Does this controversial player get your HoF vote #2: Joe Jackson

KurtBevacqua · 05-01-2008, 09:39 AM

If you were a BPAA voter and had the ability to vote today on "Shoeless" Joe Jackson for Cooperstown, how would you vote?

Why he should be in the HoF
3rd all-time batting (.356)
8th all-time in adjusted OPS (1.70)
Surpasses Grey Ink and HoF monitor standards despite being forced out of the game at just age 31
Batted over .350 (including one season over .400) six times
Batted .375 with a .563 Slg% in the World Series he allegedly participated in a games fixing scheme in
Won one World Series ring (1917)
Was acquitted by a jury of the charges related to the fixing of the 1919 World Series

Why he shouldn't be in
Admitted in a sworn deposition that he received money as part of the infamous 1919 Black Sox scandal
Batted only .273 in the World Series games that were allegedly fixed as opposed to batting .545 in the games that were not
In 1924 a judge overturned a jury's favorable verdict in his suit for lost wages to the Chicago White Sox because he believed Jackson committed perjury by giving false testimony with regard to whether or not he received money in the scandal

Jason Moyer · 05-01-2008, 10:51 AM

Hopefully not in my lifetime.

His Own Bad Self · 05-01-2008, 06:09 PM

Nor in mine.

Cooleyvol · 05-01-2008, 07:56 PM

As soon as possible............long overdue.

marc · 05-01-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

As soon as possible............long overdue.

"

texasmame · 05-01-2008, 10:08 PM

Yes, he should be in. It's been proven that he had nothing to do with throwing the series.

Besides, he's my leadoff hitter!

Jason Moyer · 05-01-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texasmame

It's been proven that he had nothing to do with throwing the series.

Link

jazzrack · 05-01-2008, 10:13 PM

the hall of fame is as much about the history of baseball as anything else, you should include the good, the bad and the ugly.

yes he should be in, you shouldn't whitewash history.

texasmame · 05-01-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Link

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson - The Official Web Site

"In 1921, Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball due to his alleged involvement in the Black Sox scandal of 1919. But for nearly 85 years, fans have argued as to whether or not the White Sox legend truly deserves such a stiff penalty, especially when he was acquitted by a judge of any wrong doing."

When a judge clears you, that's pretty much that (unless you're O.J.).

Plus, he tore the cover off the ball and played perfect D in The Series in question.

LET JOE IN!!!

His Own Bad Self · 05-02-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzrack

the hall of fame is as much about the history of baseball as anything else, you should include the good, the bad and the ugly.

yes he should be in, you shouldn't whitewash history.

In the museum, yes. Enshrined in the Hall, not if he was guilty of what was alleged.

KurtBevacqua · 05-02-2008, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texasmame

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson - The Official Web Site

"In 1921, Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball due to his alleged involvement in the Black Sox scandal of 1919. But for nearly 85 years, fans have argued as to whether or not the White Sox legend truly deserves such a stiff penalty, especially when he was acquitted by a judge of any wrong doing."

When a judge clears you, that's pretty much that (unless you're O.J.).

Plus, he tore the cover off the ball and played perfect D in The Series in question.

LET JOE IN!!!

Yes, but Jackson also admitted in a sworn deposition that he accepted money from the gamblers (which was used by another judge later to conclude he committed perjury in a related civil case). A jury acquittal means you weren't found guilty, not that you were found innocent.

jazzrack · 05-02-2008, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdawgsenior

In the museum, yes. Enshrined in the Hall, not if he was guilty of what was alleged.

what is the hall if not a museum? put all info out there and let those who view it decide for themselves. he was on of the greats, flawed or not.

kq76 · 05-02-2008, 06:34 AM

There are a lot of stories about Shoeless, but the one I tend to believe was that he did take the money, but he didn't throw the series. It was often said that he really wasn't the brightest guy and that his social skills really weren't up to snuff so it was easy for him to be pushed into things that weren't right. I believe he was pushed into taking the money, which wouldn't be surprising given the poor times and the stories of their despicably greedy owner Comiskey, but I don't believe he threw the game. Should he be banned for even just taking the money? Maybe, but I couldn't do it.

