Does this controversial player get your HoF vote #2: Joe Jackson - Page 2

Cooleyvol · 05-02-2008, 11:35 PM

This has been hashed out here multiple times and I'm not wanting to do it again, but there is the belief that Joe, not the sharpest tack in the box, did take the money initially not for sure what it was his task to do. Upon understanding what was expected of him, he attempted to give the money back on multiple instances.

I don't think taking the money is in doubt. Throwing the series, however, is in doubt.

I sort of feel as if Joe was taken advantage of due to the thought that he was dumb enough to go along with it, adding him into the scheme because he was talented enough to foil it with his performance. I feel as if they 'talked over his head' in getting him to take the money, but later, when someone explained it fully to him, he wanted no part of it.

KurtBevacqua · 05-03-2008, 07:17 AM

My own feeling is that as a player he was certainly deserving. However he did take money, that is really not in question. Now under what circumstances in which he took the money is very much in doubt and will likely never be answered to any degree of certainty. It's one man's theory against another's. He also likely did commit perjury in his civil suit against the White Sox organization. He was never formally charged, but the evidence of perjury was strong enough for a judge to use it as his basis for overturning a jury's decision.

I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that Joe, whether or not he actually helped throw the games, was a part of and aware of the plot. To what degree he actually understood it is open to debate and will never be known. Regardless it would seem he had more than enough information at his disposal to be reasonably able to understand what was going on. If indeed he figured it out and tried to give the money back and wanted no part of it then why did he lie on the stand in his civil trial?

I agree with jdawgsenior that because he took the money the burden of proof falls on Joe to prove otherwise, and he failed miserably in that effort. Therefore I agree that Joe should not go into the Hall of Fame.

Splitter24 · 05-03-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

This has been hashed out here multiple times and I'm not wanting to do it again, but there is the belief that Joe, not the sharpest tack in the box, did take the money initially not for sure what it was his task to do. Upon understanding what was expected of him, he attempted to give the money back on multiple instances.

I don't think taking the money is in doubt. Throwing the series, however, is in doubt.

I sort of feel as if Joe was taken advantage of due to the thought that he was dumb enough to go along with it, adding him into the scheme because he was talented enough to foil it with his performance. I feel as if they 'talked over his head' in getting him to take the money, but later, when someone explained it fully to him, he wanted no part of it.

Unfortunately, Joe Jackson knew 100% what the money was for from the beginning. His own testimony during the Black Sox trial and later during the 1924 Milwaukee trial, where he attempted to sue the White Sox over back pay, proves this.

Too much has been made of Joe Jackson's intelligence. He was illiterate and under-educated to be sure. But despite what has been historically written about him, the man was not a moron (Side note: if you've never read the transcripts from either trial, make it a priority to do so. Not only is it really interesting stuff, but if you always believed that Joe Jackson was an eyelash away from being a retard, you'll find this not to be the case at all.). He was naive enough to believe that if the other guys on the team were going to throw the series anyway, then he might as well keep the money.

Joe Jackson has always claimed that he had no part in the fixing of the games on the field. And no one has come up with any really good proof to show that he did. There's been some things (the 3 triples hit to LF during the series, his poor performance with RISP), but there are "clean" Sox who performed worse. We'll never know the 100% truth.

Does Joe Jackson belong in the Hall of Fame? I don't know and, frankly, I don't care. At this point, they'd be honoring a man who's been dead for roughly half a century. He has become a polarizing figure to people who are 90 years removed from the events in question. And the further we are removed from the events, the more vociferous the proponents and opponents become.

Jpotapoff · 05-09-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splitter24

Eight Men Out was a great movie. But Asinof's book was written over 45 years ago. A lot more details have come out about the story since then. For a more up-to-date version of the events, I suggest reading Gene Carney's Burying The Black Sox. An absolute must read for anyone interested in the Black Sox story and/or Joe Jackson. Some of the things that you thought you knew about the scandal(s) will surprise you.

Can you mention some of these new points? It's unlikely i'm going to go out and buy the book and read it any time soon. And if this book has some new revelations that would shine an entirely new light on the thing it would be nice to hear some of those revelations.

