BuffettNews.com

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote: I'm with you AND Garry on this one.

Joe Jackson should not be in. I know a lot about that 1919 scandal and Jackson was not Mr. Innocent.

so?

ever learn what Ty Cobb did?

can only judge by numbers . . . not ethics.

It comes down to two questions:
1) Was Jackson told about the fix by the conspirators before it happened?
2) Did Jackson receive a cut of the money?

The answer to both is yes and Jackson admitted this.

Jackson accepted $5000 from gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series and he knew about the fix before the series started and asked Kid Gleason to bench him.

In college I wrote a 10+ paper about this scandal, going in I thought Jackson was getting railroaded but after researching it my viewed changed.

Recently a report came out that new documents about the scandal were found and going to be auctioned off, maybe something in there will change things but for now I stand by my opinion.

He was given a lifetime ban but I guess because he is now dead the ban is no longer active so maybe he should be allowed to be on the ballot.

Again so? I agree Jackson is guilty. That is not the point. Read above . . . MLB players have done far worse AND gotten convicted for it and still made the HOF based on numbers . . . can't judge ethics. It is impossible.

Because Jackson admitted he violated the integrity of the game.... Cobb and others like him are guilty of violating the integrity of the law not related to baseball. When it comes to the Hall of Fame there is a difference. Break the law you're eligible, violate the integrity of the game you're not.

Jackson will never get in. Rose has a better shot than Jackson.

Read above Pat. Please . . .

running up into the stands DOES violate the integrity of the game . . . he beat a man for booing him . . . the domino effect of that was huge!

His team did little to fine him . . . Cobb should have been tried for attempted manslaughter for that and HE DID IT DURING A GAME!

come on dude. give me a break . . . if Cobb is in the HOF anyone can get in . . .

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:I not denying Ty Cobb was a mean SOB, but that's not illegal. What Rose did, betting baseball and on his own team, was clearly against baseball's rules. Rules put in place because of 1919. And if he admitted it right away, he might have been forgiven by now. But he denied it for years, then admitted to betting on other teams, then finally said he bet on the Reds. What he did strikes to the integrity of the game.

running into the stands to beat up a black man for booing you to the point where he could never see straight again is illegal. There are more illegal acts as well . . . like me to name them?

again; HOF should be on the field stats . . . adultery, rape, drug use, assault are all things MLB players have been convicted of over the years . . . fact; look it up . . . and they are all illegal or immoral.

Why focus on a select few?

I'm certainly not a Cobb expert, but as fas as Rose is concerned, his mistake was violating baseball's rules more than society's. He could have been involved in a betting scandal involving other sports. Even baseball, if his managerial career was over. But having a current manager involved in betting strikes too close to home. He had too much control over the outcome of the game in that position. True, he's no longer a player, but he's still "in the game."

Running up into the stands to beat a man half to death for booing you does effect the game. It certainly effected Cobb's team for the rest of that season. It effected the future of the team because no one wanted to play with him . . . and it is illegal. That was the point . . . YOUR point: illegal. Comment?

Cobb was a loose cannon and a real ahole, no one is doubting that. And the guy he beat in the stands was crippled to boot. Cobb also shot a shop keeper because he sold his wife moldy bread but Cobb never admitted to violating the integrity of the game by altering or agree to alter the outcome. And as I said before in baseball that's all that counts. If Jeffery Dahmer was able to throw 95MPH then baseball would just say he has a slightly eating disorder and allow him to play.

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote: Joe Jackson should not be in. I know a lot about that 1919 scandal and Jackson was not Mr. Innocent.

so?

ever learn what Ty Cobb did?

can only judge by numbers . . . not ethics.

It comes down to two questions:
1) Was Jackson told about the fix by the conspirators before it happened?
2) Did Jackson receive a cut of the money?

The answer to both is yes and Jackson admitted this.

Jackson accepted $5000 from gamblers to throw the 1919 World Series and he knew about the fix before the series started and asked Kid Gleason to bench him.

