PDA

View Full Version : Royals Should Shoeless Joe Jackson be in the Hall of Fame?


Jenson71
04-28-2009, 11:55 PM
Should Pete Rose?

There was no direct evidence I know of that showed Jackson threw the games or helped do so. At most damning, he only heard rumors, but rumors of throwing WS were always around.

Also, I'd like to recommend a book for history and baseball fans: The National Game by John P. Rossi. It's not huge on baseball details. It's an overview of baseball's history and how economic and social factors influenced baseball and how baseball played a role in America. It's nicely written and I would say a good start or refresher for the baseball fan looking for some history and cultural reading as well.

DaneMcCloud
04-28-2009, 11:56 PM
Yes and Yes.

Baseball and its records are a fucking farce.

88TG88
04-28-2009, 11:57 PM
What were his numbers ?

Frazod
04-28-2009, 11:58 PM
Yes to Jackson.

I used to say yes to Rose, but sadly he is such a complete unrepentant fucking scumbag that it overrides his achievements on the field. Of course, he's no worse than Cobb. Basically, if he gets in, I won't mind, if he doesn't, he has no one but himself to blame. I guess that's a windy way of saying I don't give a shit.

L.A. Chieffan
04-28-2009, 11:58 PM
What were his numbers ?

the dude was a pimp

ClevelandBronco
04-28-2009, 11:59 PM
Oh, hell yes to both.

DeezNutz
04-29-2009, 12:00 AM
Yes and Yes.

Baseball and its records are a ****ing farce.

This, this, and this.

All sorts of efforts made to protect a loosely constructed facade and an imaginary hierarchy.

DaneMcCloud
04-29-2009, 12:01 AM
Yes to Jackson.

I used to say yes to Rose, but sadly he is such a complete unrepentant fucking scumbag that it overrides his achievements on the field. Of course, he's no worse than Cobb. Basically, if he gets in, I won't mind, if he doesn't, he has no one but himself to blame. I guess that's a windy way of saying I don't give a shit.

I think Pete Rose should be in because all of these other fucks are just as non-repentant.

I LOVE baseball but for fucking Christ-sake, these guys are all drugged up.

And that's no joke. Bennie's, coke, 'roid's, HGH - you name it.

It is what is fucking is.

And neither your or I could even SNIFF the majors, with or without those drugs.

That's the beauty of baseball.

Frazod
04-29-2009, 12:02 AM
I think Rose would already be in if he'd just learn to SHUT THE FUCK UP.

ClevelandBronco
04-29-2009, 12:09 AM
I think Pete Rose should be in because all of these other ****s are just as non-repentant.

I LOVE baseball but for ****ing Christ-sake, these guys are all drugged up.

And that's no joke. Bennie's, coke, 'roid's, HGH - you name it.

It is what is ****ing is.

And neither your or I could even SNIFF the majors, with or without those drugs.

That's the beauty of baseball.

Yep. This crap hasn't been a secret since years ago when Jim Bouton wrote "Ball Four." (Probably I'm missing something even before that.)

I wonder if you have the same problems with musicians who did/do drugs to get to a different level?

Painters? Actors?

This is NOTHING new.

alnorth
04-29-2009, 12:09 AM
Definitely no for shoeless Joe, and not yet for Pete Rose. I know I'm in the minority here on Pete Rose, but I believe either throwing a game, or betting on your team as a manager are both unforgivable sins. (Why is it horrible for a manager to bet on their team to win? Simple: I'll do whatever I can to win today, even though it means blowing out my bullpen while losing instead of saving them tomorrow) I might be convinced to vote Pete Rose in after he dies, I dont feel all that strongly about him, but thats about it.

As for Shoeless Joe, he and his teammates didnt try to throw every game, they werent asked to do that. They were paid to throw 5 games, and they lost the games they were supposed to lose. The evidence that Shoeless Joe himself was guilty is also pretty compelling. He hit well for the series, but only in games he was supposed to win. He sucked in the games he was supposed to lose, until they were way behind.

He also made some good defensive plays, but only in games he was supposed to win. This part is probably the most damning: in games he was supposed to lose, he allowed a silly number of left field triples on balls hit his way (3), even though shoeless Joe was considered to be a good left fielder, and left field triples are very rare.

