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

Cooleyvol · 05-03-2008, 12:35 AM

This has been hashed out here multiple times and I'm not wanting to do it again, but there is the belief that Joe, not the sharpest tack in the box, did take the money initially not for sure what it was his task to do. Upon understanding what was expected of him, he attempted to give the money back on multiple instances.

I don't think taking the money is in doubt. Throwing the series, however, is in doubt.

I sort of feel as if Joe was taken advantage of due to the thought that he was dumb enough to go along with it, adding him into the scheme because he was talented enough to foil it with his performance. I feel as if they 'talked over his head' in getting him to take the money, but later, when someone explained it fully to him, he wanted no part of it.

KurtBevacqua · 05-03-2008, 08:17 AM

My own feeling is that as a player he was certainly deserving. However he did take money, that is really not in question. Now under what circumstances in which he took the money is very much in doubt and will likely never be answered to any degree of certainty. It's one man's theory against another's. He also likely did commit perjury in his civil suit against the White Sox organization. He was never formally charged, but the evidence of perjury was strong enough for a judge to use it as his basis for overturning a jury's decision.

I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that Joe, whether or not he actually helped throw the games, was a part of and aware of the plot. To what degree he actually understood it is open to debate and will never be known. Regardless it would seem he had more than enough information at his disposal to be reasonably able to understand what was going on. If indeed he figured it out and tried to give the money back and wanted no part of it then why did he lie on the stand in his civil trial?

I agree with jdawgsenior that because he took the money the burden of proof falls on Joe to prove otherwise, and he failed miserably in that effort. Therefore I agree that Joe should not go into the Hall of Fame.

Splitter24 · 05-03-2008, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

This has been hashed out here multiple times and I'm not wanting to do it again, but there is the belief that Joe, not the sharpest tack in the box, did take the money initially not for sure what it was his task to do. Upon understanding what was expected of him, he attempted to give the money back on multiple instances.

I don't think taking the money is in doubt. Throwing the series, however, is in doubt.

I sort of feel as if Joe was taken advantage of due to the thought that he was dumb enough to go along with it, adding him into the scheme because he was talented enough to foil it with his performance. I feel as if they 'talked over his head' in getting him to take the money, but later, when someone explained it fully to him, he wanted no part of it.

Unfortunately, Joe Jackson knew 100% what the money was for from the beginning. His own testimony during the Black Sox trial and later during the 1924 Milwaukee trial, where he attempted to sue the White Sox over back pay, proves this.

Too much has been made of Joe Jackson's intelligence. He was illiterate and under-educated to be sure. But despite what has been historically written about him, the man was not a moron (Side note: if you've never read the transcripts from either trial, make it a priority to do so. Not only is it really interesting stuff, but if you always believed that Joe Jackson was an eyelash away from being a ******, you'll find this not to be the case at all.). He was naive enough to believe that if the other guys on the team were going to throw the series anyway, then he might as well keep the money.

Joe Jackson has always claimed that he had no part in the fixing of the games on the field. And no one has come up with any really good proof to show that he did. There's been some things (the 3 triples hit to LF during the series, his poor performance with RISP), but there are "clean" Sox who performed worse. We'll never know the 100% truth.

Does Joe Jackson belong in the Hall of Fame? I don't know and, frankly, I don't care. At this point, they'd be honoring a man who's been dead for roughly half a century. He has become a polarizing figure to people who are 90 years removed from the events in question. And the further we are removed from the events, the more vociferous the proponents and opponents become.

Jpotapoff · 05-09-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter24

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.

Can you mention some of these new points? It's unlikely i'm going to go out and buy the book and read it any time soon. And if this book has some new revelations that would shine an entirely new light on the thing it would be nice to hear some of those revelations.

Jpotapoff · 05-09-2008, 09:50 PM

I say no. He admitted to being in on the fix. And while it's clear he was manipulated into the situation and so on it is still clear that he was involved in a major way. At the very least he didn't try to stop it in any way, and by going along with it encouraged others to be in on the fix (same as Bucky Weaver, by not being clearly against it in front of the other players, they made it easier for the other players to be in on the fix). The whole fix seemed to be on such shakey ground in terms of the players actually going through with it that if either Jackson or Weaver mounted much of a protest against it, it is likely that the fix would have fallen through.

Then there's the whole matter of the team throwing games in the next season. So even if Jackson didn't intentionally throw the World Series and just accepted the money, it looks like he was throwing games the next season as the gamblers essentially blackmailed them.

It really seems clear cut to me in both terms of not being in the HOF as well as being reinstated. If you are banned from baseball then no HOF induction for you. And I rally don't think there has been enough reason given to reinstate him. The whole defense of him not knowing what he was doing, or he was pressured into it, and he had good reasons to do it don't really fly in my mind. He still participated in the fix, which is more than enough for me to keep him banned.

I mean really his actions helped lead to one of the biggest scandals in baseball, nearly killed professional baseball and his banning helped save baseball. How can a person, whose banning arguably saved baseball, be reinstated?