In college I wrote a 10+ paper about this scandal, going in I thought Jackson was getting railroaded but after researching it my viewed changed.

Recently a report came out that new documents about the scandal were found and going to be auctioned off, maybe something in there will change things but for now I stand by my opinion.

He was given a lifetime ban but I guess because he is now dead the ban is no longer active so maybe he should be allowed to be on the ballot.

Again so? I agree Jackson is guilty. That is not the point. Read above . . . MLB players have done far worse AND gotten convicted for it and still made the HOF based on numbers . . . can't judge ethics. It is impossible.

Because Jackson admitted he violated the integrity of the game.... Cobb and others like him are guilty of violating the integrity of the law not related to baseball. When it comes to the Hall of Fame there is a difference. Break the law you're eligible, violate the integrity of the game you're not.

Jackson will never get in. Rose has a better shot than Jackson.

Read above Pat. Please . . .

running up into the stands DOES violate the integrity of the game . . . he beat a man for booing him . . . the domino effect of that was huge!

His team did little to fine him . . . Cobb should have been tried for attempted manslaughter for that and HE DID IT DURING A GAME!

come on dude. give me a break . . . if Cobb is in the HOF anyone can get in . . .

I am noy saying I agree with how baseball does things but the way their rules are written Cobb should be in and Jackson should not. As far as baseball is concerned what Jackson did was 100 times worse than what Cobb did. It doesn't seem logical I agree but that's baseball.

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:I not denying Ty Cobb was a mean SOB, but that's not illegal. What Rose did, betting baseball and on his own team, was clearly against baseball's rules. Rules put in place because of 1919. And if he admitted it right away, he might have been forgiven by now. But he denied it for years, then admitted to betting on other teams, then finally said he bet on the Reds. What he did strikes to the integrity of the game.

running into the stands to beat up a black man for booing you to the point where he could never see straight again is illegal. There are more illegal acts as well . . . like me to name them?

again; HOF should be on the field stats . . . adultery, rape, drug use, assault are all things MLB players have been convicted of over the years . . . fact; look it up . . . and they are all illegal or immoral.

Why focus on a select few?

I'm certainly not a Cobb expert, but as fas as Rose is concerned, his mistake was violating baseball's rules more than society's. He could have been involved in a betting scandal involving other sports. Even baseball, if his managerial career was over. But having a current manager involved in betting strikes too close to home. He had too much control over the outcome of the game in that position. True, he's no longer a player, but he's still "in the game."

Running up into the stands to beat a man half to death for booing you does effect the game. It certainly effected Cobb's team for the rest of that season. It effected the future of the team because no one wanted to play with him . . . and it is illegal. That was the point . . . YOUR point: illegal. Comment?

Cobb was a loose cannon and a real ahole, no one is doubting that. And the guy he beat in the stands was crippled to boot. Cobb also shot a shop keeper because he sold his wife moldy bread but Cobb never admitted to violating the integrity of the game by altering or agree to alter the outcome. And as I said before in baseball that's all that counts. If Jeffery Dahmer was able to throw 95MPH then baseball would just say he has a slightly eating disorder and allow him to play.

Your definition of "integrity of the game" and behavior that "alters" the outcome of the game is apparently different then mine.

Cobb is guilty of both. And his actions are far worse (no comparison) then Pete Rose, or Joe Jacksons . . .

and there are other people who, again, have commited, adultery, rape, drug use, and other illegal acts . . .

But specifically on Cobb: his actions both diminished the intigrity of the game and altered his team's performance.

