Which banned players should be in the HOF?

[Soriano12]

cicotte was one of the best pitchers of his era, and one of the best spitballers.

A gambler, a sellout, and a cheater? Seems like a winner to me. Edited July 26, 2007 by Soriano12

[tinkerstoeverstochance]

Joe and Pete for sure. That said we still need a new commissioner, who can take us out of the new toxic era in Baseball('Roid era) because if Bonds And Sosa get in; Joe and Pete should be in too..

I know we have some time before either 'roid era players are eligible. My wish is that we have a new commissioner by that time comes around. Don't get me wrong I like some of the things that have happened under Bud, but with the roid era and the fiasco that has become the All-Star game make you wonder alot about or current Commish.

[NCCubFan]

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.

The problem you're failing to recognize is that, if he bets on a game, he may do something stupid like mess up the bullpen for the next several days just to try to win one game. Sometimes a manager needs to look at the bigger picture and realize that at times you need to think of future consequences (such as burning out the bullpen or leaving a starter in too long) resulting from going all out today. Yes, a manager's job is to win, but from the bigger picture of winning enough to make the postseason as opposed to winning one specific game. Basically, it's the idea that sometimes you need to lose the battle in order to win the war.

[jyoung55]

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.

 

That's a pretty ignorant statement of the facts. Look up Shoeless Joe's stats from that series. If he was throwing anything, I'd hate to see the numbers he'd put up trying.

 

Pete is not getting in until Shoeless Joe does. And that won't happen until after Pete's dead. I think the punishment will last his lifetime.

[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.

 

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.

 

That's a point I respect.

However, emotions aside, I don't see why the guy gets a free pass. There's not a lot of room for interpretations.

 

The rule says that if you bet on baseball, you can't be in the Hall of Fame.

Pete Rose bet on baseball.

Therefore, Pete Rose cannot be in the Hall of Fame.

 

I do agree with the assertion that the fact we're discussing them as some of the greatest players ever gives them enough respect. Everyone knows that they would have been in a long time ago if it wasn't for their actions.

 

No one will forget how good they were just as no one will forget the baseball crimes they committed. They are given respect, but putting them in the hall, imo, somewhat validates the wrongs they committed.

[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.

 

That's a pretty ignorant statement of the facts. Look up Shoeless Joe's stats from that series. If he was throwing anything, I'd hate to see the numbers he'd put up trying.

 

That's a pretty ignorant analysis of the facts. Look up Shoeless Joe's stats from games the Black Sox lost in that series, versus the stats in the games that they won. Night and day. Also look at the fact that he was one of the best fielders in the league, and allowed three triples in the series while playing leftfield. And not the least of all was that he accepted money with the understanding that he'd help the Black Sox lose.

[OleMissCub]

That's a pretty ignorant analysis of the facts. Look up Shoeless Joe's stats from games the Black Sox lost in that series, versus the stats in the games that they won. Night and day. Also look at the fact that he was one of the best fielders in the league, and allowed three triples in the series while playing leftfield. And not the least of all was that he accepted money with the understanding that he'd help the Black Sox lose.

 

Correct. I don't buy into the "he was too stupid to understand" malarkey that is so often associated with that tale. He knew what he was doing.

 

That said, baseball at that time was far different than it is now. If I wasn't getting the respect or income that I deserved from an EXTREMELY wealthy owner like Comiskey, whom I had won over 100 games for, I would have rolled over just to stick it to him as well.

[OleMissCub]

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.

The problem you're failing to recognize is that, if he bets on a game, he may do something stupid like mess up the bullpen for the next several days just to try to win one game. Sometimes a manager needs to look at the bigger picture and realize that at times you need to think of future consequences (such as burning out the bullpen or leaving a starter in too long) resulting from going all out today. Yes, a manager's job is to win, but from the bigger picture of winning enough to make the postseason as opposed to winning one specific game. Basically, it's the idea that sometimes you need to lose the battle in order to win the war.

 

Fair points certainly.

 

My main beef is that it happened as a manager and not as a player.

[seanimal]

cicotte was one of the best pitchers of his era, and one of the best spitballers.

A gambler, a sellout, and a cheater? Seems like a winner to me.

 

Uhh, you do realize that nearly everyone was throwing a spitball in those days right? It was not only perfectly legal, it was widely accepted.

