Which banned players should be in the HOF?

[OleMissCub]

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/8008/rosemf0.jpg

 

Pete Rose:

 

4256 hits, 1314 RBI, 746 2B, .303 avg, 1 MVP

 

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/prev_wiki/images/thumb/8/8f/180px-EddieCicotte55.jpg

 

Eddie Cicotte:

 

14 year career: 208 wins, 35 shutouts, 2.38 lifetime ERA

 

http://www.hickoksports.com/images/jackson_joe.jpg

 

Joe Jackson:

 

10 year career: 1772 hits, .356 avg, .423 obp

[RyneSandberg]

Pete

[Skyballer]

Defintely Pete Rose

 

This oughta be a poll

[JimSorgi]

Pete Rose should be in.

[Roast]

Pete and Shoeless Joe for sure.

 

The way I see it; it they allowed Ty Cobb in (first, no less), no one should ever ever ever be held out for personal/off the field/legal problems.

[OleMissCub]

I say all 3 should get in

 

Pete: Got in trouble as a MANAGER. That shouldn't effect his legacy as a player. Furthermore, as far as we know, he bet on his team to WIN. I'm not sure I see a huge problem with that.

 

Jackson and Cicotte: I would have done the same thing they did if Charles Comiskey owned me as a player and treated me like he did them.

[TruffleShuffle]

Eddie Ciccotte wasn't that great... and I'm not so sure that guys who intentionally tank the most important games in the sport deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. That's crossing another line, IMO.

[Abe Frohman]

I think Pete has paid his dues. He belongs in the HOF.

[ConstableRabbit]

None. They broke rules that said they couldn't be in the hall. No one denies that they're some of the best players ever -- they just can't have the honor of being in the hall.

[OleMissCub]

None. They broke rules that said they couldn't be in the hall. No one denies that they're some of the best players ever -- they just can't have the honor of being in the hall.

 

I understand the logic for being against Cicotte and Jackson given that what they did occurred on the field, but Rose's issue didn't occur as a player, but as a manager.

[OleMissCub]

Eddie Ciccotte wasn't that great... and I'm not so sure that guys who intentionally tank the most important games in the sport deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. That's crossing another line, IMO.

 

He's borderline. He compares similarly to many of his contemporary pitchers who made it into the hall such as Chief Bender, Jack Chesbro, and Stan Coveleski. His 2.38 lifetime ERA is 26th all time.

 

Jackson and Rose are no brainers as far as baseball skills are concerned.

[Andy]

I said this in another thread, anyone HOF-worthy should be in. The Hall of Fame is about the game's history and the best players who played it, not for withholding moral judgment on who should be in.

[Rob]

Joe Jackson and Pete Rose for sure. If I remember correctly though, Cicotte's numbers don't stand up too well. I know the comps you put up there were mostly considered mistakes.

[TruffleShuffle]

I said this in another thread, anyone HOF-worthy should be in. The Hall of Fame is about the game's history and the best players who played it, not for withholding moral judgment on who should be in.

 

yes, but a player intentionally performing poorly for money on the biggest stage is not in the vein of Pete Rose, Ty Cobb or whatever other lowlife you want to throw in there. I agree that a player's actions off the field should not be considered, unless they do something like bomb the Statue of Liberty or turn into Ted Bundy. But I'm judging Ciccotte and Jackson as not worthy for the Hall because of their actions on the field - namely, throwing games for money on the sport's biggest stage. That, to me, is inexcusable.

[SouthSideRyan]

None of them.

[seanimal]

Rose should definitely be in the hall, as should Joe Jackson, regardless of what he did during that WS. It was a different time then, and it is pretty sad to cast aspersions upon a player for opting towards a financial incentive at that point in time considering the days we live in now.

[NewUserName]

None. Gambling was a plague in baseball before the Black Sox were banned for life. The only known issue since is Pete Rose. Lifetime ban is a great deterant. Keep them all out.

[biittner77]

Most HOF players are largely forgotten. That we're still talking about Joe Jackson and Pete Rose is proof that there really isn't any advantage for either of them to actually be included.

[Sammy Sofa]

All of them.

 

Basbeall can go nuts punishing these guys in terms of whether or not they can play, as they did with the Black Sox, but banning them from the HOF really seems to serve no purpose outside of an extra "'EFF YOU!!!" Give 'em a seperate "Wing of the Damned" or something equally as inane, but pretending like they didn't exist is ridiculous.

[jersey cubs fan]

Furthermore, as far as we know, he bet on his team to WIN. I'm not sure I see a huge problem with that.

 

How are people so clueless to still hold this opinion?

 

Has the NBA ref scandal not shown the problems with gambling on a sport you participate in? It doesn't have to be a direct throwing of a game.

[OleMissCub]

Furthermore, as far as we know, he bet on his team to WIN. I'm not sure I see a huge problem with that.

 

How are people so clueless to still hold this opinion?

 

Has the NBA ref scandal not shown the problems with gambling on a sport you participate in? It doesn't have to be a direct throwing of a game.

 

There's a difference in the NBA ref and what Rose did. Rose mostly bet on games he wasn't involved in and when he did bet on his own team, he bet on them to win....which is his job as their manager.

 

Again, none of that matters to me because there's no evidence he did it as a player. A managerial career and a playing career are DIFFERENT thing.

[jersey cubs fan]

Furthermore, as far as we know, he bet on his team to WIN. I'm not sure I see a huge problem with that.

 

How are people so clueless to still hold this opinion?

 

Has the NBA ref scandal not shown the problems with gambling on a sport you participate in? It doesn't have to be a direct throwing of a game.

 

There's a difference in the NBA ref and what Rose did. Rose mostly bet on games he wasn't involved in and when he did bet on his own team, he bet on them to win....which is his job as their manager.

 

Again, none of that matters to me because there's no evidence he did it as a player. A managerial career and a playing career are DIFFERENT thing.

 

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

[Exile on Waveland]

Furthermore, as far as we know, he bet on his team to WIN. I'm not sure I see a huge problem with that.

 

How are people so clueless to still hold this opinion?

 

Has the NBA ref scandal not shown the problems with gambling on a sport you participate in? It doesn't have to be a direct throwing of a game.

 

There's a difference in the NBA ref and what Rose did. Rose mostly bet on games he wasn't involved in and when he did bet on his own team, he bet on them to win....which is his job as their manager.

 

Again, none of that matters to me because there's no evidence he did it as a player. A managerial career and a playing career are DIFFERENT thing.

 

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

 

A manager can certainly affect a game. Regardless of whether Rose bet on his team to win, there are point (run?) spreads and such which could bias his managing. I don't agree with the player-manager, win-lose betting distinctions either.

[Soriano12]

None..

 

Gambling is illegal at Bushwood Sir!

http://pbpl.physics.ucla.edu/About_Us/Bios/Carl_Spackler/smails.jpg

[Handlebar McSkullet]

I said this in another thread, anyone HOF-worthy should be in. The Hall of Fame is about the game's history and the best players who played it, not for withholding moral judgment on who should be in.

 

I couldnt agree more.

 

and for the record, all three are hall of fame worthy. cicotte was one of the best pitchers of his era, and one of the best spitballers.