Pte rose and "shoeless" joe jackson

[Guest Some Guy]

For those who don't know Pete Rose was suspended for life from MLB for gambling on the game in 1989 or 90 and Joe Jackson (who has the 2nd or 3rd highest lifetime avg ever) was suspended forever for accepting money (along with many otehr on teh White Sox) to throw the 1919 World Series (Jackson took the money but then went on to perform extremely well in the WS.

 

I say neither should be let in because there are certain rules in MLB that you just can't break and Betting on the game and throwing games are two of them.  Ty Cobb was falsely accused of betting on Baseball and to help clear his name he made a comeback after he was past his prime and retired(BTW Ty Cobb was a complete asshole and a violent racist) If someone like Cobb felt ashamed of being called a gambler on the game than you know it's pretty serious offense in the Baseball community.

[Guest ajc]

I agree 100%.  The Pete Rose case is pretty cut n' dry to me.  The Dowd Report (the independent study commisioned by baseball to investigate the allegations) dug up "substantial" evidence that Rose bet on baseball and bet on his Reds.  I believe the results of the Dowd Report can still be found online.

 

The rules against gambling (and the consequences) are posted in every Major League clubhouse, so Rose's lifetime ban should remain.  I'm amused by people who fire back with Steve Howe/Darryl Strawberry examples.  They try to excuse Rose's mistakes by focusing on other player's mistakes.  Yes, baseball *should* be tougher on repeated substance abusers, but that shouldn't detract from Rose's complete abuse of the integrity of the game.

 

That said, I feel that baseball is hypocritical in that they will display Rose's memorabilia in Cooperstown (and profit off its use) but not allow Rose entry.  MLB can market Rose's likeness and collect all the profits.  That's wrong.  If baseball wants to truly enforce Rose's lifetime ban, then they shouldn't be allowed to profit off of him.

 

Shoeless Joe's case is just as simple, to me.  He took the money.  Did he "throw" any games?  Well, his World Series batting average indicates that he didn't.  However, he still took the cash and didn't inform anyone, which is in violation of anti-gambling rules.

 

I think both men will eventually be enshrined in the Hall of Fame.  Probably not under Uncle Bud's watch, but both will get in someday.  I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's just what I think will happen.

[Guest alkeiper]

The problem was never that Pete Rose gambled, but that he broke the rules against gambling.  I'd like to see a more serious investigation into the allegations and a conclusive answer before I would say whether he should be allowed back or not.

 

As for Jackson, he had a great average yes, but without video of the Series, its hard to judge if he really did help throw the series.  There's tons of stuff you can do (missing cutoff men, failing to take the extra base etc.) that you can do to throw a game that will never show up in a stat line.  The fact remains that regardless of whether he threw the games, he accepted money from gamblers to throw the Series.

 

Rose I might let in, Jackson I wouldn't.  And I wouldn't even consider either of them unless they were re-instated.

[Guest alkeiper]

I should add a note about the O'Dowd report.  The report never names a specific instance of Pete Rose betting on baseball.  It's all circumstancial.  Bill James sums it up fairly well in the New Historical Baseball Abstract.  Did Pete Rose bet on baseball?  Probably, but there needs to be more specific evidence.

[Guest]

I have to agree with AlKeiper.  Rose, I probably would.  Jackson I wouldn't.  It doesn't matter if he played great or not (how do we know anyways?).  As mentioned before, there are so many little things.. in addition to the ones already mentioned, swinging on a 3-0 count, not taking the signs properly etc.  I would really have to see some sort of physical evidence of Rose before denying him admission.

[Guest Some Guy]

Sorry about the Typo in the title, I can't edit it.

 

The reason I added that Jackson had a great lifetime avg. and 1919 WS avg. was to try and put both sides in my very brief summary of 2 very long stories.

 

If Rose were to admit that he bet on MLB (which I think he did) then I would lift the ban on him atending games and pit him i the Hall of Fame the year he dies, I feel he needs some permanent pumishment for committing a Baseball crime.

[Guest alkeiper]

For Rose, I'd let him back in on a limited basis, but he would never be allowed to perform any field activities, such as manage, or coach.

 

It's interesting to think what kind of vote he would get if he were HOF eligible, because I'm certain many writers would say "He bet on baseball, I'm not voting for him."  So he may not make the HOF even if he becomes eligible anyway.

