I've noticed that it's been rather quiet here in the History of the Game section, and with my Cubs settling into another dismal year...I thought I'd stir things up a bit with the following essay I recently wrote. It's meant as more of a "Devil's Advocate" piece than anything else. Fee free to chime in anyway you please!
Time to Reassess the 1919 “Black Sox”?
Recent months have seen a flurry of books about the highly controversial 1919 World Series and the so-called “Black Sox.” The most notable are Red Legs and Black Sox by Dr. Susan Dellinger; and Burying the Black Sox by Gene Carney. Both are highly informative books that were a joy to read and have renewed my interest in “all things Black Sox.”
I recently reread the Melvin Durslag Sports Illustrated interview of Chick Gandil from 1956. Gandil was often cast as a ring leader of the plot to throw the 1919 World Series. Thirty seven years later, at age 69, he granted the interview “against the better judgment of my wife,” because, he said, there were things he wanted “on the record.”
Gandil seemed to be at peace with himself over his role in the scandal that had rocked baseball to its very foundation. This was baseball’s darkest hour, and he had been at the center of the raging storm. Aside from embarrassment and personal qualms, he had never suffered any hardship. Having worked for many years after his baseball career as a plumber, he noted that he and his wife “lived quietly away from the news.” Apparently there were a still few details that he wanted to get off his chest.
What caught my attention in this fascinating interview was Gandil’s repeated insistence that the 1919 Series was not thrown, and that all games were played “on the level.” Gandil never tried to whitewash his involvement and made many striking admissions which had the effect of giving his claims a ring of truth. He confirmed that he was a ring leader; and he admitted that they “got what they deserved.” Regarding Judge Landis’ famous decision, he termed it “unjust,” but quickly added that he never resented it. “Even though the Series wasn’t thrown, we were guilty of a serious offense, and we knew it.” [Emphasis added] Was Chick Gandil telling the truth? At this stage of his life, when setting the record straight seemed to be his objective, why would he lie?
Has history given the Black Sox a “raw deal”? Certainly the eight conspirators – with varying degrees of guilt and involvement – made a devil’s bargain with gamblers to throw the 1919 Series. At least some of them accepted money. Gandil admitted this, saying they deserved the fate which befell them. But he emphatically denied the games were thrown - an entirely different matter. Here are his words:
“Our losing to Cincinnati was an upset all right, but no more than Cleveland’s losing to the New York Giants by four straight in 1954. Mind you, I offer no defenses for the thing we conspired to do. It was inexcusable. But I maintain that our actual losing of the Series was pure baseball fortune. I never did get any part of Rothstein’s $10,000 and I don’t know who did...I give you my solemn word I don’t know to this day what happened to the cash.” [Emphasis added]
Theses are strong words coming thirty seven years after the fact. Either Gandil was “lying through his teeth,” or history’s version of the 1919 World Series needs to be reexamined.
According to Gandil, gambler Sport Sullivan approached him and Cicotte with the idea of throwing the World Series in return for a large payoff. When Gandil protested the feasibility of such a plan, Sullivan replied, “Don’t be silly. It’s been pulled before and it can be again.” They struck a deal, which included “The Big Bankroll” Arnold Rothstein, to throw the series for $100,000. The money was to be divided up among Gandil, Cicotte, and six other players of their choosing. They decided on Jackson, Weaver, Risberg, Felsch, McMullin, and Williams. They chose the teammates “to cut in on the gravy” not because they loved them, but “let’s just say that we disliked them the least.” The eight players then greedily schemed to get even more money by making another deal with a completely different group of gamblers.
Now it got interesting. “The heat was on” as the Series drew near. Rumors of a fix were rampant. There were threatening phone calls. Some started to panic. Sport Sullivan heard rumors that the deal was off and confronted Gandil, advising him, “I wouldn’t call it the best policy to double-cross Rothstein.”