"Field of Dreams" is a silly pile of crap. Shoeless Joe was guilty as hell, admitted it under oath, and is rightfully banned.

Jenson71
04-29-2009, 12:12 AM
Jackson's solid numbers are lower because he only played about 10 good seasons, compared to people like Cobb who played over 20

Jackson's numbers, compared to other leaders:

1772 Hits (middle of pack)
873 Runs (middle to lower of pack)
307 Doubles (low)
168 Triples (Pretty high)
785 RBIs (low)
54 HRs (extremely low - different era)
202 SBs (low to middle of pack)
.356 BA (extremely high)
.423 OBP (extremely high)
.517 SLG (middle of pack)

ClevelandBronco
04-29-2009, 12:17 AM
"Field of Dreams" is a silly pile of crap.

Of course it was. So was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Men_Out

Jenson71
04-29-2009, 12:21 AM
Shoeless Joe was guilty as hell, admitted it under oath, and is rightfully banned.

I didn't know that at all, or the throwing certain games, winning certain. Another words I'm confused huh? Well, I guess no longer.

alnorth
04-29-2009, 12:23 AM
What we know on Shoeless Joe

Fact: he was promised $20,000 to throw 5 games, and received $5,000, which he accepted and spent. (He was apparently stiffed on the other 15 grand) If $5,000 doesnt sound like much today, it was almost equal to his salary.

Fact: Shoeless Joe confessed his guilt to a grand jury on September 28, 1920, signed a confession, and told many writers about his involvement.

(Testimony under oath)
Q: How much did [Chick Gandil] promise you?
A: Twenty thousand dollars if I would take part.
Q: And you said you would?
A: Yes sir.

Fact: Shoeless Joe hit .375 for the series, which a lot of people point to. However, he hit .545 in the 3 games he was supposed to win, and .250 with 0 RBI in the first 4 games he was supposed to lose. In the 5th game he was supposed to lose, he was hitless until they fell behind 5-0, after which he hit a solo homer. Later when they were down 10-1, he hit a double.

Fact: In the games they were supposed to lose, Shoeless Joe allowed 3 left field triples, which is a rediculously high number considering how rare an honest left field triple is, and considering that he was known as a good left fielder.

BWillie
04-29-2009, 01:19 AM
I don't know much about Shoeless Joe Jackson, but it sounds like he threw games. Compared to what I know about Rose, he bet on his team to win because of his competitive nature. I don't have as big of problem with that. Pete Rose deserves to be in in my book. If it comes down to Pete Rose and Rafael Palmiero. Pete Rose by a mile. Bonds should be in anyway, because he was a HOFer before he took the juice anyway. Who knows about Arod.

DaneMcCloud
04-29-2009, 01:26 AM
I don't know much about Shoeless Joe Jackson, but it sounds like he threw games. Compared to what I know about Rose, he bet on his team to win because of his competitive nature. I don't have as big of problem with that. Pete Rose deserves to be in in my book. If it comes down to Pete Rose and Rafael Palmiero. Pete Rose by a mile. Bonds should be in anyway, because he was a HOFer before he took the juice anyway. Who knows about Arod.


Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the french I took

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for

Now I don't claim to be an "A" student

La ta ta ta ta ta ta




</pre>

Psyko Tek
04-29-2009, 01:53 AM
you know fuckit
baseball is a joke with the juicing going on
let them all in

baryy bonds, and mark macguire fucked baseball up


for me
gone done
put it with the wwf
it's a fake

KC_Connection
04-29-2009, 03:12 AM
Should Pete Rose?

There was no direct evidence I know of that showed Jackson threw the games or helped do so. At most damning, he only heard rumors, but rumors of throwing WS were always around.

If that's true about there being no evidence, I would hope they would revisit his case at some point.

As for Rose, well I have no sympathy for him. The #1 rule in clubhouses since the Black Sox Scandal was not threatening the integrity of the game, and everybody knew what the repercussions would be if you did. Rose ended up betting on the games as a manager (whether he bet on his own team or not is irrelevant), which puts into question his moves in every game. He also agreed to the lifetime ban in the first place. I bet they'll let him in when he dies, but not before.