I read somewhere that Landis felt justified in banning all eight even if not all threw the series because just knowing about the fix and not saying anything was just as bad. That's a pretty compelling argument, but I still couldn't. Am I being hypocritical considering how I feel about more recent players? Maybe, but I think I'm just more sympathetic.

Quote:

In 1933, the Jacksons moved back to Greenville, South Carolina. After first opening a barbecue restaurant, Jackson and his wife opened "Joe Jackson's Liquor Store," which they operated until his death. One of the better known stories of Jackson's post-major league life took place at his liquor store. Ty Cobb and sportswriter Grantland Rice entered the store to shop. After Cobb finished his purchase, he asked Jackson: "Don't you know me, Joe?" Jackson replied: "Sure, I know you, Ty, but I wasn't sure you wanted to speak to me. A lot of them don't."

Reading that was sad.

BTW, Eight Men Out is, I think, my favourite baseball movie with Bull Durham second.

kq76 · 05-02-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzrack

the hall of fame is as much about the history of baseball as anything else, you should include the good, the bad and the ugly.

This appeals to me. I'd just cringe at then calling certain players HoFers.

KurtBevacqua · 05-02-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kq76

There are a lot of stories about Shoeless, but the one I tend to believe was that he did take the money, but he didn't throw the series. It was often said that he really wasn't the brightest guy and that his social skills really weren't up to snuff so it was easy for him to be pushed into things that weren't right. I believe he was pushed into taking the money, which wouldn't be surprising given the poor times and the stories of their despicably greedy owner Comiskey, but I don't believe he threw the game. Should he be banned for even just taking the money? Maybe, but I couldn't do it.

I read somewhere that Landis felt justified in banning all eight even if not all threw the series because just knowing about the fix and not saying anything was just as bad. That's a pretty compelling argument, but I still couldn't. Am I being hypocritical considering how I feel about more recent players? Maybe, but I think I'm just more sympathetic.

Reading that was sad.

BTW, Eight Men Out is, I think, my favourite baseball movie with Bull Durham second.

Cobb was implicated in his own gambling scheme as well. I think most people don't appreciate the mood at the time. There was a lot of gambling in sports, baseball in particular. There was concern the government would come in and shut things down. I believe Landis came down on the Black Sox as a way of appeasing the fed and in the end it was brilliant as it got him his anti-trust exemption.

Ironically it was in 1927 that Landis mysteriously exhonerated Cobb and Speaker of their own gambling problems. Some believe they were no less guilty than the Black Sox and Landis wrote the whole thing off to keep the appearance of a clean game and keep the feds off his back. If more facts were known today about this case we could well be discussing whether or not Cobb and Speaker belong in the Hall.

Jestor · 05-02-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

As soon as possible............long overdue.

"

Splitter24 · 05-02-2008, 12:56 PM

Eight Men Out was a great movie. But Asinof's book was written over 45 years ago. A lot more details have come out about the story since then. For a more up-to-date version of the events, I suggest reading Gene Carney's Burying The Black Sox. An absolute must read for anyone interested in the Black Sox story and/or Joe Jackson. Some of the things that you thought you knew about the scandal(s) will surprise you.

Raidergoo · 05-02-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Admitted in a sworn deposition that he received money as part of the infamous 1919 Black Sox scandal

That's enough for me to keep him out permanently.

BaseballMan · 05-02-2008, 02:18 PM

so is cheating to win ok.
Like when John McGraw tried to have the umpires banned
from the park and put some of his players as the umpires for the game.
Is this acceptable because he was still trying to win?
To me its the same as losing on purpose. Either way its not fair game.

