Should Pete Rose be reinstated?

[dooley_womack1]

Oh, he was was a degenerate horseplayer. But the Hall issue deserves better than extrapolation without proof

 

[BB Bobcat]

That restaurant serves kids, right?

Not in the kitchen.

I think you're missing the point if that's your quibble.

The scale of crimes from a societal point of view doesn't always match the scale for a particular industry.

In journalism, would you rather hire a wife-beater or a guy who made up quotes?

 

[Gehrig]

Oh, he was was a degenerate horseplayer. But the Hall issue deserves better than extrapolation without proof

Without proof of what? That he gambled before he managed or not? On baseball or not?

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Pitchers hold the power, and with Cicotte and Williams, the gamblers held the aces.

Both pitchers were reluctant participants. And much of it was just following along. "Well, if Eddie's in, then I guess I am. What? You got Jackson? . . . "

The pitchers were also told they would get help and would not have to look bad. Take away that help from the hitters and fielders, and they likely buckle.

And if Jackson simply tells the Gleason, "You gotta stop this!" Cicotte never touches the ball.

Once Cicotte took the $10 grand, the game was on.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Come to think of it, this idea of letting Jackson and Rose into the Hall after they're dead is an insult to someone like Ron Santo, who waited till he was dead without ever gambling on baseball.

Both guys being discussed long held themselves as above the law, and acted like it. Of course, the tragedy is that both were lock HOF if they'd behaved themselves and didn't go out their way to act like assholes.

Do the crime, pay the price.

 

[buckweaver]

Both pitchers were reluctant participants. And much of it was just following along. "Well, if Eddie's in, then I guess I am. What? You got Jackson? . . . "

There is some evidence that Cicotte was an instigator of the fix, not a "reluctant" participant.

There is zero evidence to say whether Williams was "reluctant" or not. There is Eliot Asinof's word, fifty years after the fact, based on his interpretations of incomplete newspaper reports and one group interview with the uncredible Abe Attell.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Both pitchers were reluctant participants. And much of it was just following along. "Well, if Eddie's in, then I guess I am. What? You got Jackson? . . . "

There is some evidence that Cicotte was an instigator of the fix, not a "reluctant" participant.

There is zero evidence to say whether Williams was "reluctant" or not. There is Eliot Asinof's word, fifty years after the fact, based on his interpretations of incomplete newspaper reports and one group interview with the uncredible Abe Attell.

You saved me the trouble. Other guys threw in because they knew that Cicotte had reached for the cheese.

 

[Starman]

If your ace pitcher is in on the fix, it's pretty much a done deal.

Regardless of Lefty Williams' degree of enthusiasm for the fix, he got lit up like a fireworks factory in the deciding game.

 

[Gehrig]

Here are my thoughts of some players from the Black Sox Scandal.

Buck Weaver: I think just about everyone agrees that Weaver just had knowledge of the fix. It was clear from the beginning he was playing hard.

Chick Gandil: Conveniently retired before the 1920 season started. Probably the most dirty of any of the players, and helped throw games. Probably started the whole thing, although he was incensed when he didn't get his money, and stopped trying to lose in the field and at the plate after Game 5. His hits in the early games came when they were least needed.

Swede Risberg: He went 2 for 25. I heard someone say that, in Risberg's defense, he was a bad fielder, but I think that's pretty much a fairy tale. Even Gandil tried after Game 5. Risberg was just completely dogging it.

Happy Felsch: A power-hitter and a good fielder, it's a shame he was involved in this. Felsch had the potential to be a VERY high-quality ballplayer. And he threw everything down the crapper in 1919. Felsch's batting average is indicative that he wasn't dogging it right till the end, and more likely changed his mind after getting the reduced amount of money.

Fred McMullin: A utility player, it's not exactly obvious if McMullin was fixing games or just in on it. He stated to Risberg he wanted to be in on it, but from his two at-bats, we garner a .500 batting average. Then again, he didn't even take the bat off his shoulder or even LOOK at the ball during his first at-bat (according to Christy Mathewson). My guess is he was throwing until Game 5.

Shoeless Joe Jackson: Ultimately wound up just having knowledge of the fix, but had an amazing series, not making any errors and batting .375. But why did Jackson acknowledge that he let up in key situations? One could point to his CS, and to the fact he went hitless in the first game. After the next two games (2 and 3), in which Jackson exploded at the plate, he imploded. But then, in Games 6, 7, and 8, he hit well again (which is consistent with all but Risberg and Williams' patterns of suddenly coming to life). Was Jackson throwing games at the plate only (his only fielding gaffe seems to have been letting Happy Felsch go after a ball; Felsch proceeded to make two errors on the same play), and also on his own time? Although he didn't go to the meetings, he may have concocted his own plan on his own time. It would explain the tremendous guilt he felt for the rest of his life (versus the tremendous anger of Buck Weaver) and also repeatedly acknowledging he threw games.

Eddie Cicotte: The only reason Cicotte didn't throw his last start was because he wasn't getting the money he wanted. He was as crooked as a snake. It sickens me how much support this guy gets despite the fact, unlike Jackson, it was EXTREMELY obvious that he was throwing games. And don't tell me he threw a complete game for Game 4...he also comitted two errors, which were obviously intentional from Fullerton and Mathewson's accounts.
Lefty Williams: VERY obviously crooked. Hit hard in Games 2 and 5, and utterly shelled in Game 8...Hugh Fullerton compared him to a guy throwing BP, I believe.

 

[buckweaver]

On Joe Jackson:

1) He signed a confession.

2) There is some evidence he dogged it in the field (i.e. slow-jogging after fly balls, throwing to wrong base, etc) allowing Cincinnati to score several key runs

3) There is also evidence that his hitting mainly occurred when the games were out of hand (either way)

4) The main defenses for Jackson seem to fall into two categories, a: he was too stupid to even understand what the gamblers were proposing, or b: he agreed to the fix at first and then when he didn't get all the money he was promised, decided to try to fork the gamblers over instead.

1) A "confession" -- given under advisement by a lawyer representing his employer, not him -- in which Jackson categorically denies, on three separate occasions, ever playing less than his best.

2) There is zero evidence of this. The long-lived myth of the Reds' "triples to left field" has also been completely debunked. http://www.blackbetsy.com/theSevenTriples.html

3) The only evidence of this is that Jackson hit the Series' only home run after Game 8 had been well decided. Otherwise, Jackson had three of the White Sox's top six clutch performances as rated by WPA (win probability added): http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/XuIAv. The only game in which he performed poorly in high-leverage situations was Game 5, when he went 0-for-4 and stranded two runners on third. (It's also worth noting that ALL players perform better in team wins and worse in team losses. That's kind of how baseball works. To pick on a troll/board favorite, Derek Jeter in Yankee wins: .341/.411/.501; in losses, .269/.338/.368)

4) Regardless of all seven points made by you or me above ... the fact remains that Jackson did accept $5,000 and he's deserving of punishment for this reason alone. And that really has nothing to do with whether he "earned" that money by his performance on the field. (I don't believe there's any evidence that he did. But he certainly did take the money.)

 

[buckweaver]

Gehrig, no offense, but about 80 percent of what you just wrote is inaccurate.

I was going to respond to your thoughts on each player, but I disagree with a great majority of every point you made and that would take me more time than I have this afternoon. Sorry.

 

[Uncle.Ruckus]

Oh, how the heck would you know?