I'm sure Cobb wouldn't be in the Hall if the vote was today. And Rose probably would be if he played in the 20s. Rose made his mistakes in an era when what he did was unacceptable. Since their are no set rules to get in, society and the the views of the current voters made a big impact. It will be interesting to see if some of the steriod/drug guys ever get in. Right or wrong, I'm guessing that some who admit a mistake (and were nice to sportswriters) will get in. Others that might be more deserving, won't.

chippewa wrote:I'm sure Cobb wouldn't be in the Hall if the vote was today. And Rose probably would be if he played in the 20s. Rose made his mistakes in an era when what he did was unacceptable. Since their are no set rules to get in, society and the the views of the current voters made a big impact. It will be interesting to see if some of the steriod/drug guys ever get in. Right or wrong, I'm guessing that some who admit a mistake (and were nice to sportswriters) will get in. Others that might be more deserving, won't.

now that I agree with.

and I think it is bs . . . there should be a standard - and if a guy like Cobb is in and a guy like Jackson is not then there is a real problem with how society or how baseball views "ethics".

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:I not denying Ty Cobb was a mean SOB, but that's not illegal. What Rose did, betting baseball and on his own team, was clearly against baseball's rules. Rules put in place because of 1919. And if he admitted it right away, he might have been forgiven by now. But he denied it for years, then admitted to betting on other teams, then finally said he bet on the Reds. What he did strikes to the integrity of the game.

running into the stands to beat up a black man for booing you to the point where he could never see straight again is illegal. There are more illegal acts as well . . . like me to name them?

again; HOF should be on the field stats . . . adultery, rape, drug use, assault are all things MLB players have been convicted of over the years . . . fact; look it up . . . and they are all illegal or immoral.

Why focus on a select few?

I'm certainly not a Cobb expert, but as fas as Rose is concerned, his mistake was violating baseball's rules more than society's. He could have been involved in a betting scandal involving other sports. Even baseball, if his managerial career was over. But having a current manager involved in betting strikes too close to home. He had too much control over the outcome of the game in that position. True, he's no longer a player, but he's still "in the game."

Running up into the stands to beat a man half to death for booing you does effect the game. It certainly effected Cobb's team for the rest of that season. It effected the future of the team because no one wanted to play with him . . . and it is illegal. That was the point . . . YOUR point: illegal. Comment?

Cobb was a loose cannon and a real ahole, no one is doubting that. And the guy he beat in the stands was crippled to boot. Cobb also shot a shop keeper because he sold his wife moldy bread but Cobb never admitted to violating the integrity of the game by altering or agree to alter the outcome. And as I said before in baseball that's all that counts. If Jeffery Dahmer was able to throw 95MPH then baseball would just say he has a slightly eating disorder and allow him to play.

Your definition of "integrity of the game" and behavior that "alters" the outcome of the game is apparently different then mine.

Cobb is guilty of both. And his actions are far worse (no comparison) then Pete Rose, or Joe Jacksons . . .

and there are other people who, again, have commited, adultery, rape, drug use, and other illegal acts . . .

But specifically on Cobb: his actions both diminished the intigrity of the game and altered his team's performance.

Jackson is guilty of both as well...the difference is Jackson agreed to alter the outcome of the world series...and took money to do so.....Cobb didn't charge into the stands in a preconceived notion that he would go beat the heckler up, get suspended so his team would lose the next day 26-2...no one paid him ahead of time to do that.

That Cobb incident and his suspension for it led to Cobb forming what is now know as the MLB Players Union.

BTW, Cobb was a better player than Jackson anyway.

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:
running into the stands to beat up a black man for booing you to the point where he could never see straight again is illegal. There are more illegal acts as well . . . like me to name them?

again; HOF should be on the field stats . . . adultery, rape, drug use, assault are all things MLB players have been convicted of over the years . . . fact; look it up . . . and they are all illegal or immoral.

Why focus on a select few?

I'm certainly not a Cobb expert, but as fas as Rose is concerned, his mistake was violating baseball's rules more than society's. He could have been involved in a betting scandal involving other sports. Even baseball, if his managerial career was over. But having a current manager involved in betting strikes too close to home. He had too much control over the outcome of the game in that position. True, he's no longer a player, but he's still "in the game."

Running up into the stands to beat a man half to death for booing you does effect the game. It certainly effected Cobb's team for the rest of that season. It effected the future of the team because no one wanted to play with him . . . and it is illegal. That was the point . . . YOUR point: illegal. Comment?