His Own Bad Self · 05-03-2008, 12:27 AM

Well, here's what I'm wondering. Assuming he took the money, doesn't the burden of proof fall on him to demonstrate that he didn't help throw the series? It's not impossible for him to have taken the money and still played fairly, but what's the default assumption if he took the money? That he was helping throw the games, as well.

I sympathize with him if he was actually innocent of fixing the series, but I'd also want baseball to err on the side of conservatism in such matters.

View Poll Results: If you were a HoF voter, how would you vote on a Joe Jackson induction
Yes	79	72.48%
No	30	27.52%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

05-01-2008, 09:39 AM	#1
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	Does this controversial player get your HoF vote #2: Joe Jackson If you were a BPAA voter and had the ability to vote today on "Shoeless" Joe Jackson for Cooperstown, how would you vote? Why he should be in the HoF 3rd all-time batting (.356) 8th all-time in adjusted OPS (1.70) Surpasses Grey Ink and HoF monitor standards despite being forced out of the game at just age 31 Batted over .350 (including one season over .400) six times Batted .375 with a .563 Slg% in the World Series he allegedly participated in a games fixing scheme in Won one World Series ring (1917) Was acquitted by a jury of the charges related to the fixing of the 1919 World Series Why he shouldn't be in Admitted in a sworn deposition that he received money as part of the infamous 1919 Black Sox scandal Batted only .273 in the World Series games that were allegedly fixed as opposed to batting .545 in the games that were not In 1924 a judge overturned a jury's favorable verdict in his suit for lost wages to the Chicago White Sox because he believed Jackson committed perjury by giving false testimony with regard to whether or not he received money in the scandal Attached Images __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

05-01-2008, 10:08 PM	#6
texasmame All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Planet Texas Posts: 1,667	Yes, he should be in. It's been proven that he had nothing to do with throwing the series. Besides, he's my leadoff hitter! __________________ Managing and rebuilding the 98-loss TOKYO THUNDER.

05-01-2008, 10:13 PM	#8
jazzrack Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: still kicking Posts: 3,229	the hall of fame is as much about the history of baseball as anything else, you should include the good, the bad and the ugly. yes he should be in, you shouldn't whitewash history. __________________ . "Never confuse composure for ease" Was once Head Cheese of Corporate League Baseball

05-02-2008, 12:56 PM	#17
Splitter24 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Willsboro, NY Posts: 2,895	Eight Men Out was a great movie. But Asinof's book was written over 45 years ago. A lot more details have come out about the story since then. For a more up-to-date version of the events, I suggest reading Gene Carney's Burying The Black Sox. An absolute must read for anyone interested in the Black Sox story and/or Joe Jackson. Some of the things that you thought you knew about the scandal(s) will surprise you. __________________ Currently Reading: The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen "Well, the game is afoot. I’ll take anal bum cover for 7,000." - "Sean Connery" SNL Celebrity Jeopardy R.I.P. Tommy Holmes 1917-2008

05-01-2008, 10:51 AM	#2
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,098	Hopefully not in my lifetime. __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

05-01-2008, 06:09 PM	#3
His Own Bad Self All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,221	Nor in mine.

05-01-2008, 07:56 PM	#4
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Union City, TN Posts: 6,383	As soon as possible............long overdue.

05-02-2008, 02:18 PM	#19
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,599	so is cheating to win ok. Like when John McGraw tried to have the umpires banned from the park and put some of his players as the umpires for the game. Is this acceptable because he was still trying to win? To me its the same as losing on purpose. Either way its not fair game.

05-03-2008, 12:27 AM	#20
His Own Bad Self All Star Starter Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,221	Well, here's what I'm wondering. Assuming he took the money, doesn't the burden of proof fall on him to demonstrate that he didn't help throw the series? It's not impossible for him to have taken the money and still played fairly, but what's the default assumption if he took the money? That he was helping throw the games, as well. I sympathize with him if he was actually innocent of fixing the series, but I'd also want baseball to err on the side of conservatism in such matters.