Considering that both guys were banned for life for gambling related offenses, on the basis that they cheated the integrity of the game, and then compare the things that Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, and others allegedly did by using steroids.Also you can look at others players accused of cheating by using corked or doctored bats, spit balls, Bud Selig was included in Collusion charges in the 80 is and probably will get inducted in the HOF and there are various owners and management that may get in the HOF that overlooked the steroid abuse.Comparing all of this, if you were the commissioner of baseball, would you reinstate Rose and Jackson and let them get enshrined in the baseball HOF, or continue the lifetime ban?
In response to Jackson, he may or may not have thrown the World Series (He did have the highest BA and the only HR in the series).However, if he did, he threw a possible 6 games.There is no definitive evidence and innocent people, in duress, confess to crimes they did not commit all the time.Jason Giambi, for example, by hitting home runs and RBI is while admittedly on steroids, may have caused other deserving teams to miss the playoffs or World Series because he was not playing by the rules.l would argue that Giambi is more of an offender than Jackson, yet Giambi has a legit shot of being inducted and received no lifetime ban despite ADMITTING he took Steroids.And if cheapskate Charles Commiskey was my owner at the time, l might be tempted to take money too, since it was more of a ''game'' then.
Please keep in mind that l am not supporting either one, just merely getting your opinion.Insults on other peoples opinions are unnecessary and there responses are their own right to express.l present steroided players only to compare hypocrisies in the system.Frankly, Sosa, McGwire, and other did not technically break any rules because their is no lifetime ban for using steroids, and these players should be allowed in.Thank you all for your inquiries.

No and no.

Pete Rose should be reinstated, no question. That guy is a real man. l wish every player played hard like he did.

Pete Rose, yes. Shoeless Joe, no. l think it is a no brainer. One gambled, one cheated.

both of the players should be reinstated, because the things the steroid users did is worse. since there is no evidence that they attempted to tip the game for their betting, they should both go to the hof.

Forget about the rest, Jackson took money to throw a World Series. He admitted it & it is on record (and tried to recant). He was not banned because they're not sure. Do a little research. Anyone who takes money to throw a World Series deserves to banned for eternity. At no point should he EVER be allowed in the Hall of Fame. What other people have done since has no bearing on what Joe Jackson did. He is totally deserving of his ban & should NEVER be allowed in. Once that happens, the Hall of Fame will officially be a sham.

PS - & it always cracks me up when someone asks this question & some uniformed idiot always says ''Jackson was innocent'' despite not actually knowing anything about the case - but they saw Field of Dreams so they think he must be innocent. Amazing.

PPS. You r incorrect. It is well documented Jackson threw games. When he did not get all his money he started playing well but he definitely threw games. It is completely baffling to me how people can sit there & say ''he did not throw games, look at his batting average!'' without taking the time to actually research it, like they just banned him because they thought it was neat.

Read: Shoeless: The Life & Times of Joe Jackson by David L. Fleitz

Supposedly Jackson took money to throw games during the '20 season as well. He is scum deserving of his ban. l wish u people would actually learn about what u think u know about before making these comments.

yes for rose
no for shoeless

rose was not throwing games, just a degenerate gambler

shoeless was and is innocent

At this point it is not even an issue except to be elected by your peers for Shoeless Joe. For Pete Rose, why not.he most likely wo not get elected anyways and it would be by peers as well.

Great question. IF l were commissioner, no one found to have ''cheated'' should be inducted into the HOF. Gambling & throwing games r worthy of the lifetime ban. Steroid use is an on-going thing & they should be banned if found guilty of it. ( Palmeiro is out, but Sosa, Bonds & McGuire have not been found guilty of it). A spitball (Perry) or a corked bat ( gee, Sosa again) here & there should not be judged as harshly.

The HOF considers personal conduct, not just stats.

As the all-time hits leader there is no question that Pete Rose should be in.

As for Shoeless Joe Jackson, he is one of the old time players l would have loved to see play. Reading about him & his raw ability makes u wonder what he could have done with an entire career. l do not believe that being caught up in a scandel such as the Black Sox scandel without having a fair shake from the Commisioner is office. Kennesaw Mountain Landis was a powerful man who wanted to rule baseball with an iron fist. The Black Sox ruling set the tone for his next 24 years.

