Originally posted by AsianRoseAccording to Eight Men Out, the excellent book on the Black Sox scandal, Jackson tried his best in the series but only because the fixers had only paid a fraction of the agreed upon "throw" money. Others (notably Lefty Williams who lost 3 games in the series) did beyond question throw the series and Jackson was part of the scheme. To me, that's a far cry from merely betting on baseball as a manager!
BUT Joe Jackson's actions had a possible effect on his performance on the field. Yes, he hit .375 or so in the World Series that year, but were those hits when there were no runners on base, when there was no danger it would lose a game? We don't know. Maybe he could have hit .420 and won a game or two. We don't know. Pete Rose has never been accus ...[text shortened]... nderstand it, he never bet on Red's games, thus no reason to think it changed him as a manager.
No one has claimed that Rose ever deliberately "threw" a game or bet against his own team. To those of us who had the pleasure of watching Rose play the idea that he would do so is ludicrous; the guy was such a competitor he ran over a catcher in a meaningless All-Star game to score the winning run!
See, my thing is - He bet on the games. Finally, he admitted to it. He knew the rules and he broke them. Also, there was a lot of questions about what teams he did in fact bet on and when. Could he have bet on his own team? We'll likely never know. Can a manager have an impact on the outcome of a game?!? YES!
By bringing up Shoeless Joe, I'm just saying - they both broke the rules, why change the rules just because Pete Rose is lobbying for it.
If I recall, Buck Weaver of the so called Black Sox never took a penny, and lobbied each and every year of his life (until his death) for his case to be reviewed, saying he never cheated.
With regards to his records - we have no proof he didn't bet when he played. There were allegations, of course. Maybe he bet against himself later in life, maybe not.
The fact is though, he admitted to betting, betting is illegal. Seems he made his own case against himself by finally admitting what he'd done.
I am with you on Pete Rose as a talented baseball player. He was amazing to watch. His diving slides into third, his hustle - yes they were great displays of a great player - too bad he got himself thrown out of baseball for other reasons.
Reasons he knew about - he did things he KNEW were illegal. He took a chance, and lost.
Originally posted by turtlexAs I pointed out in a prior comment, the rules were changed AFTER Pete Rose was suspended to bar those on lifetime suspension from eligibility for the Hall of Fame. Why'd they change the rules just to keep Rose out? All I'm saying is return to the rules when Rose was suspended i.e. he's banned from baseball, but if 75% of the eligible voters choose to, he's in the Hall of Fame. If 26% think what he did should forever bar him from the Hall of Fame, then he won't get in.
why change the rules just because Pete Rose is lobbying for it.
If every player who ever broke a rule or law was barred from the Hall of Fame, they could house it in a studio apartment. Babe Ruth was a notorious drunk (illegal during prohibition) who once hung his manager outside the window of a moving train; Ty Cobb used to go into the stands and fist fight with heckling fans and on and on. The Hall should be about what you did on the field; maybe Jackson should be in it; it's been 85 freaking years!
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm just giving my opinion.
As I pointed out in a prior comment, the rules were changed AFTER Pete Rose was suspended to bar those on lifetime suspension from eligibility for the Hall of Fame. Why'd they change the rules just to keep Rose out? All I'm ...[text shortened]... ield; maybe Jackson should be in it; it's been 85 freaking years!
I think the rules were made/changed for the betterment of baseball.
Pete Rose made a mistake, and now he's paying for it.
We will never know if Rose bet on himself (his team as a manager or even his team as a player).
I'm not speaking of being a drunk or doing stupid things - Pete Rose bet on baseball, had a motive not to coach the best he could or play the best he could. He could have made financial gains because of this. First he lied about it, then he continued to lie about it, then he admitted it. Who's to say when he did or did not bet?
Thats all I'm saying.
Yes, the Hall of Fame should be about what you did on the field - but because Rose bet on things, who knows if he did all he could on the field. He's opened that question himself, by betting. To me, that takes away his opportunity to be in the Hall.
I was just tossing out Jackson and Weaver as examples.