Gandil continued: “I truthfully wanted to go to our manager Kid Gleason and tell him the whole story, but I knew it wouldn’t be that simple. I realized that things were too involved by now to try to explain. I guess some of the others must have felt the same way, because the next morning I was called to a meeting of the eight players. Everyone was upset and there was a lot of disagreement. But it was finally decided that there was too much suspicion now to throw the games without getting caught. We weighed the risk of public disgrace and going to jail against taking our chances with the gamblers by crossing them up and keeping the ten grand…Our only course was to try to win, and we were certain that we could.” [Emphases added]
Is this the truthful confession of a man approaching the twilight of his life, wanting to set the record straight? Is it the continuing distortions of a known liar and fixer, spinning yet another yarn? With a distance of eight decades, the issue can’t be resolved with certainty. The evidence supporting crooked play is threefold: the heavily favored White Sox actually lost the Series; the seven “suspicious plays” of Hugh Fullerton; and, most damaging of all, the grand jury statements of Cicotte, Jackson, and Williams, characterized as “confessions.”
The White Sox were heavily favored and losing certainly fanned the flames of suspicion. But the history of the World Series is replete with upsets: the weak White Sox of 1906 upset a great Cub team; and the “Miracle Braves” of 1914 upset the mighty Philadelphia A’s. In more recent times, the Mets, the Marlins, and the Diamondbacks – teams barely out of their expansion years – advanced to the World Series and won. The White Sox’ loss was not conclusive evidence of a thrown Series. And what about their opponents, the Reds? They were surely a great team, led by Hall-of-Famers Edd Roush and Heine Groh. They had deeper starting pitching, as Sox ace Red Faber was out. In a nine game series, depth of pitching was key. And while they had deeper hitting, the White Sox were riddled with dissention and factions.
And then there were the seven “suspicious plays.” Rumors of a fix filled the air as the Series approached. Once that perception settled in, it was easy to spot “suspicious plays,” as Hugh Fullerton did. But only seven for the entire Series? The most disputed occurred in the fourth Inning of Game Four, when Cicotte deflected a strong throw to the plate by Jackson, allowing an important run to score. But Gandil claimed that he was yelling at Cicotte to cut off the throw. “Clean Sox” Eddie Collins vindicated Cicotte, saying the attempted cut-off was correct. Another of the “disputed” seven plays involved Shano Collins, who was never accused of anything. One involved Risberg “backing up on an infield single;” another had Williams going into a “streak of wildness” in the fourth inning of Game Two; two others were misplays by Cicotte. And that’s it! What World Series has never had a few miscues, errors, or streaks of wildness? None of these seven plays directly involved Chick Gandil, the so-called ring leader, or even Hap Felsch. Most objective historians clear Jackson and Weaver from crooked play. McMullin had only two at-bats. So just who was doing all the Fixin’? When did they do it?
The grand jury “confessions” of Cicotte, Jackson, and Williams were the most damaging to the Black Sox. But in the same statements, all three denied throwing any games, a fact rarely reported. Comiskey lawyer Alfred Austrian “coached” them, possibly fooling them into “confessing” under the false pretense of “getting the gamblers.” In the 1921 trial, all three repudiated the grand jury statements. Others have examined the statements and come to similar conclusions. Author James Kirby stated “they admitted agreeing to the Fix with the gamblers and to accepting cash…but all three players also told the grand jury that they played the games to win.” Eliot Asinof had Austrian saying to Jackson, “To deny your involvement will prejudice the grand jury. Do you understand that?” and then added “Jackson wanted to stay out of trouble so he testified. He said he let up some. And then he said he played every game to win. In the newspapers the next day, no one reported the latter. Whatever Jackson said, it went down as a ‘confession’.” This focused the blame squarely on the players while shifting the spotlight away from Comiskey. But in the often-overlooked 1924 civil suit, Comiskey conceded that Jackson had played every game to win, and a jury voted 11-1 for Jackson (a ruling overturned by Judge Gregory).
