- 08/02/2011, 11:20PM ET
CuntryBlumpkin said 08/02, 11:20 PM
The question is, after 92 years, should MLB remove their ban of Shoeless Joe Jackson and induct him into the Hall of Fame?
My answer is yes.
A career .354 hitter with an OPS of .940 in 10 full seasons of work, which is the requirement for HOF eligibility.
Shoeless Joe supposedly took bribe money to throw the 1919 World Series, and was part of the Black Sox Scandal, but there's a lot more to the story.
Jackson wasn't going to take the money until a teammate threw it on his bed, and Joe tried to tell the White Sox owner, who wouldn't listen.
And in that World Series that Joe supposedly threw, he set a record at the time with 12 hits, he had a .375 average and knocked in 6 runs.
Not only that, he didn't commit a single error in the World Series, and had an outfield assist, throwing out a runner at the plate.
I don't think a guy trying to throw the World Series would put up those kind of numbers. If I were gonna throw a series, chances are, I'm gonna have a few errors and not hit .375, and I damn sure ain't gonna have an outfield assist.
The Black Sox Scandal almost killed baseball, but it's been 92 years.
It's time to let Shoeless Joe in the Hall.
BurghFan1: on XBL said 08/03, 03:01 AM
based on statistics, sure. He's a HOF'er.
Lift the ban on (arguably) the worst cheating ever seen in the game of baseball? Negative. Shoeless, The Sox, and Rosie are all under the same table, as far as the MLB is concerned.
Cheating (or fixing) the game for personal financial benefit.
I wasnt there, I dont know what and what didnt occur in their locker room.The stats are compelling to show he wasnt involved in the throwing and he rejected the offers TWICE, but it seems pretty obvious that the commish wants to stick the guns that were placed in his hands and keep him out.
it's a double-standard and sadly, Shoeless is on the wrong side.
All commissioners since then have had this idea of "cleaning up baseball" yet there are signs of cheatings ever since. Be it steroids or altering the equipment.
Do i agree with it? Of course not. But the fact of the matter is that he's been labeled as cheating for a profit and will to continue to be so.. past the 100year anniversary.
CuntryBlumpkin said 08/03, 12:26 PM
With Shoeless Joe, it just seems like a guilty by association deal to me, and I find that wrong.
He rejected money twice. The only money he got was when his teammate threw it on his bed. He tried to tell the owner of the team, the owner wouldn't listen to him.
He had the World Series of his life, and statistically, one of the best World Series performances of all time. The numbers show he wasn't trying to throw the World Series, otherwise he wouldn't have hit a home run, wouldn't have had 12 hits, would have thrown a runner out at the plate, and would have made an error or two.
The US House of Representatives moved to have the ban lifted so Joe could be in the HOF in 1999.
The other players involved in the Black Sox scandal claimed the Shoeless Joe never attended a single meeting with the gamblers, and the only reason they included his name was to give the throwing of the series more credability.
All in all, I think Shoeless Joe was a victim in this deal, and should have never been banned in the first place.
It's time to make some things right, and reinstate him, and put him in the HOF.
BurghFan1: on XBL said 08/04, 07:19 AM
I wouldnt say guilty by association, more like participation.
Being that neither of us were there to have personal accounts of what transpired, wikipedia will jsut have to do huh?
Yeah he could of said he denied the money twice, but doesnt make it true. People lie all the time in sports for whatever reasons, be it Palmeiro, LeBron, or Brett Favre. Everyone wants to be on top and do whatever it takes. Joe wanted money, jsut like his teammates.
The ultimate cheat. Fixing the world series for personal profit. That's what he's been tied to (acquittal or no acquittal) and he'll be kept out of the hall because of it.
Is it not possible that he told his teammates that he wanted to perform well to cover up his involvement? Was he not the star player for the Sox that year? He made a mistake of participating and paid the ultimate price, no HOF bid.
Putting him in the hall would second guess every commish to have served the MLB since the ban. He's a participant, not a victim.
The only thing he was a victim of, was greed and self promotion.
The ultimate sports sin.....
CuntryBlumpkin said 08/04, 08:25 PM
How can you say guilty by participation when the other members of the Black Sox scandal even admitted that Joe was never at any of the meetings discussing the money, and that the only reason his name was brought up was to give the plot more credability?
How can you say it when he had one of the best World Series performances of all time, and set a record for the most hits in a World Series?
His name was cleared by the US House of Representatives .
He tried to tell the owner of the team, but the owner wouldn't even schedule a meeting with him.
He didn't take the money, his teammate threw the money on his motel room floor.
Joe is only guilty by association. I'm very much against that just like I'm against those who assume every player from the 90's were using PEDs because others around them were using them. It doesn't work that way.
Shoeless Joe is a victim of his teammates greed, not his own.
His name should be cleared by Major League Baseball, and he should be allowed in the baseball Hall of Fame.
It's been 92 years, and it's time to right a huge wrong.
BurghFan1: on XBL said 08/05, 01:21 AM
I'm sorry but if i was trying to fix the word series, I wouldn;t want my plot to have ANY credibility. If nobody believes it could happen, then whats the problem?
You are stuck on the fact he had a good series... they played 8 games in that series.
Is it not "credible" to the fact that they might have thought hmmm maybe we should play somewhat well so it doesnt look like we're blowing it on purpose. I mean the series went 5-3 it's not like they got swept, They played well enough to win 3 games.
He did have a good series going 12-32 and 6 RBIs but it wasnt like he BLEW out all the other players. Only 3 other players had over 30 ABs. 2 others were in double digits for hits. but it's not unbelievable, dude had the highest BA for anyone over 100 ABs going into the post season for either team at .351.
You know who else was cleared? Casey and OJ.
You just keep repeating yourself with the whole "he didnt take the money". Do you know he didnt take it 100%? negative.
My point is, he was part of the scandal one way or another. People lie, he couldve lied about not taking the money. It happens, especially in baseball.
People lie so they don't have their careers tarnished
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia