Rose to Admit Betting on Baseball! - Page 2

TCO · January 23, 2003, 01:20

MTG: "Nothing ever established more than that Jackson willingly received money for a fix that was a;ready in place with the owner, manager, and seven other players,"

That's enough for me.

REgarding the playing performance: the no errors thing sounds good, I guess. But I also remember reading that his performance was a lot worse while the fix was in. (Beginning of the series.)

MichaeltheGreat · January 23, 2003, 01:55

Jackson reportedly (although the whole issue was buried by Landis and Comiskey's attorneys at the grand jury and trial) is the one who directly informed Comiskey, and also requested to be benched for the series so he couldn't be accused of taking part.

It is clear that Comiskey knew, but if the fix was in anyway, and someone without solicitation brings you five grand in cash, (in 1919, when as a superstar you make six grand for the entire year), are you gonna turn it down when it's clear to you that the owner already knows about the fix, and won't bench you?

There was no commissioner's office or league office with authority over the game to go to, so what should Jackson have done? Rat out Comiskey (a politically wired millionaire) to the Chicago police?

Compared to the other seven, and particularly Gandil and Cicotte, there's just too little active participation by Jackson. He wasn't given the opportunity to present a defense at trial, the whole thing had been bought off by Comiskey and designed to protect Comiskey. Same with Landis' ban - the intent was to punish a few players for PR, but not to discredit the game by showing the corruption in the owner's box.

Jackson's offensive stats were:

Game 1 - 0 for 4, reached second on an error, scored
Game 2 - 3 for 4, reaches third twice, second once, left hanging
Game 3 - 2 for 3, one run scored
Game 4 - 1 for 4, double, advanced to third, left hanging
Game 5, - 0 for 4, reached first on error

So in the first half, you have 6 for 19 hitting, and 8 of 19 reaching base by any means. Not much of a throw, there. In games 1,4 and 5, other White Sox players not in on the fix (Eddie Collins and Ray Schalk) also had poor hitting performances, so that suggests Cincinatti pitching also had an influence. The fact that Jackson reached base in every game and hit over 300 in the "thrown" part of the series really doesn't make for much of a case that he participated in the throwing.

Game 6 - 2 for 4 plus walk, 1 RBI
Game 7 - 2 for 4, reached first on error, 2 RBI's
Game 8 - 2 for 5, double and homer (only homer in the series by anyone, since this was the dead ball era), 3 RBIs.

OldWarrior_42 · January 23, 2003, 02:02

Shoeless Joe , did not hit as well, in the beginning of the series as he did through the remainder of the series. Thats about it. He poured it on after a couple of games.

Whether this was just a natural process during a series or whether he turned it on so to speak, after not receiving the full amount of what he may have been under the impression he was to receive (and that is assuming he ever was fully understanding... or even a willing participant....of what was going on... he was semi illiterate, remember.)... we will never know for sure. Only Joe knows that. And he ain't talkin'.

I think Buck Weaver has as much claim for clearing his name for non participation as does Joe J.

Suffice it to say... I have my own Hall of Fame in my head... and I reckon Rose is in there... even if he was an ass hole liar punk . He was great at what he did on the field. I'm not looking to respect him or learn any morals from him, or to even use him as a role model to younger people... but his accomplishments cannot be taken away and he is technically, a Hall of Famer in my book.

Even if I hate him.

TCO · January 23, 2003, 02:18

MTG: accepting money "because the fix was already in" is complicity. REgardless of whether Comisky is also guilty, Jackson should get the hammer. That's so that people in the future who are caught in ethical dillemas make the RIGHT decision.

Imran Siddiqui · January 23, 2003, 14:02

Quote:

Suffice it to say... I have my own Hall of Fame in my head... and I reckon Rose is in there... even if he was an ass hole liar punk . He was great at what he did on the field. I'm not looking to respect him or learn any morals from him, or to even use him as a role model to younger people... but his accomplishments cannot be taken away and he is technically, a Hall of Famer in my book.

Even if I hate him.

Amen

And the whole banning thing should be on Rose's plaque as well, I think.

walruskkkch · January 23, 2003, 16:09

If Rose bet on baseball while a manager what do you think the odds are he bet on them while a player as well?

Joe Jackson deserves to be in. Gary Carter? Gary Frickin' Carter!!!???

Imran Siddiqui · January 23, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

If Rose bet on baseball while a manager what do you think the odds are he bet on them while a player as well?

Does it matter if he did? He still holds the hit record nevertheless.

walruskkkch · January 23, 2003, 16:27

By the same reasoning his betting taints the time he was manager.

Most of Rose's records are just longevity related. His average numbers are fairly unimpressive over his career. Better than many but certainly not eye popping like a Cobb or Ruth for example. Certainly one of the best players of his era but if you were choosing a starting 25 for a team he wouldn't make the cut.

Imran Siddiqui · January 23, 2003, 16:41

So? He's definetly better than some already in there (Carlton Fisk comes to mind).

His betting cannot possibly taint the time he was a player, because of his stats. If he bet against his team, then his stats would, of course, suffer and he wouldn't be HoF material.

Looking at Rose's stats (which is what the Hall is mostly based on), he had over 200 hits 8 times in his career. In 21 years he has a career batting average of .303. A 17 time All Star, he was NL MVP in 1973, and finished top 5 in voting 5 times.

According Bill James' stats, he is most like (in his career) Paul Molitor, followed by Tris Speaker and then Ty Cobb. According to James' HoF monitor (where anything >100 is likely HoF) Rose scores a 313.5. By contrast, Ted Williams rates 348.0 on James' HoF meter and Willie Mays is 357.5, while Barry Bonds is 278.5.

*all stats from www.baseballreference.com

walruskkkch · January 23, 2003, 16:53

Why would the stats have to reflect his betting on baseball? A game dropped here and there, a "bad day", all could have happened and who would be the wiser?

Rose is still an average player who was average over a long period of time.

MichaeltheGreat · January 23, 2003, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
MTG: accepting money "because the fix was already in" is complicity. REgardless of whether Comisky is also guilty, Jackson should get the hammer. That's so that people in the future who are caught in ethical dillemas make the RIGHT decision.

You mean like to take it in the shorts for Comiskey? Or get shot by a pissed off racketeer's hitter because there's big money riding on the series and you're obviously not playing ball?

If there was some practical alternative at the time, I'd tend to agree.

Jackson was caught (whatever the deal was) between a non-existent league and MLB office, Comiskey (who was in on it, and presumably had a lot of money at stake), a corrupt Chicago PD (who probably had no jurisdiction), and a bunch of big-name racketeers who he had no contact with.

Given that Jackson reportedly informed Comiskey and asked to be benched, and was a semi-literate farmboy who happened to play baseball, I don't see the degree of complicity necessary to ban him for life. A one year suspension and fine, maybe, not a lifetime ban.

If there was anything close to the current setup, with a league office and commissioner, player's association, free agency, etc., then I'd agree on applying a more stringent standard. With baseball's setup in 1919, however, I don't see there was much practical choice. The fact that everyone at the time of the investigation (grand jury, trial court, and commissioner's investigation by Landis) steered clear of any investigation of Comiskey, and sat on the claim that Jackson informed Comiskey and asked to be benched should create enough reasonable doubt in my mind. Lumping Jackson and Weaver in the same category as Gandil and Cicotte just makes no sense at all.

Imran - Rose betting on baseball games and lying about sure as hell taints the time he was a player.

Tom - Shoeless Joe's stats in his three off games (1, 4 and 5) are pretty consistent with the stats of Eddie Collins and Ray Schalk, and they weren't in on the fix. Cinci shut down everyone on those days, and you have to figure they had some things going for them, else they wouldn't have been in the series.

Jackson's outs were hard line drives, hard grounders - typical outs of someone swinging for a hit and not quite solid contact - the sorts of outs Ruth, Cobb, DiMaggio, Williams and others made all the time. In two of those first five games, Jackson had as good or better hitting performances as he did in the last three, so the pattern just isn't there, IMO.

Imran Siddiqui · January 23, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Why would the stats have to reflect his betting on baseball? A game dropped here and there, a "bad day", all could have happened and who would be the wiser?

Who cares?

He has the stats to get in. That's ALL that matter! The HoF isn't a political organization. It is to honor the best, and Rose was one of them.

MichaeltheGreat · January 23, 2003, 19:36

The HoF is to honor people for their "contributions to baseball" - being a decent hitter who stuck around the game a long time, while flagrantly violating the known rules and betting on the outcome of games, violates the core ethical rules of the professional sport.