Cicotte, like Gandil, admitted to guilt in the conspiracy - including taking money - but not to throwing the games. His remark “I did it for the wife and kiddies,” is almost as famous as “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” Cicotte admitted intentionally hitting the first batter he faced, but then “I pitched that best I knew after that. I lost because I was hit, not because I was throwing the game.” Writer Victor Luhrs made the interesting point that Cicotte played the Series to win but, suffering pangs of conscience, was in a “bad mental shape as a result of his involvement with the gamblers. He was hardly fit to pitch the opener.” Isn’t that exactly what Chick Gandil said? Luhrs also believed that Cicotte lied in his grand jury statement, “giving a version of things that was prepared for the eyes and ears of the gamblers.” Buck Weaver always maintained that he played his best and never took any money. He knew of the plot, but his only guilt was that he didn’t turn in any of the others. He had “guilty knowledge.” Williams, Risberg, Felsch, and McMullin also made statements over the years indicating that they played the Series to win.
The Reds players, including Roush, Groh, Greasy Neale, Dutch Ruether, Hod Eller, Slim Smallee, Aldolfo Luque, Jake Daubert, Larry Kopf, Ivy Wingo, and owner Garry Hermann thought the Series was played on the level. Roush always remained doubtful that the Series was fixed and maintained the best team had won. Reds manager Pat Moran was also skeptical, “If they threw some of the games they must be consummate actors, and their place is on the stage, for nothing in their playing gave us the impression they weren’t doing their best….It is astonishing thing to me that [they] could get away with that sort of thing and us not know it.”
Official Scorer James C. Hamilton testified that he only saw one possible suspicious play in the entire Series (the afore-mentioned Cicotte deflection in Game Four). National League umpire Richard Natlin had “no suspicion whatever of any wrong-doing.” American League Umpire Billy Evans said, “Well, I guess I’m just a big dope. That Series looked all right to me.” Umpire Ernie Quigley “never saw a team try harder to win and they were beaten on the square by the superior strength of the Reds.” Quigley also mentioned two great plays by Roush and Morrie Rath: “But for these two plays the White Sox would have won at least two more games, which would have meant the Series for them.” [Emphasis added]. Even “Clean Sox” Ray Schalk said that “Jackson and Cicotte gave their best all the way,” and Eddie Collins claimed he was “never suspicious of their actions during the Series." Christy Mathewson, sitting with Hugh Fullerton through all eight games, concluded that it would be impossible to throw a World Series.
Many of the writers reached the same conclusion, including Sporting News and Baseball Magazine reporters. W.A. Phelan wrote that “…if ever a Series was played upon the level, this was one,” adding that the Reds “simply outclassed the overconfident White Sox.” Henry P. Edwards concurred: “[the notion that] the Sox were guilty of intentional bad play is something that cannot be swallowed,” as did James O’Leary: “If anybody was ‘fixed’ give us his name and the evidence showing that he was fixed, and who fixed him.”
Could all these eye-witnesses have been fooled? These were not casual fans, but baseball lifers. Even if we accept Fullerton’s few “suspicious” plays, could these plays alone have resulted in a “thrown” Series? And what about the many outstanding plays made by Jackson, Weaver, and Felsch, and the clutch hits by Gandil? He won Game Six with an extra-inning hit, prolonging the Series for another day - hardly what you’d expect from someone trying to throw it. But for a few spectacular plays, most notably by the great center fielder Edd Roush, the entire series may have had a different result.
Is it possible that the Black Sox, while guilty of conspiring with gamblers and taking money, could have played all the games “on the level”? Why would Chick Gandil be lying at this stage of his life? No one can say for sure, but I think the idea that all the games were played to win remains a distinct possibility, worthy of further investigation. This is not to exonerate the Black Sox by any means, but merely an attempt to assess the proper level of guilt. Conspiring with gamblers is less of an offense than actually throwing games. The prevailing version whitewashed the baseball establishment, which had turned a blind eye to the gambling scandal eating away at the game. Many of the writers were Comiskey cronies – members of the famous Woodland Bards. They had a vested interest in minimizing the damage to his reputation. We need to know the truth.