KC_Connection
04-29-2009, 03:17 AM
What we know on Shoeless Joe

Fact: he was promised $20,000 to throw 5 games, and received $5,000, which he accepted and spent. (He was apparently stiffed on the other 15 grand) If $5,000 doesnt sound like much today, it was almost equal to his salary.

Fact: Shoeless Joe confessed his guilt to a grand jury on September 28, 1920, signed a confession, and told many writers about his involvement.

Well if THIS is true, then no, I'd also keep Joe Jackson out. You can't throw a baseball game like that. It's way worse than any of these players using drugs to improve their performances and help their teams.

Ultra Peanut
04-29-2009, 03:42 AM
Yes to Shoeless Joe Jackson
No to Pete Rose, because fuck him

Guru
04-29-2009, 04:26 AM
YES to both.

Amnorix
04-29-2009, 05:59 AM
No to both. They broke THE single most important rule in any sport, really. It makes taking 'roids seem insignificant by comparison.

Skip Towne
04-29-2009, 06:13 AM
No to Pete Rose, because fuck him

This

BigRedChief
04-29-2009, 06:17 AM
What we know on Shoeless Joe

Fact: Shoeless Joe confessed his guilt to a grand jury on September 28, 1920, signed a confession, and told many writers about his involvement.



Fact: Shoeless Joe hit .375 for the series, which a lot of people point to. However, he hit .545 in the 3 games he was supposed to win, and .250 with 0 RBI in the first 4 games he was supposed to lose. In the 5th game he was supposed to lose, he was hitless until they fell behind 5-0, after which he hit a solo homer. Later when they were down 10-1, he hit a double.
He said later in life that he did take the money but changed his mind before the series started.

BigRedChief
04-29-2009, 06:19 AM
No to both. They broke THE single most important rule in any sport, really. It makes taking 'roids seem insignificant by comparison.
Not the same at all. Steriods is a performance enhancing drug. Betting on your team to win is defintely a dangerous slope and should not be allowed to happen but not even close to the same level of infraction.

jidar
04-29-2009, 07:31 AM
No to both.

If new evidence comes to light that proves he had nothing to do with the fix, then shoeless joe can get in, but otherwise, no.

100% No to Pete Rose and then some.

There is nothing more damaging to a sport than the players gambling. Nothing. The Punishment has to be of the absolute utmost severity possible, and that means a lifetime ban from every aspect of it including HOF.

jidar
04-29-2009, 07:37 AM
Not the same at all. Steriods is a performance enhancing drug. Betting on your team to win is defintely a dangerous slope and should not be allowed to happen but not even close to the same level of infraction.

You're saying that steroids is worse than betting?

Man you've seriously got a problem seeing the forest for the trees if you don't realize just how big of a deal it is for players to bet on their sport.

Dartgod
04-29-2009, 07:46 AM
What we know on Shoeless Joe

Fact: he was promised $20,000 to throw 5 games, and received $5,000, which he accepted and spent. (He was apparently stiffed on the other 15 grand) If $5,000 doesnt sound like much today, it was almost equal to his salary.

Fact: Shoeless Joe confessed his guilt to a grand jury on September 28, 1920, signed a confession, and told many writers about his involvement.



Fact: Shoeless Joe hit .375 for the series, which a lot of people point to. However, he hit .545 in the 3 games he was supposed to win, and .250 with 0 RBI in the first 4 games he was supposed to lose. In the 5th game he was supposed to lose, he was hitless until they fell behind 5-0, after which he hit a solo homer. Later when they were down 10-1, he hit a double.

Fact: In the games they were supposed to lose, Shoeless Joe allowed 3 left field triples, which is a rediculously high number considering how rare an honest left field triple is, and considering that he was known as a good left fielder.
Interesting. I assumed that the story in Eight Men Out was mostly true. Silly me.

blaise
04-29-2009, 07:51 AM
No to Rose. Both aren't technically eligible because they're banned from MLB. Players banned from MLB aren't eligible. Aside from that, Rose gambled on games, and the argument that he gambled on the Reds to win doesn't fly because he could have manipulated the roster or bullpen to try and make sure the Reds won while hurting their chances for the next game.
Even if Rose was reinstated I don't think he should get in. The Baseball Hall of Fame (which is not run by MLB) specifically says voters should consider character, integrity and sportsmanship. If those things wouldn't keep Rose out then I don't know who they would. And before someone says, "Well wife beaters and racists are in there?" as a defense against the character and integrity qualificattions- I take the character and integrity to mostly mean baseball related traits, not off the field personal traits.

blaise
04-29-2009, 07:54 AM
This from the Hall of Fame's website:
"Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

raybec 4
04-29-2009, 07:56 AM
Shoeless Joe just didn't have the numbers to get in, he was very good but so were a lot of dudes that aren't in.