Jpotapoff · 05-09-2008, 08:50 PM

I say no. He admitted to being in on the fix. And while it's clear he was manipulated into the situation and so on it is still clear that he was involved in a major way. At the very least he didn't try to stop it in any way, and by going along with it encouraged others to be in on the fix (same as Bucky Weaver, by not being clearly against it in front of the other players, they made it easier for the other players to be in on the fix). The whole fix seemed to be on such shakey ground in terms of the players actually going through with it that if either Jackson or Weaver mounted much of a protest against it, it is likely that the fix would have fallen through.

Then there's the whole matter of the team throwing games in the next season. So even if Jackson didn't intentionally throw the World Series and just accepted the money, it looks like he was throwing games the next season as the gamblers essentially blackmailed them.

It really seems clear cut to me in both terms of not being in the HOF as well as being reinstated. If you are banned from baseball then no HOF induction for you. And I rally don't think there has been enough reason given to reinstate him. The whole defense of him not knowing what he was doing, or he was pressured into it, and he had good reasons to do it don't really fly in my mind. He still participated in the fix, which is more than enough for me to keep him banned.

I mean really his actions helped lead to one of the biggest scandals in baseball, nearly killed professional baseball and his banning helped save baseball. How can a person, whose banning arguably saved baseball, be reinstated?

View Poll Results: If you were a HoF voter, how would you vote on a Joe Jackson induction
Yes	53	67.95%
No	25	32.05%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

05-02-2008, 11:35 PM	#21 (permalink)
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Woodland Mills, TN Posts: 4,005	This has been hashed out here multiple times and I'm not wanting to do it again, but there is the belief that Joe, not the sharpest tack in the box, did take the money initially not for sure what it was his task to do. Upon understanding what was expected of him, he attempted to give the money back on multiple instances. I don't think taking the money is in doubt. Throwing the series, however, is in doubt. I sort of feel as if Joe was taken advantage of due to the thought that he was dumb enough to go along with it, adding him into the scheme because he was talented enough to foil it with his performance. I feel as if they 'talked over his head' in getting him to take the money, but later, when someone explained it fully to him, he wanted no part of it. __________________ Subscribe to Gridiron Glory Radio SEC Champions, 2006,2008-12 2008, 2011 National Runners-up 2009, 2010, 2012 National Champions

05-03-2008, 07:17 AM	#22 (permalink)
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,555	My own feeling is that as a player he was certainly deserving. However he did take money, that is really not in question. Now under what circumstances in which he took the money is very much in doubt and will likely never be answered to any degree of certainty. It's one man's theory against another's. He also likely did commit perjury in his civil suit against the White Sox organization. He was never formally charged, but the evidence of perjury was strong enough for a judge to use it as his basis for overturning a jury's decision. I believe there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that Joe, whether or not he actually helped throw the games, was a part of and aware of the plot. To what degree he actually understood it is open to debate and will never be known. Regardless it would seem he had more than enough information at his disposal to be reasonably able to understand what was going on. If indeed he figured it out and tried to give the money back and wanted no part of it then why did he lie on the stand in his civil trial? I agree with jdawgsenior that because he took the money the burden of proof falls on Joe to prove otherwise, and he failed miserably in that effort. Therefore I agree that Joe should not go into the Hall of Fame. __________________ "The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country." - Moynihan's Law

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-09-2008, 08:50 PM	#25 (permalink)
Jpotapoff Minors (Double A) Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 118	I say no. He admitted to being in on the fix. And while it's clear he was manipulated into the situation and so on it is still clear that he was involved in a major way. At the very least he didn't try to stop it in any way, and by going along with it encouraged others to be in on the fix (same as Bucky Weaver, by not being clearly against it in front of the other players, they made it easier for the other players to be in on the fix). The whole fix seemed to be on such shakey ground in terms of the players actually going through with it that if either Jackson or Weaver mounted much of a protest against it, it is likely that the fix would have fallen through. Then there's the whole matter of the team throwing games in the next season. So even if Jackson didn't intentionally throw the World Series and just accepted the money, it looks like he was throwing games the next season as the gamblers essentially blackmailed them. It really seems clear cut to me in both terms of not being in the HOF as well as being reinstated. If you are banned from baseball then no HOF induction for you. And I rally don't think there has been enough reason given to reinstate him. The whole defense of him not knowing what he was doing, or he was pressured into it, and he had good reasons to do it don't really fly in my mind. He still participated in the fix, which is more than enough for me to keep him banned. I mean really his actions helped lead to one of the biggest scandals in baseball, nearly killed professional baseball and his banning helped save baseball. How can a person, whose banning arguably saved baseball, be reinstated?