Cobb was a loose cannon and a real ahole, no one is doubting that. And the guy he beat in the stands was crippled to boot. Cobb also shot a shop keeper because he sold his wife moldy bread but Cobb never admitted to violating the integrity of the game by altering or agree to alter the outcome. And as I said before in baseball that's all that counts. If Jeffery Dahmer was able to throw 95MPH then baseball would just say he has a slightly eating disorder and allow him to play.

Your definition of "integrity of the game" and behavior that "alters" the outcome of the game is apparently different then mine.

Cobb is guilty of both. And his actions are far worse (no comparison) then Pete Rose, or Joe Jacksons . . .

and there are other people who, again, have commited, adultery, rape, drug use, and other illegal acts . . .

But specifically on Cobb: his actions both diminished the intigrity of the game and altered his team's performance.

Jackson is guilty of both as well...the difference is Jackson agreed to alter the outcome of the world series...and took money to do so.....Cobb didn't charge into the stands in a preconceived notion that he would go beat the heckler up, get suspended so his team would lose the next day 26-2...no one paid him ahead of time to do that.

That Cobb incident and his suspension for it led to Cobb forming what is now know as the MLB Players Union.

BTW, Cobb was a better player than Jackson anyway.

semantics. they both broke the law (Cobb more severley - IMO). They both were not ethical. they both effected their teams and the outcomes of games . . . the act of taking money is arbitrary.

either both out. or both in the HOF.

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

chippewa wrote: I'm certainly not a Cobb expert, but as fas as Rose is concerned, his mistake was violating baseball's rules more than society's. He could have been involved in a betting scandal involving other sports. Even baseball, if his managerial career was over. But having a current manager involved in betting strikes too close to home. He had too much control over the outcome of the game in that position. True, he's no longer a player, but he's still "in the game."

Running up into the stands to beat a man half to death for booing you does effect the game. It certainly effected Cobb's team for the rest of that season. It effected the future of the team because no one wanted to play with him . . . and it is illegal. That was the point . . . YOUR point: illegal. Comment?

Cobb was a loose cannon and a real ahole, no one is doubting that. And the guy he beat in the stands was crippled to boot. Cobb also shot a shop keeper because he sold his wife moldy bread but Cobb never admitted to violating the integrity of the game by altering or agree to alter the outcome. And as I said before in baseball that's all that counts. If Jeffery Dahmer was able to throw 95MPH then baseball would just say he has a slightly eating disorder and allow him to play.

Your definition of "integrity of the game" and behavior that "alters" the outcome of the game is apparently different then mine.

Cobb is guilty of both. And his actions are far worse (no comparison) then Pete Rose, or Joe Jacksons . . .

and there are other people who, again, have commited, adultery, rape, drug use, and other illegal acts . . .

But specifically on Cobb: his actions both diminished the intigrity of the game and altered his team's performance.

Jackson is guilty of both as well...the difference is Jackson agreed to alter the outcome of the world series...and took money to do so.....Cobb didn't charge into the stands in a preconceived notion that he would go beat the heckler up, get suspended so his team would lose the next day 26-2...no one paid him ahead of time to do that.

That Cobb incident and his suspension for it led to Cobb forming what is now know as the MLB Players Union.

BTW, Cobb was a better player than Jackson anyway.

semantics. they both broke the law (Cobb more severley - IMO). They both were not ethical. they both effected their teams and the outcomes of games . . . the act of taking money is arbitrary.

either both out. or both in the HOF.

The act of him taking money is not arbitrary.... him taking the money is was the smoking gun. Had Jackson not taken money he probably would be in the HOF.

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:

BottleofRum wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:
Running up into the stands to beat a man half to death for booing you does effect the game. It certainly effected Cobb's team for the rest of that season. It effected the future of the team because no one wanted to play with him . . . and it is illegal. That was the point . . . YOUR point: illegal. Comment?