[Guest Zoltan]

I wouldn't let Jackson in but I'd let Pete in.

And I remember Pete saying once on an interview somehere if he would confess after all this time then people would say that he's only confessing so he could go into the Hall of Fame and he's 100% right. I don't think he did because then why does he still deny it after all these years????

[Guest DrTom]

Pete Rose is a very polarizing person.  A lot of people seem to like him, and there's always a groundswell of sympathy for him getting into the Hall of Fame.  

 

Bah.  Keep him out, I say.

 

The Dowd report included stacks of betting slips, with both Rose's signature and fingerprints on them.  Those of you who are looking for some kind of evidence against him, there it is.  Rose was caught dead to right, but refused to admit that he had ever bet on baseball, bet on his own team, or even that he had a gambling problem.

 

Then-commissioner Bart Giamatti said that if Rose had come forward at any point in the investigation and said, "I have a problem, please help me," then nothing would have happened to him.  He might have gotten fined and orderer into a gambling treatment program, but he wouldn't have been banned from baseball and made ineligible for the HOF.

 

Basically, I don't have any sympathy for people whose bas circumstances are entirely their own fault.  That's the case with Rose; he made this mess for himself, now he has to deal with it.  Add in the fact that he's a rather contemptible human being in general, and I definitely don't have one iota of sympathy for him or support for his cause.

 

There is speculation that Jackson wasn't really involved in the Black Sox scandal.  However, he did take the money, which is pretty damning in and of itself.  Some Jackson apoligists say he was illiterate and more than a little dim, so he might not have known what he was doing.  The other seven guys certainly did, though, and one way or another, Jackson threw his hat in with them.  Keep him out, too.

 

At some point, I think Jackson will be reinstated and enshrined, but I'm not sure about Rose.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Pete Rose's bowl haircut should keep him out. All kidding aside Rose should be elected. He's going in for his career has a player. Unless I'm mistaken no evidence points to Rose betting on games when he played. Ban Rose from coaching or being involved with Baseball, but put him in the HOF.

 

Joe Jackson shouldn't be allowed in. He took money to throw the World Series. The argument that Jackson was a stupid hick, is fictious. Jackson ran sucessful stores after he was banned. Jackson might not of thrown the series, but he took the money.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

One question I've always wondered (and never found a satisfactory answer for) is whether or not Rose bet on his team to win or to lose. Because while there may not be a distinction in the actual rules themselves, I think it makes a difference in terms of what his intention was. If he bet on them to lose I'd say my opinion of him would be much more disfavorable.

[Guest alkeiper]

The Dowd report never makes a specific charge that Dowd bet on ANY specific game, just that he must've bet on something somewhere.  Obviously, betting against or even FOR your own team is a serious no-no, but I seriously doubt Rose would throw a game for the sake of a gambling debt, especially since baseball's a hard game for a single person to fix, unless your a starting pitcher.

 

The idea behind the rule against gambling is that when you're in a position to influence an athletic contest, a gambler in debt might be approached by his bookie and be told "hey, we're gonna do this unless you do that."

 

Rose should certainly be punished, but I don't think it should be as severe as the punishments to the Black Sox, Hal Chase, or Jim Devlin, who actually threw games and championships.  But I do think he has to be re-accepted into baseball before you induct him into the HOF.

[Guest DrTom]

John Dowd had stacks of Rose's betting slips, which he passed on to Giamatti.  How much information from them ended up in his actual report is unknown, but he did have them.  He also had several notebooks of Rose's, which contained a lot of gambling info, but I don't think he used them in his report due to questions about their authenticity.

[Guest Marius714]

I personally would admit Shoeless Joe considering that it has been 83 years since the offense ocurred. As for Pete I'd make him wait. If 83 years is enough for Jackson then it's a good  number of years for Pete to wait as well.

 

The issue with Rose is that he is still so defiant over the whole thing, always makes me wonder what he's hiding? Maybe nothing it just seems suspicious to me for some reason.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

Pete Rose accepted a life time ban, there would likely have been further investigation had he not.  The Joe Jackson thing happened ages ago and I don't think there's a way too look further into that.  Keep them out.