So yes, l believe both players should be in the HOF.

Comparing gambling and throwing games to using steroids is totally ignorant.

l do not agree with Rock too often but he is completely correct here.

I'd reinstate Shoeless Joe Jackson, but not Pete Rose. People are not really sure if he agreed or not, and the movies do not help. Pete Rose, everyone knew he gambled. If he did not make that fatal mistake, he'd be in Cooperstown as a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

1. What Jackson did, & what Rose did, were quite different things. There is no reason to conflate them together. So let is not, & make this the permanent state of affairs going forward. One can hope.

2. Jackson & seven teammates conspired to throw selected games of the 1919 World Series. They took the money, they knew what was going on. What they actually did or did not do on the field is not really relevant. There was more than enough complicity. The involved White Sox players, in those four games, played suspiciously not to win.

3. Rose simply proved himself utterly untrustworthy, unable to be relied upon to engage his best managerial efforts to win each & every winnable game.

4. By contrast, any player using PEDs was doing so hoping to -- pay attention, this IS important -- play BETTER & win MORE. Not win less, not try to lose, not play not to win today so there is a better chance of winning tomorrow. PLAY BETTER, WIN MORE -- which is completely in keeping with the overall daily & seasonal (and personal financial) interests of the entire enterprise.

Are these distinctions clear?
1919 Black Sox -- play to let the other team win.
Rose -- maybe not play so hard today, so a win tomorrow pays off. (Maybe.)
Roiders -- play better, win more.

So, No, l would not even consider reinstating Jackson, his seven co-conspirators, or Rose, unless new & compelling & exonerating evidence comes to light. The Black Sox incident happened 90 years ago, so there is probably nothing still undiscovered there, & Rose is still around & still unable to refute the events to which he has since admitted.

Permanent expulsions r harsh, but necessary, & have not yet expired. Not ''lifetime note -- PERMANENT. Many people get this wrong.

And, please, stop filling in the blanks for Giambi. He has admitted to NOTHING in public (if u think otherwise, please cite some direct quotes by him), only that he was sorry for something he refused to specify. Yet this passes for ''manliness''. Feh.

Even in these days, two wrongs do not make a right. The crimes & violations of others, even Seligula, do not exonerate anyone else.

The current commissioner will never reinstate Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson. Both of which should be in the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose on bet on baseball betting that his team was going to win not lose those games. Shoeless Joe Jackson definitely should be in the Hall. There is NO evidence that he did anything wrong look at his stats for the World Series. Pete Rose should be put in the Hall of Fame for what he did as a player not as a manager. He did all of his betting as a manager.

Very informative question. l didnt get to see Shoeless Jackson play as that was well before my time. But, l was blessed to watch Pete Rose in the 70 is & 80's. Nobody did it better & harder than him. This guy played hard every day. Just like George Brett. These two guys to me played hard & didnt bich. After all the steroid crap, it will be intersting to see which of these freaks accused of roiding will be allowed in the HOF. If some of these guys make it in, l would be pissed if Rose isnt reinstated. l believe that once Selig is out, a new Commissioner will reinstate him. Giambi helped his cause of being voted in because he was man enough to admit that he had roided up. You have to admire a person for honesty.

No way. Joe Jackson took the money to help lose games. Pete Rose put himself in a situation where he could have chosen to lose games. All the other ''cheaters'' as people call them, took non-banned substances (most of them did before the ban was in place) to try to improve their strength or endurance, to play better, to help WIN ball games. You may not like that, but trying to WIN is not nearly the crime that trying to LOSE is.

No, l would not reinstate either of them. Baseballs rules on gambling r very clear. Bet on baseball - banned for life. No ifs, buts, maybes, or untils. You can complain about cheaters, steroid users, drug addicts, wife beaters. if baseball had a rule that said that doing any of those things would result in a ban for life, I'd support those guys being tossed out as well.

As for Jackson, he had great overall stats in the series, but he sucked in the games his team lost. .If u buy the idea that the Black Sox were told to lose certain games, then it would make sense that he would play great in the games they were supposed to win, & not so great in the games they were supposed to lose. The evidence is not conclusive either way, but sworn testimony in front of a grand jury by the player involved is hard to ignore.