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

The problem you're failing to recognize is that, if he bets on a game, he may do something stupid like mess up the bullpen for the next several days just to try to win one game. Sometimes a manager needs to look at the bigger picture and realize that at times you need to think of future consequences (such as burning out the bullpen or leaving a starter in too long) resulting from going all out today. Yes, a manager's job is to win, but from the bigger picture of winning enough to make the postseason as opposed to winning one specific game. Basically, it's the idea that sometimes you need to lose the battle in order to win the war.

 

Fair points certainly.

 

My main beef is that it happened as a manager and not as a player.

 

Perhaps, not very likely though. He agree to be banned. There is a clear rule that was in place well before he got into the league that said gambling equals banishment. Banishment equals no association. There's no god given right to get in the hall. Rose sullied the game of baseball and deserves to be banished from the game.

[seanimal]

I wonder what kind of career Buck Weaver would have finished with had he not been banned along with the other Black Sox.

[Electron Blue]

edit: nevermind. misunderstood something.

[Electron Blue]

I wonder what kind of career Buck Weaver would have finished with had he not been banned along with the other Black Sox.

 

sarcasm? i don't see anything significant about his career? sorry if I just didn't get it...

[OleMissCub]

I wonder what kind of career Buck Weaver would have finished with had he not been banned along with the other Black Sox.

 

Good player, but not HOF-wothy.

 

Interesting that the team also had HOFers Eddie Collins and Red Faber.

[seanimal]

I wonder what kind of career Buck Weaver would have finished with had he not been banned along with the other Black Sox.

 

sarcasm? i don't see anything significant about his career? sorry if I just didn't get it...

 

Good player, but not HOF-wothy.

 

I didn't necessarily mean to assert that he was HOF-worthy at the time of his banishment, just that he could have finished as a borderline case had be been able to play and stay healthy. Joe Jackson has a better case, but still probably doesn't qualify considering the numbers as they stand.

 

Edit: And Weaver wasn't a dirty cheater.

[OleMissCub]

Edit: And Weaver wasn't a dirty cheater.

 

Indeed. I read 8 Men Out a few years ago after seeing the film and it's pretty sad what happened to Buck. He was put in a tough spot because a baseball team is a tight fraternity and he certainly didn't want to snitch on his friends.

[soccer10k]

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.

 

That's a pretty ignorant statement of the facts. Look up Shoeless Joe's stats from that series. If he was throwing anything, I'd hate to see the numbers he'd put up trying.

 

That's a pretty ignorant analysis of the facts. Look up Shoeless Joe's stats from games the Black Sox lost in that series, versus the stats in the games that they won. Night and day. Also look at the fact that he was one of the best fielders in the league, and allowed three triples in the series while playing leftfield. And not the least of all was that he accepted money with the understanding that he'd help the Black Sox lose.

 

Game 1: 0-4 in 9-1 loss

Game 2: 3-4, 2B in 4-2 loss

Game 3: 2-3 in 3-0 win

Game 4: 1-4, 2B in 2-0 loss

Game 5: 0-4 in 5-0 loss

Game 6: 2-4, RBI in 5-4 win

Game 7: 2-4, 2 RBI in 4-1 win

Game 8: 2-5, 2B, HR, 3 RBI in 10-5 loss

 

In 3 wins: 6-11, 3 RBI

In 5 losses: 6-21, 3 2B, HR, 3 RBI

 

I wouldn't say they're night and day. His SLG was better in the games they lost than the games they won.

[circlecitycub]

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.

The problem you're failing to recognize is that, if he bets on a game, he may do something stupid like mess up the bullpen for the next several days just to try to win one game. Sometimes a manager needs to look at the bigger picture and realize that at times you need to think of future consequences (such as burning out the bullpen or leaving a starter in too long) resulting from going all out today. Yes, a manager's job is to win, but from the bigger picture of winning enough to make the postseason as opposed to winning one specific game. Basically, it's the idea that sometimes you need to lose the battle in order to win the war.

 

Fair points certainly.

 

My main beef is that it happened as a manager and not as a player.

 

How do you know that he didn't bet as a player?

 

Pete is nothing but a cheap opportunist. He denied any wrong doing for years until he realized he could write a book with a half-assed confession and make some money all the while pimping himself for reinstatement.

 

The man dishonored the sport by betting and lying. Why should the sport honor such a man?

 

MLB doesn't choose to act like he never existed. He is still listed in their stats database with all of the other MLBer's. So, by putting him in the HOF is nothing more than honoring an individual that definitely doesn't deserve as such.