The Black Sox were an extraordinary mix of arrogance, stupidity, naivety, greed, and talent. Conspiring with gamblers to throw the World Series was a serious offense. The acceptance of money irreversibly tarnished their reputations, and made their future denials ring hollow. As with a tar baby, once they touched the gamblers, they could never break free. I contend it’s entirely plausible that, as the start of the Series approached, the thought of playing “crooked ball” was too much to handle. Some cracked under the strain, as Gandil implied. The entire sordid episode was a blurred sequence of events where no one really knew what anyone else was doing. Conflicting stories were rampant. It’s time to reexamine the events of the 1919 World Series with “pursuit of the truth” the only goal. Let the chips fall where they may.
Last edited by GaryL; 05-05-2006 at 06:07 PM.
I think to some extent, there is some truth that they didn't "throw" the entire series. The fix was on only for particular games, and in the games that the fix was not on, the players likely played hard. So maybe they did lose a game while actually trying to play on the level, but it seems pretty clear that in other games, certain players were attempting to undermine the team's success in that game.
All I know is that Shoeless Joe needs to be re-instated and elected to the Hall of Fame. If youre going to let roid cheaters in, you may as well let in guys who made 1 mistake in after they are dead. Its not hurting anyone letting him in.
--It would be hurting the integrity of the game (which has suffered more than enough damage already). Who would it be helping? What purpose would be served by honoring men who conspired to throw a World Series?
Honoring Joe Jackson for being a stud would not hurt the integrity of the game. He was kicked out of baseball for life, and that was enough to protect the integrity of the game. Now it is time to recognize his greatness.
True, in both cases, the integrity of the game was severely harmed. And while I don't mean to defend the steroids users, at least in their case their lack of integrity contributed towards producing and winning, which is at the end of the day, the ultimate goal of the game and why fans root for their teams. Jackson and his 6 copatriots (I'm not including Buck Weaver), were to varying degrees involved in undermining the ultimate goal of the game and the confidence of the fans. What the Black Sox did was reduce baseball to the likes of pro-wrestling. At least with the steroids players, a fan can still know that at the end of the day, the outcome of the game, his team's fate, was not predetermined.Originally Posted by Rose4theHall
So you don't recognize his greatness now?
If for whatever reason Joe Jackson had retired after the 1920 season he would not be in the HoF. In order for one to view him as a HoF'er one has to look beyond 1920 and imagine what might have been. So basically one has to reward Joe for his actions in 1919 in order to put Joe in the Hall.
My view is this. Joe was never officially banned from the Hall until Pete Rose came along in 1990. Before that he was eligible and could be elected. In all that time Joe Jackson got a grand total of 4 votes over two years. 2 in the initial vote 2 ten years later. Now then I am willing to side with these people. The voters of the Hall of Famer were the writers who watched Joe play, who interacted with Joe who felt the impact of Joes actions. They decided Joe was not a hall of famer. Then along came the veterans committee. Former players who played along side Joe. Who worked with him, who watched him play. They too decided Joe was not a hall of famer. Then many many years later after all these people who watched Joe, who were part of Joes generation were long gone some people said hey lets put Joe in the hall. What a decent guy, didn't you watch Field of Dreams? What a nice boy. Like I said the people who worked with him and reported on him did not feel he was a hall of famer. Now many decades later a bunch of strangers who were not even alive when it happened or when he played want him. Personally I'll side with those people who worked with him and reported on him.
While maybe one or two of the Black Sox might deserve a second look that's about it. One or two of them may have only known about the fix, but wre not involved otherwise. The rest of those guys agreed to take money to throw games. For that they can rot in baseball hell. Sorry Joe.
You have to take responsibility for your actions in life. To come up with some lame apologia for their actions decades after the event is simply an attempt to relieve these guys of their guilt.
Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball
Saw Yaz launch one in '78
We're about six or seven years from honouring a man's greatness while ignoring his shame; surely we can do the same for Joe.
It's probably a stretch to say that those voters were only assessing what Jackson did on the field up until his banishment. It's almost certainly likely that they could not separate the banishment from his career and that is why he received such scant support. If Jackson had retired in 1920, and there was no scandal, I think he would have received a lot more support than he got, and would quite possibly have been elected at some point. There's no denying that for 8-10 seasons, Joe was among the best of his generation, perhaps second to only Cobb in many of those years. Others have been elected for shorter periods of greatness.