[Guest Choken One]

On a personal level, I really want Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame as the same for Joe Jackson. It's shocking that after Ted Williams, the two greatest hitters are absent from the HOF. I really don't think what Rose did as a Coach should take away what he did as a Player and that was be one of the best natrual hitters of the game. Joe Jackson? He took the money but you look at the stats and witness reports, you can really say he tanked the series...at least not like his team mates did. However, rules are rules and as long as Bud Selig is in Office (which won't be for much longer) Pete Rose won't be in.

[Guest]

Yeah I think Pete should be in. But It's like that spitting rule.

You can punch kick or beat a man almost to death. But if you spit in his face is where you crossed the line.

MLB got Spitted on by Pete Rose. Well at least that is what they say.

 

As for Shoeless joe. I really don't know much about that whole thing besides seeing him in field of dreams and that other movie.

 

Well It really don't matter. Cause Pete's Hit Record will stand for a long time. So he is already in the HOF but they just haven't given him the invitation.

Plus he was tombstone by Kane. Now that is already a punishment enough.

[Guest imajackoff?]

Pete Rose - NO

Joe Jackson - NO

[Guest Grand Slam]

I posted this on another thread, but it is more appropriate here:

 

I used to be the biggest Pete Rose supporter there was.  I grew up in the Cincinnati area during the later days of the Big Red Machine.  Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, Dave Concepcion, George Foster, Tony Perez... I have to think that was one of the greatest baseball teams ever assembled.  So when Pete came back to manage the Reds, I was overjoyed.  I remember listening to his first game back on a transistor radio at Ponderosa during dinner and giving updates to everyone around me.  So the accusations against him were like a gunshot to the heart.  Cincinnati fans went on the defensive.  We were determined to keep the memory of one of our heroes untarnished.  And that is where I stayed on the matter for many years.

 

But, as I grew older, I read the report and I listened to what Pete was saying and I came to the conclusion that while they never proved he bet on the Reds while he was a manager, he did bet on baseball.  A lot of baseball.  All I wanted was Pete to come out and say, "They are right.  I bet on baseball.  I am addicted to gambling and I need help.  But I never bet on my own team."  He would still have been suspended for life, he still wouldn't be in the Hall, but the rancor, the venom that baseball feels towards Pete Rose would have been greatly diminished.

 

Did he ever do that?  No.  he has insisted, despite overwhelming evidence, that he never bet on anything.  He continues to gamble at horse races.  And I started to wonder... what else is he lying about?  And as soon as I thought that, I grew up.  I became more cynical and pessimistic about him and his entry to the Hall of Fame.

 

I guess, in the end, my feelings can be summed up like this:

 

I don't care if he is in or not.  The validity of the Hall is fine for me either way.  In my opinion, only Pete is suffering.  And, as bad as this sounds, until he is willing to at least meet baseball halfway, let him suffer.

[Guest Choken One]

How about they put him the Hall of Fame but never allow him to be at the Induction? Good enough for me.

 

BTW, I re-read Shoeless Joe last week and I was wondering are there anyother good Baseball related books?

[Guest JHawk]

People are right saying this is cut and dry.

 

Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson have to be let into the Hall of Fame.

 

Jackson is cut and dry for one simple reason.  He was banned for life from baseball.  He's dead now.  The only drawback is he might have played long enough to be considered.  Besides, he had a better series statistically in 1919 than anybody else on either team.  No way in hell he was throwing the series.

 

As far as Pete Rose goes.  Whether he gambled on baseball or not (and is the Dowd Report published anywhere for public viewing? Because nobody seems to have actually read it.), the Hall of Fame is supposed to be for on the field accomplishments.  By all accounts, Ty Cobb was an alcoholic and a racist.  Hall of Fame.  Mickey Mantle worked in a casino.  Nobody's saying to take Mickey Mantle out of the Hall of Fame.  How many times has Steve Howe been suspended for alcohol abuse?  How many times has Darryl Strawberry been suspended for abusing illegal drugs?  So why the fuck is Pete Rose singled out?  For betting on baseball?  Maybe if there was proof he was throwing games.  Otherwise, put the man in.

 

They've damned Pete Rose no matter what he does.  They won't let him in if he doesn't admit to it (and if he didn't, why admit to it).  But you know damn well that if he did admit to it, then Selig would say "He confessed to breaking the rules, so he's still ineligible."  Complete and total bullshit.

 

For whatever reason, in 1989 A. Bartlett Giamatti decided to make major league baseball into his own Salem, Massachusetts and Pete Rose was the witch he was hunting.  And Bud Selig is apparently his follower.  Admit it and be ashamed for life or hang by the neck until dead.  Complete bullshit.