Put Pete in the Hall

raybec 4
04-29-2009, 07:59 AM
This from the Hall of Fame's website:
"Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Does that mean Bonds never gets in? What about Phil Niekro? Mickey Mantle wasn't exactly a saint off the field, neither was Whitey Ford. Some guys were popular enough to make it and some just aren't.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-29-2009, 08:04 AM
Yes and Yes.

Baseball and its records are a fucking farce.

Esto. Baseball records have always been a sham, and it's a complete sham that Shoeless Joe isn't in the Hall.

blaise
04-29-2009, 08:04 AM
Does that mean Bonds never gets in? What about Phil Niekro? Mickey Mantle wasn't exactly a saint off the field, neither was Whitey Ford. Some guys were popular enough to make it and some just aren't.

I don't think Bonds should get in, Niekro should be out too. As for Mantle see my previous post. I don't consider off field character traits, only the ones that affect the integrity of the game.

blaise
04-29-2009, 08:09 AM
Esto. Baseball records have always been a sham, and it's a complete sham that Shoeless Joe isn't in the Hall.


Why have baseball records always been a sham? Because of segregation?

Mr. Flopnuts
04-29-2009, 08:34 AM
Why have baseball records always been a sham? Because of segregation?

Baseball has always been about cheating, cover ups, and yes, racism. I don't think any of it is relevant to the true history of the game. JMO.

Brock
04-29-2009, 08:36 AM
Ty Cobb is in, any great player should be in.

gblowfish
04-29-2009, 08:37 AM
No. No. No.
Any player who is involved with gambling on baseball (Pete Rose included) should be banned for life. Judge Kennisaw Mountain Landis got this one right.

blaise
04-29-2009, 08:38 AM
I just think what Rose did was so far beyond acceptable levels that he should always remain on the ineligible list. You just can't have guys betting on games, he knew it, he did it, he has to suffer the consequences. Even if he's reinstated if I was voter I'd vote no.

Ultra Peanut
04-29-2009, 08:39 AM
Ty Cobb is in, any great player should be in.Except Pete Rose.

Allow me to reiterate: FUCK PETE ROSE.

blaise
04-29-2009, 08:40 AM
Ty Cobb is in, any great player should be in.

Being a scumbag and a racist doesn't mean you were a cheater though. There's a difference between Cobb and Rose.

Demonpenz
04-29-2009, 08:42 AM
hell no, after he was shoeless shoe he went on to make that shitty ice skating movie

Frazod
04-29-2009, 08:43 AM
Being a scumbag and a racist doesn't mean you were a cheater though. There's a difference between Cobb and Rose.

There was evidence that Cobb (among many others) was into game fixing as well.

WilliamTheIrish
04-29-2009, 08:50 AM
As al pointed out, Shoeless Joe conspired to throw the Series, took money and admitted it under oath.

He's a scumbag of the highest order. He was not alone. At the turn of the century about 70 guys were accused of throwing games and about 90% of those men never saw the field again.

And it was open, brazen throwing of games.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-29-2009, 08:57 AM
Well, if we feel that strongly about gambling (particularly on one's own team) then I'm sure we don't want any player from this entire era in the Hall considering all of the cheating that's gone on for the last 20 years.

blaise
04-29-2009, 09:00 AM
There was evidence that Cobb (among many others) was into game fixing as well.

Evidence or heresay? I didn't know there was any evidence.

blaise
04-29-2009, 09:02 AM
Well, if we feel that strongly about gambling (particularly on one's own team) then I'm sure we don't want any player from this entire era in the Hall considering all of the cheating that's gone on for the last 20 years.


You can't assume guilt for all the guys just because some cheated. Are you saying people shouldn't feel strongly if a player or manager gambles on his team? Really? And no, I don't think guys that get caught juicing should get in.