Therefore, Rose's wilful conduct ignoring and disregarding the rules affects his contribution - the net effect of Rose in the HoF is to say "Hey, boys and girls, cheat your skinny little hearts out, as long as you get away with it long enough to pile up some stats along the way."

Had Rose been caught earlier, he wouldn't have had those stats in the first place, because he would have been banned from the sport. Any debate on Rose's stats really comes down to "he didn't get caught breaking the rules for a long time."

TCO · January 23, 2003, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

You mean like to take it in the shorts for Comiskey? Or get shot by a pissed off racketeer's hitter because there's big money riding on the series and you're obviously not playing ball?

If there was some practical alternative at the time, I'd tend to agree.

Jackson was caught (whatever the deal was) between a non-existent league and MLB office, Comiskey (who was in on it, and presumably had a lot of money at stake), a corrupt Chicago PD (who probably had no jurisdiction), and a bunch of big-name racketeers who he had no contact with.

Given that Jackson reportedly informed Comiskey and asked to be benched, and was a semi-literate farmboy who happened to play baseball, I don't see the degree of complicity necessary to ban him for life. A one year suspension and fine, maybe, not a lifetime ban.

If there was anything close to the current setup, with a league office and commissioner, player's association, free agency, etc., then I'd agree on applying a more stringent standard. With baseball's setup in 1919, however, I don't see there was much practical choice. The fact that everyone at the time of the investigation (grand jury, trial court, and commissioner's investigation by Landis) steered clear of any investigation of Comiskey, and sat on the claim that Jackson informed Comiskey and asked to be benched should create enough reasonable doubt in my mind. Lumping Jackson and Weaver in the same category as Gandil and Cicotte just makes no sense at all.

Imran - Rose betting on baseball games and lying about sure as hell taints the time he was a player.

Tom - Shoeless Joe's stats in his three off games (1, 4 and 5) are pretty consistent with the stats of Eddie Collins and Ray Schalk, and they weren't in on the fix. Cinci shut down everyone on those days, and you have to figure they had some things going for them, else they wouldn't have been in the series.

Jackson's outs were hard line drives, hard grounders - typical outs of someone swinging for a hit and not quite solid contact - the sorts of outs Ruth, Cobb, DiMaggio, Williams and others made all the time. In two of those first five games, Jackson had as good or better hitting performances as he did in the last three, so the pattern just isn't there, IMO.

He made his choice and can live with it. Maybe the next time someone feels caught in circumstances they will do the right thing.

OldWarrior_42 · January 23, 2003, 20:00

MtG.... I believe longevity and putting up numbers year after year are worth something. Rose did that. He was better than an average ballplayer and played at a time when 40 homers and a .300 ba meant more than they do today.

He didn't hit the homers, but he got the rallies started, scored runs, played fearless and that deserves recognition.

Whether he broke rules or any thing else like betting on games or whatnot, I don't give a **** about it. Sports doesn't have that place in my eyes like when I was a young kid. It is not full of revered people that should be held on pedestals and held to a higher standard.

I wish it were different , but it isn't.

Therefore, I feel he has "hall stats" even if he doesn't have what some want to believe in as "hall lifestyle".

Cobb was a racist, I'm sure many others were as well, Ruth and others were drunken womanizers and to be honest... I don't care about that when it comes to deciding if "I" think he has stats worthy of The Hall.

Like I said, I don't look to these guys for any type of morals or help in getting through life the right way or the good way. My parents and my Wife work for me in that manner.

And the only thing I meant about Jackson 's stats were basically to show what you were saying as well. I didn't have the exact stats handy, but he did hit better and better as the series went on ... especially the last 3 games, which just shows to me a normal pattern in baseball. Once around , then you start to hit them better second and third time around.

Simply put, I don't think Jackson was throwing anything.

MichaeltheGreat · January 23, 2003, 20:25

Tom - to me the difference is simple.

Yes, Rose has the stats, but what he did, was in direct violation of the rules of professional baseball.

Unlike being a drunk, or a racist (look at the **** that happened to Jackie Robinson), or a womanizer, Rose's actions went directly to the integrity of the results of games. There's a reason that betting on professional sports is against the rules, and a reason that betting on professional baseball games is a higher violation of those rules. And that reason is the integrity of the results of the games, to prevent anything like the erosion of public support for the game that started around the time that word of the Black Sox scandal leaked out to the public.