[bhogg]

Here's the problem with the "he bet on the Reds to win" argument. Pete didn't bet on every game. He gave the bookies a pattern. A game that he didn't bet on could have been interpreted as a game he figured they would lose. I'm sure a bookie could turn that into something.

 

 

Also, do the rules state that gambling excludes a person from the hall of fame? I thought it said they'd be banned from major league baseball. It is my understanding that the HoF is not the major league hall of fame. It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

[OleMissCub]

 

How do you know that he didn't bet as a player?

 

We don't. But we can't punish people because of speculation. For all we know Hank Aaron bet on baseball (I'd stake my life on the fact that Aaron never did...but my point remains).

 

The man dishonored the sport by betting and lying. Why should the sport honor such a man?

 

The hall if full of scumbags, even the Sultan of Swat literally punched out two different umpires, threw dirt in the face of another, ran up in the stands and beat a fan who insulted him ala Ty Cobb, gambled thousands of dollars, had several paternity suits filed against him, etc.

[Sammy Sofa]

And come on, if we're getting into the "scumbag" territory, must we even delve into the mess that is Cobb? Or the ugly and inexcusable racism of guys like Cap Anson? What about the guys that joke about pitching a game supposedly high on any number of drugs?

 

Yes, I know this is different than getting caught betting or fixing games, but again, I think it should be up to baseball to punish these people in terms of whether or not they can play the game, not whether or not they end up in the Hall simply because keeping them out is essentially acting like they didn't exist at all, good or bad.

[circlecitycub]

 

How do you know that he didn't bet as a player?

 

We don't. But we can't punish people because of speculation. For all we know Hank Aaron bet on baseball (I'd stake my life on the fact that Aaron never did...but my point remains).

 

The man dishonored the sport by betting and lying. Why should the sport honor such a man?

 

The hall if full of scumbags, even the Sultan of Swat literally punched out two different umpires, threw dirt in the face of another, ran up in the stands and beat a fan who insulted him ala Ty Cobb, gambled thousands of dollars, had several paternity suits filed against him, etc.

 

I'm not so much saying that he should not be in because he did things that made him a scumbag. I'm specifically saying that he has and continues to give MLB the middle finger and yet expects the commissioner to pull out his chair for him in Cooperstown.

 

His so called apology and confession even dripped with insincerity and greed. Pardon me if I'm not clamoring to see this man honored. Like I said, he still exists in the record books. I can and will tell my kids who the all time hits leader is and how great of a player he was.

 

Besides all of that he agreed to a lifetime ban. Not a partial ban that he could appeal at a later date.

[OleMissCub]

And come on, if we're getting into the "scumbag" territory, must we even delve into the mess that is Cobb?

 

He actually wasn't that bad as far as the game was concerned. Most of his problems were off the field issues. Ruth had far more suspensions and fines than Cobb and I'd argue that Ruth's off the field problems might have even been worse.

 

Furthermore, in The Glory of Their Times, Lawrence Ritter interviewed over two dozen elderly deadball era players in 1962 and asked each of them whether they thought Cobb was an underhanded or dirty player; not a single one said that he was.

 

In fact, the first players strike ever was in defense of Cobb. When he went into the stands and beat up the guy who happened to have no hands, his teammates were right behind in the stands with their bats keeping people away from him so he could beat the guy up without interference. When Cobb was suspended the entire team went on strike in protest and swore they wouldn't play until he was reinstated.

 

The Tigers owner, Frank Navin, was such a cheapskate that he didn't want to forfeit the gate, so he went out and got a bunch of people from local neighborhoods to fill in against the Athletics. The Tigers players actually showed up in street clothes, bought tickets, and watched the game. Following the horrific spectacle of having local people play professionals, AL President Ban Johnson reinstated Cobb. That's still the only time in MLB history that amateurs played in an official game against professionals.

Edited July 27, 2007 by OleMissCub

[NCCubFan]

Also, do the rules state that gambling excludes a person from the hall of fame? I thought it said they'd be banned from major league baseball. It is my understanding that the HoF is not the major league hall of fame. It is the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

The Hall isn't run by MLB, but they have a rule that players under lifetime bans are ineligible for induction. I don't agree with that rule, but that's what it is.

[soccer10k]

Is there a good informational book anybody has read on the Black Sox. I've seen "Eight Men Out" at the bookstore but never picked it up. Anybody read that and have any thoughts on it?