Subj : Food for discussion
To   : Ed Grinnell
From : Steve Quarrella
Date : Mon Mar 05 2001 04:05 pm

 SQ>> Them's fightin' words, man. :-)
 eg> At the time he was banned, Jackson was getting BETTER. It

You'll still get killed near Tiger Stadium if you say that.  Trust me on this:  
Cobb is "THE GREATEST" back home. :-)

 eg> took him a couple of years to get used to the park but he was
 eg> starting to get better. At the same time in their careers,
 eg> Jackson finished with .356 while Cobb was at .368. Jackson
 eg> would have been able to take advantage of the rule changes as
 eg> well and raised his game.
 eg> BTW, if you stop Cobb's career in 1919, he'd have been 1400

Why 1919?  You can't play "what if":  Jackson could have gone downhill, for all 
you know.

 SQ>> There's also that issue of 152/162 games, which plagued
 SQ>> Roger Maris
 eg> Baloney.

Well, I think the whole deal is baloney, too.  I'm just saying, that gets 
factored in somewhere, like it or not, and you and I are two of the "not" 
(Maris is a guy whom I think deserves enshrinment, if only for the shitty 
treatment he got while pursuing the Babe in 1961.).

 SQ>> The point I make is that the HOF makes an issue of
 SQ>> activities on and off
 eg> They only make issues as they see fit.

Bingo.

 eg> Cobb's escapades were
 eg> well known when he was enshrined in 1936 and everyone and his
 eg> mother knew that Ruth was a drunk. I hate to say it but
 eg> "off-the-field" seems to apply only to those that are
 eg> off-white in color.

Of course, there's Juan Marichal's waving around a baseball bat at John 
Roseboro's head.  For the life of me, I can't remember what it was that got 
Orlando Cepeda into trouble off-field.  Marijuana, was it?

 eg> You need to get on the Internet to see some of the damning
 eg> evidence.

I'd be interested in seeing some good URLs, if you would be so kind.

 eg> however; he still bet on them. While MOST of the fingerprints
 eg> on betting slips and other evidence doesn't meet ALL of the
 eg> points for evidence, most people are in agreement that they
 eg> are his AND there IS a betting slip that does have a PERFECT
 eg> fingerprint that more than meets the rules of evidence. Rose

Basic statistics, of course, as x>0...

 eg> is as guilty as O.J. (Yes, I believe that as well) and
 eg> deserves to stay out of the HOF (I also believe that they
 eg> should put Comiskey out of the HOF as well. He's just as
 eg> guilty as the ones that committed the crime).

What were his crimes?  Other than the players, I really don't know the 
mechanics behind the 1919 debacle:  Was he in on that?  You're actually helping 
me to make my point, though:  Why does one bad guy get to be in, while another 
is excluded for criteria that apply only to the guy who's not a member?

---
 * Origin: Il Vaticano * Argyle, TX  (1:393/9005.13)

.