But that's the point. The hall of fame is based on the totality of ones career. They looked at all of Joe's career and all that he did and said no thanks. These people were there and could feel what the scandal meant and how it felt to the public. We cannot, in fact it's generally ignored now.
AS for Joe getting if the scandal didn't exist and he played only until 1920, like I said I doubt it. Joe had blemishes that would have to be overlooked. His early days in Philadelphia would not be looked upon favorably. H had some moments in Cleveland that darken his image, and in Chicago he has the whole WWI service issue. So we got a guy who played 9 full seasons (or I should say 9 fuller seasons) and who isn't squeaky clean. Joe Jackson didn't have the Cal Ripken or Kirby Puckett persona, and those would be strikes against him.
Now it is possible that the writers would have passed him over (I'm thinking most definitely that they would) but the Vets elect him. Don't know for sure on that it is possible, but that is one short career and Joe would have had to wait a very long time. Granted I don't know for sure but Earl Combs (1970?)I think was the first guy to get in through the Vets with so short of a career, with Kiner getting in I think 5 or so years later through the Writers.
This is a good point. What we love about sports is that it's a one time event that can never be duplicated again, and the outcome is always up in the air. When it's predetermined, its nothing more than a scripted wrestling match. Staying with the wrestling comparison; if throwing a game is like a predetermined match, then steroids, while not "predetermined" in the purest sense, is in fact like King Kong Bundy facing a midget. Maybe its not scripted, but the outcome is inevitable.
Taking everything into account, I believe the players intended to play on the level, and in fact did play on the level, but that the stress and underlying subconcious guilt weighed on them. Baseball needs to be a reactionary game, with you relying on your preparation and talent. Too much thinking is no good. It leads to bad decisions and hesitation. Even with so much on their minds, they still managed to do ok. Jackson was 10-23 (.435) when the Sox were either leading or trailing by 3 runs or less. Joe had his struggles, but so did Schalk and Collins and we don't question them.
In the eight game series, the Sox committed 12 errors and the Red committed 12 errors. Granted, when they are committed is much more important than just the error total, but still. You'd expect there to be a difference.
You all have probably seen this, but..
You can get play by play accounts of all the games here
http://www.blackbetsy.com/1919ws.htm
http://www.blackbetsy.com/joefacts.htm
I'm not sure there was time that Joe Jackson was considered the best player on his team, let alone one of the best in the league. He certainly wasn't consdiered the top player on the White Sox.
Who was better than Joe in his early years in Cleveland? Nap was in his late 30's at that time and not as productive as Joe.
He came out with a bang hitting .408 in his rookie year, and following that up with .395 and .373. He was a bonified star. Nothing he couldn't do on the ballfield.
I tend to view him as a young 30 year old when he was ousted from the game. Had he been able to continue, I assume that he'd have 4 more very productive years, 2 good years, 1 decent year, and 2 declining years. All that in the liveball era. Yes, that is assuming a reasonable amount of health, but I believe his totals would be very impressive (easily HOF caliber) in the end.
If we just give him 185 hits a year in those first 4 years (very conservative), 170 hits a year for the next two good years, 150 for the decent year, and 130 each of the two declining years, he ends up with over 3200 hits. Throw in there a .410+ OBP, 110+ more homers, .340+ BA, .550+ SA, 500+ doubles, 250+ triples....
Hey, maybe the Yanks somehow acquire him; then Joe and Ruth become Gehrig and Ruth before Gehrig and Ruth became Gehrig and Ruth
I think Lajoie was seen as Cleveland's top player. Joe Jackson for all his accomplishments doesn't seem to have had a great reputation when played fro the Naps.Who was better than Joe in his early years in Cleveland? Nap was in his late 30's at that time and not as productive as Joe.
He came out with a bang hitting .408 in his rookie year, and following that up with .395 and .373. He was a bonified star. Nothing he couldn't do on the ballfield.
