in a Court of Law

 

He was certainly one of the games greatest hitters. While he stopped playing before the inevitable decline that all ballplayers go through and even adjusting for not playing in an integrated league, he still would likely finish around at least a .330 career batting average.

[Nottso]

In, with asterisk and lengthy description of all events. I say that only because I believe he was truly innocent.

 

Conversely, I think Rose should never get in. I hate having to say that, as I was a huge fan of "Charlie Hustle" but he was definitely guilty.

[MadScientist]

No, he was fully involved in a scandal that makes the steroid issue look like pine-tar.

[JimH5]

I don't know what is to be gained by inducting him now. He's been dead for 60 years.

 

Baseball history certainly has not forgotten about Jackson, and the fact that he is still on the ineligible list may serve as a reminder to current and future players on how seriously organized baseball takes gambling.

 

He was a tremendous hitter, and was clearly destined for the Hall of Fame, but he also knew of a gambling, game-fixing operation and did nothing to stop it. That inaction put the whole of the industry at risk.

 

His stuff is on display in the Hall of Fame & Museum. He just doesn't have a plaque hanging in the gallery.

[1992casey]

One of the sites that splitter's article links to says that Jackson tried to report the situation to team owner Charles Comiskey but that Mr. Comiskey was too busy to see him.

[jschris]

Somehow, I had a feeling I knew which side JimH5 was going to be on.

[JimH5]

Somehow, I had a feeling I knew which side JimH5 was going to be on.

 

Ha!

 

For the record, I'm not the racist or the tyrant that Judge Landis was. I do like that he was a grouchy old blowhard, though.

 

I'm open to right past wrongs. I'll have to look at the info regarding Jackson's actions in reporting the stuff to Comiskey, and maybe I'll change my crotchety old tune.

[RockCoCougars]

As much as I'd like to say 'Yes', I have to say no dice. That said, the legend of Shoeless Joe in American lore is bigger due to this scandal than any of his contemporaries outside of Babe Ruth and maybe Ty Cobb. He'd probably be largely forgotten otherwise.

[JimH5]

I read the link. . .

 

If the only evidence supporting Jackson is his claim that he wanted to tell Comiskey, but was denied a meeting, waited an hour and was still denied, then I don't think that's enough for me to change my decision.

 

He clearly was as good or better than some of the other players in the Hall of Fame, but that evidence just isn't enough.

[1992casey]

Without the traditional career stats to back up his case, Jackson as a potential Hall of Fame member really breaks down into two separate questions: should he be eligible and should he be elected?

 

One might feel that the ban should be lifted and still not support electing him.

[JackNicholson1974]

If wanted his legacy and greatness to be known by future generations he is probably better off remaining banned. He basically has become a folk hero to many baseball fans, when if he had simply played and been admitted he would have long been forgotten.

[topper09er]

If wanted his legacy and greatness to be known by future generations he is probably better off remaining banned. He basically has become a folk hero to many baseball fans, when if he had simply played and been admitted he would have long been forgotten.

 

Exactly, basically no one knows who Tris Speaker is, a superior contemporary of Jackson.

 

Who can name the players who threw a perfect (or near-perfect) game in 2010?

 

 

 

Be honest, did you get the Detroit player or Oakland player first? The point is sometimes players are remembered for things besides the HOF

[jerichoholicninja]

Why is it that when it comes to the Hall of Fame some cheaters are vilified and others are ignored? Rose, Jackson, and all the steroid era guys are called cheaters and not deserving of the hall of fame because of what they did or supposedly did. On the other hand, Phil Niekro was caught cheating during a game and is in the Hall of Fame.

[JimH5]

Why is it that when it comes to the Hall of Fame some cheaters are vilified and others are ignored? Rose, Jackson, and all the steroid era guys are called cheaters and not deserving of the hall of fame because of what they did or supposedly did. On the other hand, Phil Niekro was caught cheating during a game and is in the Hall of Fame.

 

Regarding gambling, you can't have the public thinking the games aren't on the up-and-up. Otherwise what exactly are you asking them to buy?

 

That's why point shaving is such a big deal whenever it comes up in college basketball. If a player or manager has ties to gambling, then the integrity of their play could be perceived as compromised.

 

And do you mean Joe Niekro? There's nothing on Phil.

[RockCoCougars]

He's referring to Gaylord Perry putting K-Y on the ball, I'd guess.

[JimH5]

He's referring to Gaylord Perry putting K-Y on the ball, I'd guess.

 

Gaylord Perry or others who cheat on the field I think would be perceived as the lowest offense. Even moreso than someone who loads up a bat behind the scenes and then brings it to the field of play. Perry's sleight of hand was there for all to see if they could--but they couldn't.

 

And the subject of his actions was a baseball. He didn't alter his own body with substances that are controlled by the law.

 

And none of those infractions are as serious as someone potentially throwing games for profit.

[jerichoholicninja]

Why is it that when it comes to the Hall of Fame some cheaters are vilified and others are ignored? Rose, Jackson, and all the steroid era guys are called cheaters and not deserving of the hall of fame because of what they did or supposedly did. On the other hand, Phil Niekro was caught cheating during a game and is in the Hall of Fame.

 

Regarding gambling, you can't have the public thinking the games aren't on the up-and-up. Otherwise what exactly are you asking them to buy?

 

That's why point shaving is such a big deal whenever it comes up in college basketball. If a player or manager has ties to gambling, then the integrity of their play could be perceived as compromised.

 

And do you mean Joe Niekro? There's nothing on Phil.

 

Ya, I guess it was Joe. But the point still is cheating is cheating. You can't overlook it in some cases and condemn it in the other.

 

In the case of Joe scuffing and Gaylord Perry greasing up a ball, I would put that as more serious than throwing games for profit. The rule they broke was put in place because Ray Chapman died after getting hit in the head.

[Ando Calrissian]

Regarding gambling, you can't have the public thinking the games aren't on the up-and-up. Otherwise what exactly are you asking them to buy?

 

But they can set up an financially lopsided system for teams to compete in, allow owners to tank teams like the Pirates and the Marlins, and ask fans to suspend disbelief that it doesn't matter while telling them that parity exists. They sell that to great success.

 

I don't believe that the system is on the up and up at all.

[dlk9s]

Regarding gambling, you can't have the public thinking the games aren't on the up-and-up. Otherwise what exactly are you asking them to buy?

 

But they can set up an financially lopsided system for teams to compete in, allow owners to tank teams like the Pirates and the Marlins, and ask fans to suspend disbelief that it doesn't matter while telling them that parity exists. They sell that to great success.

 

I don't believe that the system is on the up and up at all.

 

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You know what point he was making.

[Ando Calrissian]

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You know what point he was making.

 

No, I don't think. Just being cynical, but I probably should have added some more thoughts to my post to clarify.

 

I do get his point. What I find troublesome is how players who (unfortunately) skirt rules - whatever they may be - become scapegoats for a system that's got plenty of issues to go around. Obviously that doesn't absolve them of their offense and they're dealt with in myriad ways as spelled about by the labor agreements. It's tiresome to me that the Hall is used to represent some sort of public shunning - a punishment not handed down my MLB but by other participants in the industry.

 

My preference would be that the Hall tell the story of the game and it's best performers - worts and all - and be OK with that, recognizing that the story is insanely compelling (beautiful and tragic) and set aside the judgment aspect. But, as that is not the purpose of the Hall, I guess "in vs out" debates will rage as long as the game stands.

 

Lastly, it was good to read the posts re: Shoeless Joe's actual performance in relation to his inclusion/ exclusion in the Hall vs all the other stuff as it's what you generally hear about.

[RobertR]

I don't know what is to be gained by inducting him now. He's been dead for 60 years.

 

Baseball history certainly has not forgotten about Jackson, and the fact that he is still on the ineligible list may serve as a reminder to current and future players on how seriously organized baseball takes gambling.

 

He was a tremendous hitter, and was clearly destined for the Hall of Fame, but he also knew of a gambling, game-fixing operation and did nothing to stop it. That inaction put the whole of the industry at risk.

 

His stuff is on display in the Hall of Fame & Museum. He just doesn't have a plaque hanging in the gallery.

 

You're much more kind to Jackson than I am. He accepted money as part of a game-fixing operation. That's not inaction, that's being an active conspirator.

 

Not to mention, people get distracted by his overall numbers in the series and fail to look at the context of his performance. In a game that was being thrown, Jackson did nothing when the game was close, basically padding his stats in "garbage time". I'd love to see Jackson's WPA in thrown games.

 

I'm willing to accept that Comiskey was a cheapskate and unfair to his employees. These aren't the most evil baseball players that ever lived. And Shoeless Joe wasn't the ringleader. It doesn't change the fact that Shoeless Joe wasn't an imbecile with no concept of the ethics and morality of baseball. He broke the rules, knowingly, and then paid the price when Landis threw the book at everyone.

 

Great ballplayer on a Hall of Fame path whose fame has outlasted his better contemporaries? Yes. Hall of Famer? No.

 

Robert

[RobertR]

Yes, I think he should be in the Hall of Fame. He's was found "Not Guilty" in a Court of Law

 

What court of law would that be?

 

Shoeless Joe was brought before a grand jury, gave testimony (where he admitted accepting money as part of the fix), and then wasn't indicted. (See http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/joejackson.shtml ) Partly because it wasn't clear what law was broken. Please cite the statute that existed in 1920 which made throwing a game illegal.

 

 

Robert

[JimH5]

Thanks for the link. I hadn't read the Jackson testimony before.

[RobertR]

Having read the article, I'll not a few inaccuracies. Mainly the claim that Shoeless Joe didn't accept any money. That's clearly not true. He accepted money and agreed with the ringleaders that he was in. Perhaps he had second thoughts in private, but as far as his teammates knew he was all in.

 

Even moreso, I'd like to address the idea that it was "only" $5,000. $5,000 in 1920 could buy you a nice house. Hardly an inconsequential amount.

 

While I'm willing to accept that the White Sox of 1919 were underpaid, it wasn't extravagantly so relative to the rest of the league. And it's not like baseball was booming at that particular time. WWI put a big hit on baseball and other industries of the time. In 1918-1919, America was also dealing with flu pandemics which further put a hit on baseball and public gatherings in general. Even though I do agree that Comiskey was cheap, it wasn't like the economics of baseball of the time warranted that the White Sox be paid extravagantly better.

 

Robert