Y0DA55 · 09-15-2009, 10:39 PM

I was just watching Ken Burns' "Baseball" for the first time and I just got to the Black Sox Scandal. Watching this made me do a little research and ponder this a bit, and I have 2 observations.

1) This is a recent article in the Chicago Tribune:
In defense of 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson -- chicagotribune.com

In an answer to whomever posted about it before, I don't know if all the information in the book is accurate.

2) Right before the whole Black Sox Saga in "Baseball", they mention the unrest that players were having with the owners, especially with the fact that the owners could essentially pay them whatever they want and get to keep them forever.

The players weren't organized back then. I don't believe they had a players union (and if they did, it wasn't very powerful). So how is trying to "get theirs" in the form of gambling differ that much from striking? I understand that they are two totally different things, but they both were essentially used for the same purpose, so that they could get paid what they think they are worth.

Goody · 09-16-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Y0DA55

I was just watching Ken Burns' "Baseball" for the first time and I just got to the Black Sox Scandal. Watching this made me do a little research and ponder this a bit, and I have 2 observations.

1) This is a recent article in the Chicago Tribune:
In defense of 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson -- chicagotribune.com

In an answer to whomever posted about it before, I don't know if all the information in the book is accurate.

2) Right before the whole Black Sox Saga in "Baseball", they mention the unrest that players were having with the owners, especially with the fact that the owners could essentially pay them whatever they want and get to keep them forever.

The players weren't organized back then. I don't believe they had a players union (and if they did, it wasn't very powerful). So how is trying to "get theirs" in the form of gambling differ that much from striking? I understand that they are two totally different things, but they both were essentially used for the same purpose, so that they could get paid what they think they are worth.

Striking is honest. There's no shady manipulation of the fans.

Fixing a game for financial gain is dishonest. Its like stealing in my opinion.

Mathies_dane · 09-22-2009, 07:50 AM

I have for a long time been a pro Jackson supporter. I think the hall is missing out by not having the 3rd best batting avg in the hall. I belive that he didnt cheat as blatently as some of the others in the scandal did. I say get him in the hall in my lifetime.

Cryomaniac · 09-22-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

A jury acquittal means you weren't found guilty, not that you were found innocent.

So everyone ever acquitted by a jury is tarred as being potentially guilty?

Carlton · 09-22-2009, 01:45 PM

The real discussion is whether Buck Weaver's family deserves an apology. He is the sympathetic one in that plight. He fought until his death to be reinstated...

Dargone · 09-22-2009, 05:48 PM

I think you have to look at this from the frame of reference of that era. It is easy to say "no way" he committed the cardinal sin of baseball. However, the situation of those players is a far cry from the multimillion dollar contracts of today's athletes (not to mention we have no way of knowing for sure whether he was complicit). It is not a black or white issue and in my opinion I think he deserves to be in. YMMV, as always...

StyxNCa · 09-22-2009, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

So everyone ever acquitted by a jury is tarred as being potentially guilty?

Sort of a limbo while still alive. Not guilty, not innocent.

satchel · 09-27-2009, 11:21 PM

I'd vote Jackson into the Hall without hesitation.

I forgive Joe, whose crimes were but this morning's dew: droplets soaked into the sky of history, where his feats tower mountainlike.

Art99 · 10-07-2009, 12:25 AM

I'd vote for Jackson. Obviously he was wrong to take the money (if he really did) but I bet there are lots of other players in the hall from that era that gambled or tried to throw games but just didn't get caught. Players were paid peanuts then as the owners got filthy rich off their talents. I think 90 years of punishment is more than adequate for Joe Jackson. If they can put a despicable person like Ty Cobb in there then there's a place for Jackson too.

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

05-03-2008, 08:17 AM	#22
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	My own feeling is that as a player he was certainly deserving. However he did take money, that is really not in question. Now under what circumstances in which he took the money is very much in doubt and will likely never be answered to any degree of certainty. It's one man's theory against another's. He also likely did commit perjury in his civil suit against the White Sox organization. He was never formally charged, but the evidence of perjury was strong enough for a judge to use it as his basis for overturning a jury's decision. I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that Joe, whether or not he actually helped throw the games, was a part of and aware of the plot. To what degree he actually understood it is open to debate and will never be known. Regardless it would seem he had more than enough information at his disposal to be reasonably able to understand what was going on. If indeed he figured it out and tried to give the money back and wanted no part of it then why did he lie on the stand in his civil trial? I agree with jdawgsenior that because he took the money the burden of proof falls on Joe to prove otherwise, and he failed miserably in that effort. Therefore I agree that Joe should not go into the Hall of Fame. __________________ "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

09-15-2009, 10:39 PM	#26
Y0DA55 All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: In the middle of the Yankees/Red Sox Rivalry Posts: 1,771	I was just watching Ken Burns' "Baseball" for the first time and I just got to the Black Sox Scandal. Watching this made me do a little research and ponder this a bit, and I have 2 observations. 1) This is a recent article in the Chicago Tribune: In defense of 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson -- chicagotribune.com In an answer to whomever posted about it before, I don't know if all the information in the book is accurate. 2) Right before the whole Black Sox Saga in "Baseball", they mention the unrest that players were having with the owners, especially with the fact that the owners could essentially pay them whatever they want and get to keep them forever. The players weren't organized back then. I don't believe they had a players union (and if they did, it wasn't very powerful). So how is trying to "get theirs" in the form of gambling differ that much from striking? I understand that they are two totally different things, but they both were essentially used for the same purpose, so that they could get paid what they think they are worth. __________________ Do, or do not, there is no try!