I tend to view him as a young 30 year old when he was ousted from the game. Had he been able to continue, I assume that he'd have 4 more very productive years, 2 good years, 1 decent year, and 2 declining years. All that in the liveball era. Yes, that is assuming a reasonable amount of health, but I believe his totals would be very impressive (easily HOF caliber) in the end.
If we just give him 185 hits a year in those first 4 years (very conservative), 170 hits a year for the next two good years, 150 for the decent year, and 130 each of the two declining years, he ends up with over 3200 hits. Throw in there a .410+ OBP, 110+ more homers, .340+ BA, .550+ SA, 500+ doubles, 250+ triples....
Hey, maybe the Yanks somehow acquire him; then Joe and Ruth become Gehrig and Ruth before Gehrig and Ruth became Gehrig and Ruth
I don't know how Jackson would have fared if contiuned. He had great yeras in 1919 and 1920, but other than that his White Sox tenure was not Hall of Fame caliber.
Not saying he was the team leader or captain, but he was clearly their best player while he was there.
In 1911 Lajoie only played in 90 games, while Joe played the most team games (147). His 193 OPS+ and 233 hits blew everyone away. He had 20 more doubles than anyone else, and 10 more triples than anyone else. Top RBI guy, and scored 37 more runs than the next guy. All this while playing a stellar CF and RF with 32 assists and 12 errors. From what I gather, his personality reminds me much more of Gehrig than Cobb or Ruth. Like he preferred to just go about his business without much flashiness, but he was a stud nonetheless.
Gotcha. I was just stating how I tend to view the situation as a what if.I don't know how Jackson would have fared if contiuned.
It is important to note that 1920 was his highest full season OPS+ since 1913, and that was with 1919 probably weighing on his mind. No telling what might happen in the offensive 20's. I think the 4 great/2 good/1 decent/2 decline years scenario is pretty fair, barring health.He had great yeras in 1919 and 1920, but other than that his White Sox tenure was not Hall of Fame caliber.
Do you have his win shares year by year by any chance?
Maybe he was the best player for something like two years. I look at his stats and he seems over-rated to me. I think he gets a lot of love from baseball fans that he doesn't deserve. If it wasn't for the Black Sox scandal, I think he would be a forgotten player today.
Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-04-2006 at 03:54 PM.
Saw Yaz launch one in '78
Pretty tough to forget a .356 batting average, even if it was only over 13 years.
Well, three years of being clearly the best player of the team. Then two years where he only played in 120+ games and fell off a little. I agree that the scandal gives him attention, but at the same time, it takes away from what a great player he was. Also, much like Cobb, his hitting overshadowed his baserunning (not in Cobb's case) and fielding.
If it wasn't for the Black Sox scandal, he wouldn't have been out after 1920 and would be remembered as being one of the greatest players in both the deadball and liveball eras imo.If it wasn't for the Black Sox scandal, I think he would be a forgotten player today.
I don't know what it is about Jackson, but the more I look at him, the worse he looks to me. I think if his career contined, he would be a Tris Speaker type, not generally well-remembered.
[QUOTE=wamby]wamby:
Your analysis in re Jackson's enduring popularity is very sound.
Many people view Jackson as an illiterate, naive country boy
who was snookered by cunning sharpies.
However, in the Sept.17, 1956 issue of Sports Illustrated,
Chick Gandil, Black Sox first baseman, gives his personal
observations of his co-conspirator. Of Jackson, he said
this:
"He had no education, but a surprisingly good head, despite
reports to the contrary."
In other words, ignorant but far from stupid.
Brownie31
[QUOTE=Brownie31]I think Jackson was illiterate, but don't think he was stupid or even naive by any stretch. I think any claim that he was snookered into the Black Sox scandal is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=wamby]I agree. I'm sure Joe had at least the basic conceptions of right and wrong that a child has and that he had to know that getting involved in a scheme to deliberately undermine the goal of the game, to purposely lose, was wrong.
