Quote:
Originally Posted by kcgreene
As long as Shoeless Joe Jackson stays out of the HoF because of the Black Sox Scandal, Pete Rose shouldn't even be considered.
And in my opinion, both of them being banned from the HoF in essence is part of the story of baseball due to the Black Sox Scandal and how baseball had to develop a hard-line "No leniency" stance against gambling. Neither of them should be in the Hall because of how baseball had to have that hard-line stance against gambling for the sanctity of the game due to such.
Remember: This isn't someone betting on other games, Pete Rose bet on his own games (This is 100% definitive). In no way is that okay, and is only amplified by the early history of baseball and that culture already developed within the league. He played in a league that held this stance. He knew the rules. This is the punishment. His legacy SHOULD be forever tarnished because of such, and this is how that's done.
|
Yeah, there is a clear hierarchy. Betting at all (Ridley), betting on your own sport, betting on your team to win, throwing games or purposefully tanking (Jontay porter). In that order.
Pete and shoeless Joe fall into that last category. Pete would unstack games he didn’t bet on to stack the games he bet on. Shoeless Joe tanked playoff games in high leverage situations and played like a hall of famer in situations that didn’t matter