1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shoeless Joe Jackson

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), Jul 16, 2006.


Should Joe Jackson be allowed into the Hall of Fame?

  1. Yes - Joe should be in the Hall of Fame

  2. No - he should never be re-instated.

  1. Today would have been Shoeless Joe Jackson's 116th birthday. I am curious how people here feel about letting Shoeless Joe into the Hall of Fame. If you have a definite opinion on the matter I would also like to see your reasons.
  2. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member


    He may not have thrown any games, nor did his excellent play contribute to his team's throwing of games.

    But he took money, and he had an excellent chance to stop the fix in its tracks. But he failed to stand up to Gandil and Risberg ("Swede is a hard guy") when approached, and he failed to notify the proper authorities in time to get the conspirators suspended before the first pitch was thrown.
  3. Yes.
    Point One: Statute of Limitations. Not on throwing the games; Gandil and Felsch and Risberg are out, permanently, although they never would have been considered anyway, IMHO. But for knowing about it and not reporting it? Given the level of mistrust and the outright duplicity of White Sox management, and given the fact that that hopeless old vampire Charles Comiskey is in there -- and he had a responsibility to bring what he believed to Ban Johnson, but wouldn't do it, because they hated each other -- then, certainly, 80-odd years is long enough. Also, clear Buck Weaver's name.
    Point Two: Ted Williams would agree with me. So would Babe Ruth.
  4. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure I follow.

    Comiskey DID bring it to Johnson's attention shortly after the series started. It was Johnson, because of his hatred of Comiskey, who refused to pursue it. "That's the whelp of a beaten cur," he told Comiskey.
  5. 85bears

    85bears Member

    The most pathetic part of it all was Baseball Magazine's attempts at the time to blame the media for the scandal. Some things never change I guess. F.C. Lane was the Jason Whitlock of his era.
  6. But if you're going to keep Jackson out because he took money, knew, and did nothing, then don;t you have to boot Johnson and Comiskey, too?
    And I stand by my point -- given his offenses, which were venial in the great scope of things, he's done his time. Put him up for a vote and let's see if he gets in or not.
  7. leo1

    leo1 Active Member

    if pete rose ever gets in but shoeless joe stays out, the hall should shut its doors in shame.
  8. I feel the same way about Rose.
    Let's settle the thing once and for all. Put him up for a vote and let people make their cases. What do people think the over/under number would be on columns pro-and-con on that issue? The debate would be healthy.
  9. 85bears

    85bears Member

    Do you think that anybody should ever be punished for any action, at any time, in any realm? Jeez.
  10. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    If Shoeless Joe had any heirs who gave a shit, his exclusion probably would be challenged the minute baseball loses its antitrust exemption.

    But my personal feeling is ... put him in. His biggest champion was Teddy Toothpick.
  11. This issue was decided a long time ago.  Shoeless Joe was on the ballot for decades and never came close to being elected.  Banned players weren't ineligible for the HOF since 1991.
  12. leo1

    leo1 Active Member

    you can always change rules. it would take them 10 minutes to craft a rule that puts jackson on the ballot but leaves rose off.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page