if so please answer
2007-11-01 11:10:45 · 17 answers · asked by Dawson 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
. He was in on it, and the only reason he wasnt convicted was that the evidence disappeared. He along with the other 7 was banned to make a point...and its a very valid point. I feel sorry for him, because he lost so much, but gambling was and still is the No 1 evil in baseball. It was as much in 1919 as it is today. Its a shame that Cominsky was such a miser with his own players, and led to an atmosphere that made it possible. As great as a player he was, the judgement was fair. Without a precedent and a judgement to go by, then there would be no deterrent. My head says its right but my heart says let him in.
2007-11-01 23:33:43 · answer #1 · answered by allenmontana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jackson probably did take part in the fixing of the 1919 Series.
Although he hit .375 in the series, his baserunning, for example , was questionable... he would hold at third base on plays (certain infield outs) that he normally would have scored...
In the field, he never was charged with an error...but the Reds hit three triples to left field (where Jackson was playing) during the series... how often do you see a triple hit to left field?
Jackson hit the only home run of the series, but the home run came in the 3rd inning of the final game, after the Reds had already built a 5-0 lead in that game (final score was 10-5).
You have to do a thorough game by game and at-bat by at-bat analysis of Jackson's plate appearances and his baserunning in the series, but most indications are that he didn't go all out in the truly crucial situations. Just reading the line score doesn't tell the whole story of his play.
He should not be in the HOF.
2007-11-01 19:58:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He's one of my favorite old-time ballplayers, but I still can't excuse his actions in the Black Sox scandal.
Like an answer above mentioned, he chose to stay silent regarding what he knew about throwing the Series. And even if he did play very well, he still accepted money from gamblers. His play and the things he said afterwards show me that he felt remorse, but that only goes so far. I think he should be forgiven for what he did, but still not allowed in the Hall of Fame.
Tough question, though. Others will say he belongs, and it doesn't make either of us just because we disagree.
2007-11-01 18:22:07 · answer #3 · answered by Craig S 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No one who has an opinion worth hearing.
Jackson was complicit in the throw. He knew about it, and admitted this in a sworn deposition. It's not a question of how sincerely he played in the thrown games. That sort of infantile demand for causality of guilt is worthless, because MLB doesn't insist upon that high a standard.
Not that his play in the thrown games makes him look good. It doesn't, though it is a small sample of data which prohibits making solid conclusions.
2007-11-01 19:32:56 · answer #4 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Jackson did try to turn the money he received to Charlie Comisky, owner of the White Sox, but Comisky would not accept it. Joe's actions during the series prove he was not in on the fix. he should be in the hall. He's buried here in Greenville, SC, in the same cemetary I plan to be buried in. Cool.
2007-11-01 18:56:46 · answer #5 · answered by Kelly P 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I used to. But I have to say, unless NEW evidence arises, since he was barred, he should stay barred. Same with Rose. All things being considered, since the principles are dead, we have to accept that if it was good enough when Jackson was alive -- and A. Bartlett Giamatti -- then it should stand now, barring some new information.
2007-11-01 18:32:17 · answer #6 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There was so proof, in that he knew about the games being thrown, and didn't tell anybody about it. He was an illiterate, but not an idiot. He knew what was going on--read the court transcripts. He chose to shut up--bad choice, man.
No, I don't think he should, for the reasons mentioned above. Let his example serve as a reminder to not be a bystander. "Clueless Joe" would be as good a nickname for him, based on his actions. . . .
2007-11-01 18:18:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
He should be. He busted his @ss in the 1919 World Series.
2007-11-01 18:19:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not me. And I am a real baseball fan so I would know.
2007-11-01 20:49:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I think he should be. There really wasn't any proof he was involved in the "Black Sox" scandal.
Check out his stats in his 12 year career:
BA: .356
SLG: .517
Hits: 1772
There are players in the HOF with simliar stats...so he should be.
2007-11-01 18:18:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