Do you think that Joe "Shoeless Joe" Jackson should be in the hall of fame?

Question

Note he was never indicted with because of the black sox scandal.

Answer 1

Nope. The thing that separates baseball from many other sports is that there's much more of a sense of class. Pete Rose and Joe Jackson should not be allowed because of their gambling on games that they were involved in.

The fact that nobody has taken Barry Bonds this season shows that baseball has more class than other sports. An AL team could bring him along as a DH. I mean, the guy is asking for minimum salary ($390,000). He cheated though. Everybody knows it, and nobody is taking him because of it. Nobody wants to tarnish their team's name with such a character.

If numbers were the only thing that mattered, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose both deserve to be in the HOF, but fortunately, other things matter. Roberto Clemente probably wouldn't have gotten into the HOF with just the numbers he had. His career was cut short, but you can't award just potential. Thing is that Roberto Clemente did so much for the game and so much for the community as well. Jackie Robinson's numbers definitely wouldn't have gotten him in...but he did so much for the game and the community as well (as well as the entire nation by helping quell racism). So, baseball rewards people for more than just numbers. With that in mind, Jackson or Rose should not be allowed into the Hall...ever.

Answer 2

Yes, only if it can be proven that he didn't do what he was accused of. Since all we have is speculation, then I would have to say no despite him being more than deserving of it as a ball player before the scandal. (He would've possibly been an innaugural member of the Hall if not for this).

Answer 3

Actually he was only saved being indicted because the confession that he, along with other members of the Black Sox, signed "disappeared" from the prosecuting attorney's safe just before going before the grand jury.

Jackson's ban is not a lifetime ban , it is a permanent ban.

No way he should ever be inducted into the Hall of Fame, at least not until 'permanent" expires.

Edit:

Don't confuse not being indicted by a grand jury as being "innocent". Even if someone does go to trial, a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean "innocent", it simply means that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

And baseball is subject to it's own rules, not necessarily the rules of the law. If baseball wishes to suspend a player for a fight, they do not have to wait for assault charges to be filed. If baseball chooses to fine a manager for inciting a crowd, they do not have to wait for charges to be pressed for inciting a riot. And they certainly do not have to wait for the government to press charges when suspended players for testing positive for steroids.

Sorry - charges mean nothing. (Pete Rose was never charged with illegal gambling either. But he admitted he did. So he is innocent simply because the government didn't try him?)

Answer 4

As much sympathy as I have for the players and the way there were treated by management, I have to say no. There truly is no bigger sin in baseball or any other sport than to throw a game for the sake of gamblers. Imagine never knowing for sure if games were legitimate or not. Baseball might turn into professional wrestling with its outcomes determined ahead of time.  

Answer 5

he should. i agree with the first answerer on the life, not eternity ban thing. also his numbers were just amazing. plus he played well on the games he allegedely threw.  

Answer 6

yes, he should be judged for his merit as a baseball player not for anything done off the field.

Answer 7

Personally, i always give the guys the benefit of doubt.  So, i would induct Joe Jack.  Theres little evidence Joe Jack even participated with the tossing of the games when on the field.  He still played well.  His numbers were great for the time.  Good enough for Hall of Fame for sure.

EDIT: For the three that gave me thumbs down, and i can kinda point them out, i hope you guys have your facts straight.  From my perspective, i think you guys only see this,"He tosses games and that is that."  There was little to no real evidence that he did toss game when ON THE FIELD. I acknowledge the fact he knew what was going on, but he never disperformed when on the field.  He still batted over .300 and hit the only home run in the entire series.  I hope you guys learn all about the 1919 Black Sox Scandal before you guys give a lil 3 sentence sentence saying how he cheated and cheaters dont deserve to get it.  I wrote a paper on the scandal two years ago and i think i know the facts pretty well.

Answer 8

Frak No. He was complicit.

Jackson was indicted on fraud charges, along with the other Black Sox. They were exonerated. These things happen in Chicago.

Answer 9

I hate this question becuase the uninformed buffoons who don't take five minutes and do the research always say he should be in and he never threw games. He not only threw games, he admitted and actually threw games during the 20 season as well. He only started playing well during the 19 series when he didn't get the rest of his money. This is all easily verifiable yet these people who are too lazy just find it easy to say "he didn't do anything wrong" when they don't have a clue what they're talking about. The man took money to throw World Series games. There is no disputing and he should never be in the Hall of Fame. End of story.

Answer 10

no. what he did was wrong even if it's a long time ago.