Every time I swear off the Jackson issue, along comes another thread, and the anti-Jackson camp just messes with my mind. The morning was going so sweet. The sky is blue and the birds are singing. And now, this . . .
I just can't, and never will comprehend the Jackson haters. If I hadn't read so many Sporting News/Baseball Magazine articles, I would probably sucker into the disinformation campaign of the Joe haters.
I would actually loathe/despise him. From this thread, (and others), I would have believe that Joe Jackson was an average level player, and threw games from the day he got to the MLs.
From this thread, when members say, "Why honor a man who undermined the integrity of the game?" Good grief, what overkill. What distortion!
If a man does his job superbly from 1911-20, despite having 3 seasons which are not "GREAT", I'd say he was a star. And make no mistake. Joe Jackson was a star of the highest order. Cite the following.
In 1912, Joe Jackson was nominated by Baseball Magazine as Cobb's closest rival. By his sophomore season, 1912, Joe Jackson was already, by consensus, nominated by all the right people, as the 3rd member of the 'All-Time All-Star Team, with Cobb/Speaker. Joe pushed out the former claimants, Bill Lange/Willie Keeler.
Joe Jackson was a solid member of that 'mythical team', up until the time he was expelled. Ruth supplanted him anyway in the early 20's.
Joe Jackson was nominated to all the annual all star teams in the teens. That is what happens when you debut at .408 and follow that up with .393, .374, and come in second in BA.
Now, the nonsense. "What purpose would be served by honoring men who conspired to throw a World Series?". Again, if I was an uninformed moron, I'd believe that he was throwing games since he arrived and must have been close pals with Hal Chase. I have seldom heard Chase blasted as hard as Jackson.
Jackson made a moral mistake for 2 weeks in his life. He didn't throw in 1920, although rumors of others throwing in '20 persisted. Joe Jackson committed a serious error in judgment, for 2 weeks of his life. There is huge doubt as to his degree of culpability, there is huge motive to do wrong, seeing as his employer was screwing him on his salary for 4 years, and he paid for whatever moral failings he is guilty of with his profession, fame, reputation and honor.
He was so over-punished for 2 weeks of wrong-doing, under such mitigating circumstances. It was quite possible he took dirty money, considered throwing but changed his mind, tried to tell his management and was rebuffed by a rich phoney.
But, for 2 weeks of considering wrong-doing, and telling cheats he was 'with them', he lost his profession for which he had trained for 14 yrs., all the endorsement potential, and the fame/honor he would have had.
Hey, guys. Hal Chase didn't have anything nearly as harsh imposed on him. Jackson wasn't Chase. But from the comments of this thread, no uninformed fan will get that.
You guys are framing him as a career fixer. Yeah, I know you'll deny it, but that's how all the unregistered guests here will read your over-zealous commentery. If a man is forgiven for 2 weeks of terrible judgment, his record forces his enshrinement into the Hall. You aren't honoring 2 wks. of his career. You are honoring his great career. Cobb, Speaker, Ruth all lauded him as a great hitter, and they would know one better than anyone on this thread.
Gary: That Gandil interview is posted here on Historical Articles.
Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-04-2006 at 07:13 PM.
The reason the writers didn't vote for Joe for the Hall was that the waters had been poisoned by the press. They leaked his GJ testimony as a 'confession'. He was disgraced.
Also, because of his illiteracy, he was introverted, and wasn't particularly ingratiated to the press. It made him turn inward. It might have made him appear backward, when he was actually intelligent. He spoke a very soft southern dialect, and it could have worked against him. Made him appear provincial, like a hick. Many mistake gentleness for mental inferiority.
To ascribe that the writers didn't think Joe played great enough to be elected to the Hall is just so wrong. I don't want to name names, but this thread had really pushed my buttons. Joe was voted onto all the annual all star teams, and was especially admired by Ferdinand C. Lane, editor in chief of Baseball Magazine, 1912-37.
Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-04-2006 at 07:16 PM.
View Profile
View Forum Posts
View Blog Entries
View Articles
Reply With Quote
Visit Homepage