Deberg_1990
04-29-2009, 09:04 AM
Yes to Jackson.

I used to say yes to Rose, but sadly he is such a complete unrepentant ****ing scumbag that it overrides his achievements on the field. Of course, he's no worse than Cobb. Basically, if he gets in, I won't mind, if he doesn't, he has no one but himself to blame. I guess that's a windy way of saying I don't give a shit.

Rose admitted he gambled and apologized. Its time to let him in.

Tuckdaddy
04-29-2009, 09:08 AM
The man is dead. Who gives damn. As for Rose, telling lies should not be rewarded.

Frazod
04-29-2009, 09:11 AM
Evidence or heresay? I didn't know there was any evidence.

Well, I guess you could call it heresay, since obviously nothing ever stuck. IIRC, Cobb bragged about it, and also bragged about getting away with it. It's been a long time since I read the book, though. Cobb was monster. Great player, but a monster. He wouldn't have made it out of the minors during our time - the modern media would have had a field day with him. The argument "well, Cobb's in, why keep him out?" certainly has merit.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-29-2009, 09:16 AM
You can't assume guilt for all the guys just because some cheated. Are you saying people shouldn't feel strongly if a player or manager gambles on his team? Really? And no, I don't think guys that get caught juicing should get in.

I think you can take a look at their stats and not only know who was juicing, but when. Really though, the reason I feel so strongly about this is because MLB didn't give a shit if guys were juicing. All they knew was chicks dig the long ball. The League wanted the stats, and they didn't care if guys were cheating the game. So it seems pretty hypocritical to me to hold someone out because they bet on their own team to win. Throwing the series, betting against your team, fine, I understand. But, yes, I do think it's an entirely different animal when you're betting on your team to win. How could you cheat that?

blaise
04-29-2009, 09:25 AM
I think you can take a look at their stats and not only know who was juicing, but when. Really though, the reason I feel so strongly about this is because MLB didn't give a shit if guys were juicing. All they knew was chicks dig the long ball. The League wanted the stats, and they didn't care if guys were cheating the game. So it seems pretty hypocritical to me to hold someone out because they bet on their own team to win. Throwing the series, betting against your team, fine, I understand. But, yes, I do think it's an entirely different animal when you're betting on your team to win. How could you cheat that?

How could you cheat that? By exhausting your bullpen to win a game you bet on, or by leaving a pitcher in too long on a game you didn't because you want the bullpen fresh the next day.

And the league isn't technically holding Rose out of the Hall of Fame. They banned him from baseball to keep him from getting another job. Him being ineligible for the Hall is a byproduct of that, and I'm sure they considered that when they banned him. But even if Pete were reinstated there's no guarantee he'd get in the Hall, he'd still be subject to a vote (by this time it would have to be a veteran's committee type thing, I think).
The Hall of Fame is a private museum, and not run by MLB. There's no hypocrisy in the steroid scandal when it comes to the Hall. They bear no responsibility for the steroid era, they weren't involved in letting the players juice, and so if the Hall of Fame voters decide to hold Rose's misdeeds against him there's no hypocrisy there.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-29-2009, 09:44 AM
No to Pete Rose, yes to Buddy Biancalana

Mr. Flopnuts
04-29-2009, 10:50 AM
How could you cheat that? By exhausting your bullpen to win a game you bet on, or by leaving a pitcher in too long on a game you didn't because you want the bullpen fresh the next day.

And the league isn't technically holding Rose out of the Hall of Fame. They banned him from baseball to keep him from getting another job. Him being ineligible for the Hall is a byproduct of that, and I'm sure they considered that when they banned him. But even if Pete were reinstated there's no guarantee he'd get in the Hall, he'd still be subject to a vote (by this time it would have to be a veteran's committee type thing, I think).
The Hall of Fame is a private museum, and not run by MLB. There's no hypocrisy in the steroid scandal when it comes to the Hall. They bear no responsibility for the steroid era, they weren't involved in letting the players juice, and so if the Hall of Fame voters decide to hold Rose's misdeeds against him there's no hypocrisy there.

You make good points on exhausting players to win money. I never put that much thought into it. But I still think it's hypocritical for the League to give ANYONE a lifetime ban with their history.