Cobb was a loose cannon and a real ahole, no one is doubting that. And the guy he beat in the stands was crippled to boot. Cobb also shot a shop keeper because he sold his wife moldy bread but Cobb never admitted to violating the integrity of the game by altering or agree to alter the outcome. And as I said before in baseball that's all that counts. If Jeffery Dahmer was able to throw 95MPH then baseball would just say he has a slightly eating disorder and allow him to play.

Your definition of "integrity of the game" and behavior that "alters" the outcome of the game is apparently different then mine.

Cobb is guilty of both. And his actions are far worse (no comparison) then Pete Rose, or Joe Jacksons . . .

and there are other people who, again, have commited, adultery, rape, drug use, and other illegal acts . . .

But specifically on Cobb: his actions both diminished the intigrity of the game and altered his team's performance.

Jackson is guilty of both as well...the difference is Jackson agreed to alter the outcome of the world series...and took money to do so.....Cobb didn't charge into the stands in a preconceived notion that he would go beat the heckler up, get suspended so his team would lose the next day 26-2...no one paid him ahead of time to do that.

That Cobb incident and his suspension for it led to Cobb forming what is now know as the MLB Players Union.

BTW, Cobb was a better player than Jackson anyway.

semantics. they both broke the law (Cobb more severley - IMO). They both were not ethical. they both effected their teams and the outcomes of games . . . the act of taking money is arbitrary.

either both out. or both in the HOF.

The act of him taking money is not arbitrary.... him taking the money is was the smoking gun. Had Jackson not taken money he probably would be in the HOF.

Ethical activity. That is all this is. It is written in the by - laws of HOF voting for MLB that ethics needs to be conider when voting . . . .

What I am stating is I disagree because ethics cannot be consistently judged and this is proven by the fact that people like Cobb are in the HOF.

Was Jackson ethical? No. But my argument is that ethics should not be included in the vote . . .

Is beating a cripple ethical? Banging a 16 year old hooker? Cheating on your wife? Lets empty out half the HOF on the last one . . . driving drunk? Beating your wife/ girlfriend?

Come on . . .

Stats on the field should be the only factor in the vote . . .

Jackson was NOT ethical for taking money. I say, "so what" . . . because many players who have done far worse are in the HOF.

drunkpirate66 wrote:Ethical activity. That is all this is. It is written in the by - laws of HOF voting for MLB that ethics needs to be conider when voting . . . .

No it isn't. This is from the official Hall Of Fame website:

Eligibility for BBWAA Hall of Fame Election
BBWAA: Former Major Leaguers who have been active some time during a period of 20 years before and ending five years prior to election and have played in a minimum of 10 seasons. Any player on Major League Baseball's ineligible list is not an eligible candidate. In the event of death of an eligible candidate, the five-year waiting period shall be reduced to six months (this has occurred three times: Lou Gehrig in 1939, Roberto Clemente in 1973 and Thurman Munson in 1979. Gehrig and Clemente earned election).

The word "ethics" doesn't appear anywhere in the eligibility requirements for election to the Hall.

PUT PETE ROSE & JOE JACKSON IN, OR TAKE TY COBB OUT!

Next topic, please.

LIPH wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Ethical activity. That is all this is. It is written in the by - laws of HOF voting for MLB that ethics needs to be conider when voting . . . .

No it isn't. This is from the official Hall Of Fame website:

Eligibility for BBWAA Hall of Fame Election
BBWAA: Former Major Leaguers who have been active some time during a period of 20 years before and ending five years prior to election and have played in a minimum of 10 seasons. Any player on Major League Baseball's ineligible list is not an eligible candidate. In the event of death of an eligible candidate, the five-year waiting period shall be reduced to six months (this has occurred three times: Lou Gehrig in 1939, Roberto Clemente in 1973 and Thurman Munson in 1979. Gehrig and Clemente earned election).

The word "ethics" doesn't appear anywhere in the eligibility requirements for election to the Hall.

Yes it does. On the form the voters get. Numerous voters have commented on this regarding Bonds . . . it is there. Not for the "Eligibility"
might be different but people who actually vote are asked to comment on "ethics" as well.