Canseco might be an ******* for driving over 100 mph in a school zone in Phoenix, and that might not qualify him as the proverbial starry-eyed role model

, but the basic difference with Canseco, Ruth, Cobb, or others is that what they did reflected on their character as individuals, not on the integrity of the sport.

Rose is in a category of his own in that respect. Pete Rose with a problem at the craps table is one thing - Pete Rose betting on the outcome of major league baseball games (and other related bets) where his actions as manager or player could influence the results of those games, is entirely different. Had Rose come clean early on with exactly what he'd bet on, and had he produced some form of records, that would be one thing - but he lied, and lied repeatedly, trying to cover his ass.

Now he's decided "I'm going to tell a partial truth, if you look the other way and don't get into the details, and if you give me what I want." If they kiss Rose's ass and let him into the Hall, I hope they mount a big spitoon under his plaque.

OldWarrior_42 · January 23, 2003, 21:07

Quote:

And that reason is the integrity of the results of the games,

Actually Mike, I don't really believe in the total integrity of the outcome of scores in many sporting events. I think it might be a little naive of me to think that things haven't been influenced more times than we may ever know, in the past present or future.

I'm just not starry eyed anymore. Personally I have more dislike for a racist than a gambler... and whether or not he influenced outcomes or not, I don't care anymore. It has been done before and most probably will be done again. Call me a cynical B astard if you like but that is just how I feel.

So , Personally I think he has the stats to be in... and in my mind he is in, but if they keep him out officially... I could care less. Probably would serve him right anyway... let him in after he is dead.

Just like in my mind, Shoeless Joe is in.

I don't need things to be official or logged down in history or anything like that for me to see certain things in my head.

And I see alot of stuff in there anyway. :-P

OldWarrior_42 · January 23, 2003, 21:09

Quote:

but if you were choosing a starting 25 for a team he wouldn't make the cut.

Neither would about 250 others or so, either. Seeing as how you are limited to just 25. :-P~~

cavebear · January 23, 2003, 22:41

I don't care whather Rose *admits* what he did or not. I still want him banned from the Hall of Fame for his lifetime. I want him to die knowing he was not admitted.

Harsh? Yes.

Deserved? Yes.

Imran Siddiqui · January 24, 2003, 11:55

Quote:

The HoF is to honor people for their "contributions to baseball" - being a decent hitter who stuck around the game a long time, while flagrantly violating the known rules and betting on the outcome of games, violates the core ethical rules of the professional sport.

Don't matter. His contributions to baseball was being 'Charlie Hustle'. The rest of this gambling BS, don't matter at all to me. Doesn't impact his stats or his excellence as a player.

walruskkkch · January 24, 2003, 14:25

To you maybe, but to others it does.

Ming · January 24, 2003, 14:34

Gee... I kind of like the idea of not admitting him to the HOF until AFTER he is dead.

And on that note... put Shoeless Joe in now

TCO · January 24, 2003, 14:36

Free Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose! We will never forget!

walruskkkch · January 24, 2003, 14:36

We could kill Rose now so he can gain two rewards, one earthly and one heavenly.

MichaeltheGreat · January 24, 2003, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Don't matter. His contributions to baseball was being 'Charlie Hustle'. The rest of this gambling BS, don't matter at all to me. Doesn't impact his stats or his excellence as a player.

Charlie Hustle, or Charlie Hustler?

And the gambling BS only impacted the integrity of the game itself.

Chris 62 · January 24, 2003, 14:43

The baseball hall of fame includes a morals clause, if Rose admits he bet, he's ineligable.

He also signed a paper agreeing to a lifetime ban.

Keep Charlie Hustle OUT.

Imran Siddiqui · January 24, 2003, 16:52

Quote:

And the gambling BS only impacted the integrity of the game itself.

Yeah, and thus we should keep out the hits leader out of the HoF? That's silly.

Quote:

To you maybe, but to others it does.

Any MANY more people it doesn't matter either. That is why Selig is going to lift the ban on Rose, because Rose got the longest ovation of in the All Star Game, because the people want him in. All this ban has done is to make a scumbag into a venerated hero.

walruskkkch · January 24, 2003, 16:52

Shouldn't we be worrying about what the French and Germans think? I'm sure they are for overlooking any of his previous transgressions. Probably ask for some trade deals as well.