 

Besides, isn't there a casino ad that rotates behind home plate at Yankee stadium?  Don't the A's have a farm team in Vegas?

 

A moot point as long as Selig is in power, I know, but damn it, he has more hits than anybody else ever.  If Reggie Jackson's in with his .265 average and half of these guys are in with their off-the-field track records, Pete has to be in.  Bottom line.

[Guest Some Guy]

.  By all accounts, Ty Cobb was an alcoholic and a racist.  Hall of Fame.  Mickey Mantle worked in a casino.  Nobody's saying to take Mickey Mantle out of the Hall of Fame.  How many times has Steve Howe been suspended for alcohol abuse?  How many times has Darryl Strawberry been suspended for abusing illegal drugs?  So why the fuck is Pete Rose singled out?  For betting on baseball?  Maybe if there was proof he was throwing games.  Otherwise, put the man in.

 

Being a racist and an alcoholic weren't against the rules of MLB in the 1920, so Ty Cobb didn't so anything wrong according to Baseball at the time.

Working in a Casino is wholly different from betting on Baseball, a ball player is allowed to gamble, just not allowed to wager on sports, so Mickey Mantle did nothing wrong.

Strawberry should be banned.

Pete Rose was not "singled out", he was caught and punished accordingly, do you think MLB wanted to have their all time hits leader banned for life? Do you think they wanted this scandel? Do you think they wanted the game to have another black eye?  I don't.  Rose bet on the and now he has to face the punishment.  BTW I thought what Jim Gray (?) did to him at the All Star game in 2000 was out of line, but I also feel that he never should have been there.

 

Jackson is cut and dry for one simple reason.  He was banned for life from baseball.  He's dead now.  The only drawback is he might have played long enough to be considered.  Besides, he had a better series statistically in 1919 than anybody else on either team.  No way in hell he was throwing the series.

 

The fact that Joe Jackson hit well in the 1919 WS makes no difference, he still took money to throw the World Series, which at that time was teh most important annual sporting event in America.  That is why he was banned and no he shouldn't be let in.  Being dead makes no difference either, to use a bad cliche, "if you do the crime, you do the time."  He was banned from the and the HOF doens't allow banned players in.

[Guest alkeiper]

No way in hell he was throwing the series.

 

He could've hit 1.000 and slugged 4.000, pitched all 8 games with an 0.00 ERA and 63 Ks, it doesn't matter.  He accepted money from gamblers with the INTENTION of throwing the World Series.  That enough is a bannable crime.

 

and is the Dowd Report published anywhere for public viewing? Because nobody seems to have actually read it.

 

Documents of that type usually run thousands of pages.  If its published somewhere, very few people have the time or energy required to read such a document.

How many times has Steve Howe been suspended for alcohol abuse?  How many times has Darryl Strawberry been suspended for abusing illegal drugs?

 

They're not going to the HOF either.

 

So why the fuck is Pete Rose singled out?  For betting on baseball?

 

As previously staed, its not that Rose bet on baseball.  The problem is Pete Rose broke the RULE about betting on baseball.  The reason for the rule is that baseball's supposed to be an honest athletic contest, and shouldn't be compromised by a manager gambling on professional sports.  Even if he didn't bet on baseball, a manager can NOT be involved in a situation where a bookie can come up to him and say "Hey, you owe us money.  And unless you help us out, you lose a kneecap."  Pro athletes can not be involved in gambling of any kind.

 

If Reggie Jackson's in with his .265 average and half of these guys are in with their off-the-field track records, Pete has to be in.  Bottom line.

 

Batting Average means NOTHING.  Reggie Jackson's in because he hit 563 home runs, drew a ton of walks, and got on base all the time.  He also played almost his entire career in pitchers' parks.  Pete Rose played in a good park for hitters.  Reggie's not in because he hit .262, he's in because he did everything else well.  And Pete Rose shouldn't be let in because "everything else was."  Why not kick everyone else out then?

 

 

Choken One- Try Robert Creamer's "Babe," Jim Bouton's "Ball Four," and Bill James' "New Historical Baseball Abstract."