DJ's left nut
04-29-2009, 10:55 AM
Pete Rose accepted a voluntary ban. Baseball didn't ban Rose, they offered him a plea. They told him they'd seal the results of his investigation and stop digging if he accepted a lifetime ban -- he eagerly accepted.

He's out of the HOF because he made a deal to save his own skin, he should have to live by its terms. As such, no way should Rose be in the Hall, regardless of what you think about the propriety of what he did. A man honors his word -- his promise was to accept a lifetime ban from baseball. Talk to me when he dies. His confession does nothing for me, we already knew he did it. So why should a confession free him from the obligations he volunteered for? Again -- A lifetime ban from baseball WAS HIS DECISION.

As for Jackson, I'll listen to arguments in favor of his enshrinement. I do believe he was in on the fix. Yes, his overall #s look nice but look at his #s in close situations and RISP. He tanked when it mattered and from most accounts pulled up on several balls he could've gotten to. Ultimately I'd go with no -- you simply don't throw games, period. But unlike Rose, I will at least recognize arguments to the contrary.

raybec 4
04-29-2009, 11:13 AM
No to Pete Rose, yes to Buddy Biancalana

Well, by that same logic, being a Cards fan, I'm pulling for Pedro Guerrero.....

Put Pete in the hall

Coach
05-03-2009, 03:44 AM
There are alot of factors involved, but Joe Jackson was a hell of a player during his time. He is currently 2nd in today's MLB standards in terms of OPS+ from his first year to age 25.

2. Joe Jackson 177 OPS+ .365 BA .434 OBP .527 SLG 3086 PA 1908-1915

Oh, and Albert Pujols was 5th.

5. Albert Pujols 167 OPS+ .332 BA .416 OBP .621 SLG 3428 PA 2001-2005

Coach
05-03-2009, 03:55 AM
http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/jj-at-the-ready-bb-magazine.jpg

Shoeless Joe Jackson

WilliamTheIrish
05-03-2009, 09:38 AM
Jackson was indeed the best player of his time. And the inevitable fixing of the WS was the crowning blow in a 15 year stretch for baseball where hundreds of players made agreements to throw single games. It's not like the game was pristine and "BAM" the SOX fixed the series.

The folks who got caught were simply the most brazen. 38 players were banned outright for their part in the scandals of the decade. 38. Think about that. Imagine how many regular season games could have been affected by 38 players. And these are only the players who were removed from the game completely because evidence against them or their confessions gave them away.

Joe Jackson was probably a great guy. Probably not the smartest guy to allow others to lead him down the path of scumbaggery. But he did it and because he did he is persona non grata to baseball. And me.

StcChief
05-03-2009, 09:55 AM
Yes to both.

whoman69
05-03-2009, 10:50 AM
This same stupid argument again. If there were a boxer who threw fights, should he be in the boxing HOF? Rose and Jackson did the worst thing you could ever do for your sport, make everyone doubt the legitimacy of the outcome on the field. If we cannot believe that the players are honestly trying to win, what is the point of watching them play? Anyone who is doubting their guilt is burying their heads in the sand. The report against Rose was hundreds of pages long with a very heavy burden of guilt. Jackson took their money and played poorly in the games he was supposed to. If you want to argue that Jackson didn't truly understand what he was getting into, he did understand he was given money and he spent it. Eddie Cicotte has borderline HOF numbers, should he get in? It was clear that he threw games.

chiefzilla1501
05-03-2009, 11:17 AM
I can't believe there are people defending these clowns. They're both cheaters. And yes, those players who are involved in the steroids controversy are starting to get blackballed from HOF votes. Yes, baseball has a history of covering up and cheating, but as the saying goes "it's not cheating if you don't get caught." Baseball, just like the law, should be tough and just to those who get caught. Saying Rose and Jackson should get in because lots of people cheat is like saying we should let a convicted murderer out of jail simply because lots of people murder and get away with it. Jackson was a cheater. Rose broke a cardinal rule he knew he shouldn't break--it's not like he didn't know it was illegal.

If you want a real travesty, it's the fact that Bert Blyleven isn't in the HOF. Here's a clean player who is better than a lot of pitchers in the HOF, but is getting vetoed because he wasn't popular with the media.

wild1
05-03-2009, 11:56 AM
No.