Does anyone think that Shoeless Joe Jackson, George Buck Weacer, and Eddie Cicotte Should be in the HOF??

Question

I do and if you answer you have just helped an 8th grade student at wy'east middle school with NHD!!!(National History Day)

Answer 1

I disagree. I believe Eddie Cicotte should not be inducted into the Hall of Fame but I think that George "Buck" Weaver and "Shoeless Joe" Jackson should be. Why? You cannot compare our generation to their generation. Gambling was rampant at the time of the Chicago Black Sox scandal. Gamblers were routinely hanging around ballparks. There was no free agency for ballplayers - they were slaves to the team owners (ie: the reserve clause). Charles Comiskey was cheap and did not honor agreements (for example: Comiskey was going to give Cicotte a bonus if he won a certain number of games. When Cicotte was one win away from earning the bonus, he was benched). Shoeless Joe Jackson's stats in the 1919 World Series do not look like a player throwing the games. There is also conflicting "evidence" of what Jackson did or did not know, they even said Jackson tried to tell Comiskey and also tried to not play in the World Series because he knew it was tainted. George "Buck" Weaver was an amazing third baseman. Outside of not reporting or ratting out his teammates, Weaver had nothing to do with the fix. This was also a time when gamblers were very cuthroat (think of mafia types). Players were not the prissy and coddled millionaires they are today. These were mainly uneducated blue collar guys, some were pretty hard core type of men. For people to just say no, they should not be inducted, I hope those people are looking at the times those players played and lived. I hope they look at all the factors involved. Factors such as those outlined above and more: Joe Jackson could not read or write, players had no agents, players had no rights.

Answer 2

Jackson and Cicotte were the only two that would have been HOF worthy if they had full careers. Cicotte definately no because he definately threw the game....I understand his reasoning for it Comisky paid them very poorly and generally was a jerk when it came to bonuses and what not. Jackson I could get behind. The banning for for life. Jackson's life has long since ended therefore he's no longer banned. Jackson's stats even with the unexpected end to his career are better then some current Hall of Fame players.

However on his plaque a mention would be made about what he did. The Black Sox weren't the first to throw a game, and honestly I don't believe they were the last either.

I really think that the time has come to look over the rules to gambling and what not. Keep them steep enough to keep most from it...5 years first time, 10 the second, done the third....but make it so that they weren't completely removed from the game.

I mean the Reds can't even retire Rose's number and honor him on the field for what he did as a player.

Answer 3

no to all 3:

Buck Weaver wasn't good enough under any circumstance - just because they made him the stand up guy in "8-men out" doesn't make him a HOFer.

Joe and Eddie were certainly HOF caliber; but they got caught cheating. Don't believe everything you see in movies. They both took money and threw games. Just because Shoeless Joe was illiterate doesn't mean he was dumb - as a matter of fact, if the rest of the team was as smart about throwing the games as he was, they may not have been caught.

Answer 4

No.

None of them are eligible, they did what they did, they knew what they did, and bad decisions can have bad consequences.

Weaver's case has the best potential for reinstatement, and it isn't remotely a GOOD potential, but if someone really wanted to spend their life lobbying for the exoneration of the Black Sox, Weaver is where to start. But no, the apologists always wanna start with Jackson, which is why the effort is deservedly doomed.

Two wrongs do not make a right. THREE wrongs is really not helping matters.

And remember, although Jackson was illiterate, that just means he couldn't read or write very well. He wasn't some utter moron who naively got duped into the fix; he knew what was happening.


-----
Sounds like Leo Durocher.

Answer 5

No. None of them should be.

Shoeless Joe Jackson would be the only one with the credentials, Eddie Cicotte being on the cusp.

But, no, unless new evidence is found that they did not throw the Series, they are out.

Answer 6

I believe Jackson and Cicotte should be in the HOF - Weaver's numbers, although good, do not merit selection. I am basing my argument on the belief that the information in the movie Eight Men Out is accurate, and that these men had no other choice but to do what they did.

Answer 7

No. As the evidence showed, and Commissioner Landis said at the time, the evidence showed that Cicotte threw his games. Weaver and Jackson, while probably playing in earnest, were aware of the conspiracy and did nothing! They have earned their place in the hall of shame, alongside Pete Rose, Mark McGuire & Barry Bonds.

Answer 8

Joe jackson, yes. Some thing that happened 88 years ago should not still be hanging over thier heads. Jackson has been dead for 56 years, and baseball still wants to use him as an example.

Answer 9

The HOF is for what you do between the lines.
Its not the moral hall of fame
has any forgot about a manger that had ties to gamblers & supended for a year
(lets see how many know that one put it on yahoo answers & see how manny reply)

Answer 10

Yeah, Gene sums up pretty much exactly how I feel.

It's a sad story, but they knowingly took money to fix the outcome of a World Series.