[Guest the pinjockey]

Pete Rose I don't know about if he had just kept quiet after retiring I might consider it but every time I have seen him he has not really been to much of a goodwill ambassador for baseball so I don't know

 

Joe Jackson I think should be in because his punishment was a lifetime ban not an eternal ban.  When you are in jail for life they don't keep you corpse and imprison that for more punishment they end the sentence.  The same should be true for Jackson he served his lifetime ban.

[Guest DrTom]

"He was banned for life from baseball.  He's dead now."

 

Dying shouldn't make anyone worthy of enshrinement.

 

"Besides, he had a better series statistically in 1919 than anybody else on either team.  No way in hell he was throwing the series."

 

He did have a good series, and as someone who was reported to be a dim illiterate, it's unclear whether or not he really knew what he was getting into.  Balderdash.  I'm sure his teammates explained it to him.  The fact that he played well doesn't change the fact that he took money from gamblers with the intention of fixing the series.

 

"...and is the Dowd Report published anywhere for public viewing? Because nobody seems to have actually read it."

 

I don't know if the whole thing is available, but its contents have been reported on numerous times.  John Dowd has given several interviews about what his investigation uncovered and what is in his report.  It's very damning to Rose.

 

"By all accounts, Ty Cobb was an alcoholic and a racist.  Hall of Fame."

 

Babe Ruth was an alcoholic and a glutton, and probably a womanizer, too.  Hell, a LOT of guys in the HOF were womanizers, I'm sure.  Being a drunkard, a bigot, a womanizer, etc, while not admirable character traits, are not illegal in the rules of baseball.

 

"Mickey Mantle worked in a casino.  Nobody's saying to take Mickey Mantle out of the Hall of Fame."

 

Manning the blackjack tables and wagering on your own sport are two different animals entirely.

 

"How many times has Steve Howe been suspended for alcohol abuse?  How many times has Darryl Strawberry been suspended for abusing illegal drugs?"

 

They're not exactly candidates for the Hall Of Fame.  Besides, banning them at this point would be meaningless, since they're too old to do anything on the field, and too worthless and controversial off the field to contribute anything there.

 

"So why the fuck is Pete Rose singled out?  For betting on baseball?  Maybe if there was proof he was throwing games."

 

Hey, you answered your own question.  Way to go.  There IS proof Rose bet on baseball.  Do some research on the Dowd Report and read just what John Dowd found, and what he took before then-Commissioner Giamatti.

 

"They've damned Pete Rose no matter what he does."

 

No, Rose has damned himself.  Giamatti said that if Rose had admitted he had a gambling problem -- NOT that he bet on baseball, just that he had a problem, he never would have been banned.  He would have faced some kind of suspension and fine, and probably forced rehab, but he'd still be eligible for the HOF.  But Rose could never do that.  He made this bed for himself, now he's lying in it, and I have no pity for him at all.

 

"Besides, isn't there a casino ad that rotates behind home plate at Yankee stadium?  Don't the A's have a farm team in Vegas?"

 

And these facts mean what, exactly?

 

"If Reggie Jackson's in with his .265 average and half of these guys are in with their off-the-field track records, Pete has to be in.  Bottom line."

 

Jackson is in for his 563 home runs and amazingly clutch postseason performances.  Other players, with their "off-the-field track records" have never done anything illegal by the rules of baseball.  You don't need to be a saint to get into the HOF; by the standards you seem to want, players would be eligible for beatification before enshrinement in the HOF.

 

And the "bottom line" is that you're arguing off of pure emotion, with no facts and very little reason to support you.

[Guest Jericholic82]

hey, they had special on Rpse on fox sports net I think in late 2000.  It was VERY interesting.  One thing i rememeber is that one of the alleged gambling slips, it wasn't even Rose's signature but appeared to be faked. Now I am not saying that this was a conspiracy but that was interesting.

 

I think he is embarrased by what happened and that's why he won't admit to it.  If he did, Selig still wouldn't reinstate him.

If he was betting on his team, THEN there is a problem, but I don't think they have any hard evidence of that.

 

I don't know, he deserves to be in the hall no matter what, so one of these days something needs to be done.  Hey selig didn't ban McGwwire for taking whatever that drug was called (perofrmance enhancing drugs are the real problem since they affect the paly onfield)  but roses problems happened after he was retired as a player so that should not exclude him.

 

hey the man took two tombstones, a chokeslam, and a stinkface

give him some kind of award for that

[Guest Some Guy]

Androstine isn't against the rules, so why would Big Mac have been banned?