Comments on: Was Shoeless Joe innocent after all?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:08:14 +0000

“Pete Rose did not bet on his team to lose.”
No, he only made sure to rest his best relief pitchers during the games he didn’t bet on though.
If you review the way he managed the games he didn’t bet on the evidence is pretty compelling that he wasn’t on the level, whether he bet or not.
After seeing those stats, I changed my mind about Pete’s innocence regarding not betting on his team to lose.

By: Alberich

Alberich — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:56:56 +0000

Clearly, from the comments that I have read so far, the Baseball Hall of Fame represents different premises/notions/concepts/ideas to different fans. Can someone please state just what the basic principles and/or statutes behind the HOF were at its establishment governing the issue of ‘permanent ban’?

By: christopher

christopher — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:20:55 +0000

“…does not make an affirmative case for Jackson’s innocence.” It doesn’t need to. The presumption of innocence means you need to make an affirmative case for Jackson’s *guilt*. It’s more than sufficient from a legal or even historical perspective to illuminate the shortcomings of “8MO” in order to disprove a long-held theory or conclusion.
You wouldn’t be able to start gleaning the truth — if possible after all this time — without first dismantling the fictions.
-C

By: David

David — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:10:00 +0000

Joe Jackson in the 1919 World Series hit for a 375 average, highest in the series.
He 12 hits in the series. A record not broken until Bobby Richarson had 13 hits in 1964, and he also hit the only home run in the series.
A-Rod has never had a World Series or play-off series like that.
Could we assume he is on the take.

By: blertasw

blertasw — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:55:44 +0000

Jackson in…
Pete Rose never.

By: Someone literate

Someone literate — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:01:10 +0000

are you illiterate? what the hell are you trying to say? should he be banned or not?
please enlighten me.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:47:22 +0000

Joe – “Jackson admitted to taking money, then tried to recant his admission. There is NO disputing he took money” (citation needed)

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:33:55 +0000

More clueless people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Jackson admitted to taking money, then tried to recant his admission. There is NO disputing he took money and should NEVEr be allowed in the Hall. Ever. I can’t stand uniformed people who whine about his WS average or some other baloney without knowing all the facts who think he should be in the Hall. Once he goes in, the Hall is a shame. End of story.

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:34:24 +0000

The only real argument against Joe is that he knew about it, and therefore was a conspirator, but there’s plenty of evidence that Comiskey knew also, and he got a park named after him.
“Why would Landis ban some of the best players in the game for nothing?”
Landis kept plenty of the best players out of the game for nothing more than their skin color.

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:23:47 +0000

I think I lost confidence in what you wrote when you stated “I’ll admit that, like most folks, I’ve been unimpressed by calls to reinstate Jackson, simply because the evidence himself seemed damning.” I am not ascertained that most folks do so feel.
Most folks don’t know what the actual evidence truly was, some like myself may feel sympathy and empathy towards Jackson because of disenchantment with steroid users and do to films such as “Field Of Dreams.”
I am a life long fan of baseball, or at least the 47 years since I reached the age of nine. If solid evidence was discused in your article, it would be easier to form an opinion. Opinions vary greatly on current players, on players just retired, much less someone involved with, or not involved with the 1919 World Series.
More facts, and elss generalizations would have helped.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:25:44 +0000

I thought 8mo presented Jacksokn’s role in a sympathetic perspective. He posted eye-popping stats with bat and glove for the series. It I remember correctly, he didn’t accept money. His crime was not wanting to talk about it or rat out his teammates. This was an illiterate, unsophisticated man who didn’t have much grasp of consequences in the public eye. Landis probably knew Jackson was ethically innocent, yet wanted to make an example for the long term stability of baseball as a sport and business. Note, in the Babe Ruth bio, “The house that Ruth built,” (great read) guess who Ruth studied and imitated when he was a young hitter?

By: Michael M

Michael M — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:49:43 +0000

For the love of the game, its time to put Pete Rose in the HOF. To this day not one person questions Pete’s play and stats surely deserving!
As for Joe jackson, he is a major part of the history of the game, and so many have done worse!
In or out, SJJ is one of the top 10 players ever!