09-22-2009, 01:45 PM	#30
Carlton Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 3,765	The real discussion is whether Buck Weaver's family deserves an apology. He is the sympathetic one in that plight. He fought until his death to be reinstated... __________________ "I am at that stage of my life where I keep myself out of arguments. I am 100% self sufficient spiritually, emotionally & financially. Even if you say 1+1=5, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Enjoy!"

09-22-2009, 05:48 PM	#31
Dargone Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Interwebs Posts: 2,862	I think you have to look at this from the frame of reference of that era. It is easy to say "no way" he committed the cardinal sin of baseball. However, the situation of those players is a far cry from the multimillion dollar contracts of today's athletes (not to mention we have no way of knowing for sure whether he was complicit). It is not a black or white issue and in my opinion I think he deserves to be in. YMMV, as always... __________________ I was never one to patiently pick up broken fragments and glue them together again and tell myself that the mended whole was as good as new. What is broken is broken -- and I'd rather remember it as it was at its best than mend it and see the broken places as long as I lived.-Margaret Mitchell

05-03-2008, 12:35 AM	#21
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Union City, TN Posts: 6,383	This has been hashed out here multiple times and I'm not wanting to do it again, but there is the belief that Joe, not the sharpest tack in the box, did take the money initially not for sure what it was his task to do. Upon understanding what was expected of him, he attempted to give the money back on multiple instances. I don't think taking the money is in doubt. Throwing the series, however, is in doubt. I sort of feel as if Joe was taken advantage of due to the thought that he was dumb enough to go along with it, adding him into the scheme because he was talented enough to foil it with his performance. I feel as if they 'talked over his head' in getting him to take the money, but later, when someone explained it fully to him, he wanted no part of it.

05-09-2008, 09:50 PM	#25
Jpotapoff Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 182	I say no. He admitted to being in on the fix. And while it's clear he was manipulated into the situation and so on it is still clear that he was involved in a major way. At the very least he didn't try to stop it in any way, and by going along with it encouraged others to be in on the fix (same as Bucky Weaver, by not being clearly against it in front of the other players, they made it easier for the other players to be in on the fix). The whole fix seemed to be on such shakey ground in terms of the players actually going through with it that if either Jackson or Weaver mounted much of a protest against it, it is likely that the fix would have fallen through. Then there's the whole matter of the team throwing games in the next season. So even if Jackson didn't intentionally throw the World Series and just accepted the money, it looks like he was throwing games the next season as the gamblers essentially blackmailed them. It really seems clear cut to me in both terms of not being in the HOF as well as being reinstated. If you are banned from baseball then no HOF induction for you. And I rally don't think there has been enough reason given to reinstate him. The whole defense of him not knowing what he was doing, or he was pressured into it, and he had good reasons to do it don't really fly in my mind. He still participated in the fix, which is more than enough for me to keep him banned. I mean really his actions helped lead to one of the biggest scandals in baseball, nearly killed professional baseball and his banning helped save baseball. How can a person, whose banning arguably saved baseball, be reinstated?

09-22-2009, 07:50 AM	#28
Mathies_dane Bat Boy Join Date: May 2007 Location: Odense, Denmark Posts: 12	I have for a long time been a pro Jackson supporter. I think the hall is missing out by not having the 3rd best batting avg in the hall. I belive that he didnt cheat as blatently as some of the others in the scandal did. I say get him in the hall in my lifetime.

09-27-2009, 11:21 PM	#33
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith Ark. USA Posts: 2,681	I'd vote Jackson into the Hall without hesitation. I forgive Joe, whose crimes were but this morning's dew: droplets soaked into the sky of history, where his feats tower mountainlike. __________________ JL Commish NPBL Rhode Island Reds ’33 ’34 ’35 TCBA San Francisco Railbornes ’74 ’76 ’77 ’78 FL New Orleans Black Sox ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59

10-07-2009, 12:25 AM	#34
Art99 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 242	I'd vote for Jackson. Obviously he was wrong to take the money (if he really did) but I bet there are lots of other players in the hall from that era that gambled or tried to throw games but just didn't get caught. Players were paid peanuts then as the owners got filthy rich off their talents. I think 90 years of punishment is more than adequate for Joe Jackson. If they can put a despicable person like Ty Cobb in there then there's a place for Jackson too.