Charlie Hustle and Shoeless Joe

[dps]

Should Pete Rose and Joe Jackson be un-banned and therefore eligible for induction into the HoF? Note that this is about their being eligible for the Hall, not about whether they should be in if eligible.

[200tang]

by 'wait til after he dies' do you mean they make a rule that he'll get in after he dies, or what?

[dps]

by 'wait til after he dies' do you mean they make a rule that he'll get in after he dies, or what?

That he is banned as long as he's alive, but the ban is lifted when he dies. Whether the Commissioner were to make that decision now or after Rose's death is irrelevant, IMO.

[MeetDaMets]

if steroid users are going to be looked at as a product of their time
and not in any way frowned upon then shoeless joe should be eligible.

the game was routinely rigged by the players at the time.

[HoustonGM]

The difference is that the punishment handed out to Jackson and Rose was a ban. The punishment for steroid use is only a ban (now) if tested positive 3 times. The punishment for steroid use during the time when most of our stars were using steroids was...uh...nothing.

If a player has three positive tests, I have absolutely no problem keeping them out of the Hall, because the punishment for three positive tests is a lifetime ban.

[actionjackson]

Both are a no for me. Had they not bet on baseball or been implicated with those that did, both are HOFers for me, but if you are caught betting on games involving your team you're gone, no exceptions. I don't care if Pete Rose only bet on his team to win. He tipped off all the bookies on the days he didn't bet and he was a manager for part of that time, so he had some control over the outcome of the game. PEDs don't cheat the fans anywhere near as much as gambling on games involving your team does regardless of how much writers want to demonize them, having turned a blind eye to them 10-20 years ago. Same thing goes for a player's actions off the field. A lifetime ban is a lifetime ban is a lifetime ban. Letting them back in sets a precedent for how long the ban should be and drastically reduces the deterrent. Knowing you will never be allowed back into the game if caught should deter all but the silly and arrogant.

[200tang]

Both are a no for me. Had they not bet on baseball or been implicated with those that did, both are HOFers for me, but if you are caught betting on games involving your team you're gone, no exceptions. I don't care if Pete Rose only bet on his team to win. He tipped off all the bookies on the days he didn't bet and he was a manager for part of that time, so he had some control over the outcome of the game. PEDs don't cheat the fans anywhere near as much as gambling on games involving your team does regardless of how much writers want to demonize them, having turned a blind eye to them 10-20 years ago. Same thing goes for a players actions off the field. A lifetime ban is a lifetime ban is a lifetime ban. Letting them back in sets a precedent for how long the ban should be and drastically reduces the deterrent. Knowing you will never be allowed back into the game if caught should deter all but the silly and arrogant.

I was actually leaning toward letting Rose back in, but I definitely agree with you. He knew what he was getting in to when he bet on games. Nobody made him do it, it was his choice. Unfortunately he got caught and now he has to live with it.

[BINGLEBOP]

Yes to both. Recognize Pete Rose's accomplishments as Hall worthy, but continue to keep him banned from baseball for life (no managing, coaching, working in any front office, etc.).

[rockiesfan4ever]

You do realize that in the 1919 World Series Shoeless Joe hit .375/.394/.565/.956 with a HR and 6 RBI.

[ragecage]

+1 rockies, Thats why I vote yes for Shoeless and No for Pete. There was really no concrete evidence to tie Shoeless to the fact he actually participated in the whole gambling ring. You can perhaps say, well he knew about it, and therefor got the ban, but there were other players that knew about it as well and didnt receive a ban.

There is really no justice to how Joe was treated in all of it, and I think that is perhaps the most glaring oversight in baseball history is the fact he isnt in.

[HoustonGM]

+1 rockies, Thats why I vote yes for Shoeless and No for Pete. There was really no concrete evidence to tie Shoeless to the fact he actually participated in the whole gambling ring. You can perhaps say, well he knew about it, and therefor got the ban, but there were other players that knew about it as well and didnt receive a ban.

There is really no justice to how Joe was treated in all of it, and I think that is perhaps the most glaring oversight in baseball history is the fact he isnt in.

Jackson admitted that he accepted money from the gamblers.

[ragecage]

Jackson admitted that he accepted money from the gamblers.

The confession was lost however.

[Slingshot]

The difference is that the punishment handed out to Jackson and Rose was a ban. The punishment for steroid use is only a ban (now) if tested positive 3 times. The punishment for steroid use during the time when most of our stars were using steroids was...uh...nothing.

If a player has three positive tests, I have absolutely no problem keeping them out of the Hall, because the punishment for three positive tests is a lifetime ban.

So if a player who is a lock for the HoF gets caught two times, you'll still vote for him?

[HoustonGM]

So if a player who is a lock for the HoF gets caught two times, you'll still vote for him?

Yes.

[rockiesfan4ever]

Jackson admitted that he accepted money from the gamblers.

Yet he still played the best of anyone on the White Sox in the series