By: HOTROD

HOTROD — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:01:28 +0000

LOCK THE DOORS AND TURN OFF THE LIGHTS ON YOUR WAY OUT, THIS IS GETTING OLD AND TIRED.AS IF THE HALL OF FAME IS SOME HOLIER THAN THOU MUSEUM.GO ASK THE OLD TIMERS WHAT THEY DID TO THE BALL, EVERYONE IN SPORT IS GUILTY OF SOMETHING.

By: HOTROD

HOTROD — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:59:42 +0000

By: Big Chuck

Big Chuck — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:32:45 +0000

I think the big issue here concerning Pete Rose entrance in the HOF should be his accomplishments as a player, not as a manager. If I remember correctly, he’s only been guilty of betting on the Reds while team manager. I could be wrong about this, but if correct, his accomplishments as a player have earned him the right to be admitted int the HOF. There could always be some asterisk or something pointing out what he did as a manager, but that’s not why he would be voted in or not
Just my nickels worth

By: Baseball Mike

Baseball Mike — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:22:18 +0000

Pete Rose did not bet on his team to lose. There are others (Tris
Speaker & Ty Cobb) in the HOF who had gambling accusations during
their career, but were voted into the HOF. Joe Jackson and the rest
were all found NOT GUILTY in a court of law. In Shoeless Joe’s case, I feel that Charles Comiskey (team owner) is more to blame for the 1919 debacle than anyone else. He was a ruthless and frugal
tyrant over his players, most all of whom detested him. Eddie Collins is the exception, in this case. I feel that both Shoeless
Joe and Pete belong in the HOF. It is not a morals HOF it is a baseball HOF. Even Ted Williams said that Joe Jackson belongs in the HOF. Ted knew his baseball and the history of baseball. Pete
Rose NEVER bet on his team to lose or threw a game. Let him in the HOF where he belongs.

By: Frank Azevedo

Frank Azevedo — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:22:09 +0000

The evidence himself? Indeed, Shoeless Joe could have probably written it better himself! Or as you might write, “Hiself.”

By: DIRK

DIRK — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:09:59 +0000

WASN’T ALL EXPLAINED IN FIELD OF DREAMS??????

By: planktonDisciple

planktonDisciple — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:19:10 +0000

I think Joe’s ban should stand. His on the field play does not indicate he helped throw anything, and he was illiterate, whatever that indicates.
It appears to be that he was aware of what was happening and and did not report it to his manager, or anyone else who worked for his team or the league. That makes him a co-conspirator regardless.
Joe’s situation is different from Rose, in that Landis’ decision set a new precedent. That precedent had been in place 60 years when Rose was banned. Everyone knew and expected the consequnces, especially Rose who walked past the sign on the clubhouse door thousands of times.
I do not want Rose reinstated for this reason. Joe’s case set the precedent, there was no such rule on the books at the time.
I don’t want Bonds or Clemens to be a member. If you go to the HOF you will see many displays in honor of Rose. In that sense he is in the HOF. He is excluded from membership and a plaque. His career accomplishments are honored.

By: The Common Man

The Common Man — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:26:41 +0000

Point of fact, Jeff, that’s exactly what Jackson is considered to have done. While the case on Jackson is far from airtight, play-by-play analysis of the series has (if I remember correctly) suggested that Jackson padded his numbers in games that were already decided and perhaps was not as enthusiastic in the field as he had been in the past. I’d like to see a lot more scholarship on this as well, regardless of what the outcome is for Joe, since the subject itself is inherently interesting.

By: David C

David C — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:23:00 +0000

Why would Landis ban some of the best players in the game for nothing? Was that fiction too?

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:57:11 +0000

While there may be evidence to support they were guilty of taking money or gambling as the cases may be, they were never actually guilty of throwing games – Joe and Pete both gave 110% on the field – let them in already!

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:38:43 +0000

Point of clarification, August, but I think the actual terminology is “permanent ban” not “lifetime ban.” I’m not saying Joe’s case shouldn’t maybe be rexamined, but given the way the ban is constructed, an automatic reinstatement is not a given.

By: August Morris

August Morris — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:29:04 +0000

Shoeless Joe has served his lifetime ban. He should be brought into the hall-of-fame immediately. Pete Rose is entitled to the same treatment. Bring him into the Hall after his death.