Ok I found my college paper so here was some of my conclusion.

If we keep it to what happened on the field then Jackson should still be out. He conspired to fix the world series and admitted to doing so. he took $5k and spent it. It is easy to point out that he hit well in that world series as proof he wasn't trying to lose (.375avr) but when you look the stats closely, he didn’t play so well that you could rule out participation in the fix on that alone. Jackson batted .545 in their three victories but just .286 in the five losses and .267 in the first four defeats (WS was best of 9). In the final world series game, in which Jackson did most of his damage, was a blowout, Jackson made the third out with 2 on in the first inning. The White Sox were down 5-0 when Jackson homered, and 10-1 when he doubled. He also made the last out of the game.

Jackson knew that his teammates were throwing the 1919 World Series and actively corrupting the game. He took $5,000 to participate, $5K was a great deal of money back then. He did nothing to stop the fix, and nothing to expose it. Even 30 years later he was still denying that it had ever happened. Even though he had confssed to it in 1921.

Managers, Umpires, and Executives/Pioneers up for election to the Hall on Monday...

Managers: Whitey Herzog, Davey Johnson, Billy Martin, Gene Mauch, Danny Murtaugh, Billy Southworth, Dick Williams

Umpires: Doug Harvey, Hank O'Day, Cy Rigler

Exec/Pio: Buzzie Bavasi, Barney Dreyfuss, John Getzer, Bob Howsam, Ewing Kauffman, Bowie Kuhn, John McHale, Marvin Miller, Walter O'Malley, Gabe Paul

CaptainP wrote:Managers, Umpires, and Executives/Pioneers up for election to the Hall on Monday...

Managers: Whitey Herzog, Davey Johnson, Billy Martin, Gene Mauch, Danny Murtaugh, Billy Southworth, Dick Williams

Umpires: Doug Harvey, Hank O'Day, Cy Rigler

Exec/Pio: Buzzie Bavasi, Barney Dreyfuss, John Getzer, Bob Howsam, Ewing Kauffman, Bowie Kuhn, John McHale, Marvin Miller, Walter O'Malley, Gabe Paul

All of the eligible managers deserve to be voted in.

I don't know anything about any of the umpires, except for Doug Harvey.
He deserves it.

The owners on the list I.M.O. who should be voted in are Bavasi, Kauffman, O'Malley, and Paul.

Wino you know wrote:

CaptainP wrote:Managers, Umpires, and Executives/Pioneers up for election to the Hall on Monday...

Managers: Whitey Herzog, Davey Johnson, Billy Martin, Gene Mauch, Danny Murtaugh, Billy Southworth, Dick Williams

Umpires: Doug Harvey, Hank O'Day, Cy Rigler

Exec/Pio: Buzzie Bavasi, Barney Dreyfuss, John Getzer, Bob Howsam, Ewing Kauffman, Bowie Kuhn, John McHale, Marvin Miller, Walter O'Malley, Gabe Paul

All of the eligible managers deserve to be voted in.

I don't know anything about any of the umpires, except for Doug Harvey.
He deserves it.

The owners on the list I.M.O. who should be voted in are Bavasi, Kauffman, O'Malley, and Paul.

'Skipper" Dick Williams was th first manager's name I knew as a kid. Didn't he use to smoke in the duggout?


Agree with you Uncle Gary.... Bowie Kuhn isn't in the hall already

Wino you know wrote:All of the eligible managers deserve to be voted in.
I don't know anything about any of the umpires, except for Doug Harvey. He deserves it.

I'm agreeing with you again, Garry!!

Marvin Miller should have been in years ago.

reading up on soon to be rookie phenom Jay Bruce of the Reds . . . I might have to see a game out there when I come out to see Jimmy if the Reds are home . . . this kid looks like the next Braun or Mauer . . . with better defense . . .

with Cordero in the pen . . . Homer Bailey in a decent rotation . . . the Reds could finally put something interesting together.