Shoeless Joe Jackson

Comiskey SUSPECTED something was up . . . after it had already started.

Jackson KNEW. Before the first pitch was thrown.

That's the biggest difference to me.

And if Landis had decided Comiskey and Johnson were culpable and decided to boot them, that would have been his prerogative. But that would have been a lot on the plate of a first-year commissioner. And I'm sure Comiskey would have put up one hell of a legal fight if he had been banned for not responding to rumors and innuendo in a prompt manner.

 

And, as I said, he's paid the price for the crime of knowing-but-not-coming-forward, and Comiskey has paid no price for being a power-mad gombeen who helped create the context within which a fix not only was possible, but likely. Is it time yet to talk about Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb?
The "ban" in 1991 -- when the BBWAA rolled over for the commissioner's office like good pet doggies so the Rose question wouldn't come up for a public vote -- formalized what already existed. Anybody know the most votes SJJ got during his time of formal eligibility?

 

My turn to weigh in ;D:

Let's get one thing clear first: I think the Hall of Fame should be based almost completely on on-field performance. I think the Hall of Fame selections are there to honor the greatest players in the game (managers, umpires, pioneer/legendary executives, too), and the museum in Cooperstown is for fans and students of the game, not the whimsical guardianship of Major League Baseball or, heaven forbid, the BBWAA.

IMO, the "integrity, sportsmanship, character" clause in the HOF voting is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, hypocritical. There are too many persons voted into the Hall for whom this clause is completely overlooked, for popularity reasons or otherwise. And frankly, it doesn't matter anyway. As fans, we overlook all kinds of questionable characters as long as they help our teams win -- hell, just look at Pete Rose, the player. The teams overlook this stuff, too. Look at a situation like Brett Myers -- accused of beating his wife, yet allowed to start the very next day. Yes, off-the-field character matters much to MLB ... NOT. So it shouldn't matter to the Hall of Fame (which, fyi, is a separate entity from MLB -- MLB does not run the Hall or make its rules. The Hall could reverse its 1991 rule not allowing "ineligibles" to be elected and MLB couldn't do anything about it.)

You need more examples that "character counts"?

Ty Cobb (also an avowed racist, who may or may not have killed a man in self-defense/cold blood) and Tris Speaker almost surely fixed a late-season game in 1919 between their two teams (along with Joe Wood), yet it was hushed up by Ban Johnson when it came out years later, then absolved by Judge Landis, and the two (still playing at the time) left the game quietly, but without punishment. They're both in the Hall ... and rightfully so. (Johnson and Landis are in the Hall, as well.)

Leo Durocher (not exactly standing at the door of integrity and character, either) hung out with gamblers all his life, was suspended for the entire 1947 season because of that, MLB likely had evidence that he was betting on many sports (baseball among them? who knows?), and he's in the Hall ... also rightfully so.

There is much more evidence than not that points to Jackson (who was actually a fairly decent man, personally) playing his absolute best in the 1919 World Series, despite accepting $5,000 for the "big fix." There is no debate about that: Jackson did take the money. Did he earn it? That's part of the debate, but not the important part.

(I'm not going to get into the details of the "Eight Men Out" story here, but the crux of my argument would be this: Judge Landis' punishments were the same, even though the players' crimes were not. Landis, btw, had a reputation for getting his outlandish decisions overturned when he was a judge in federal court. But he was free to do whatever he wanted in MLB, so, hey, if he wants to ban just eight of 'em for life and overlook other players who had done the same (fixing was fairly prevalent in the game then, but it was also an accepted part of the game), he could. And if he wanted to overlook the owners' complicity in trying to pull a Richard Nixon and go out of their way to cover up the big 1919 Series fix for a year until Cicotte finally confessed anyway, then he could do that, too.)

So my opinion is: You can't keep the best players in the game out of the Hall of Fame. That does a disservice to the game and insults the public's intelligence who realize that a Hall of Fame without the all-time hits leader and the third-highest batter (and we'll see what happens with McGwire when he becomes eligible in 2007) is not really a legitimate Hall of Fame at all.

If MLB wants to keep Pete Rose out of the league completely, banning him from any coaching or managing or even instructional or promotional job in the majors, they've got every right to. Hell, they've got every reason to. Ban him from the game, that's fine. I have no problem with that. He broke the rules and he should be punished. Punished for life, even. Don't let him earn a living off baseball, as they govern it. That's perfectly acceptable.

But the Hall of Fame is not about MLB. It's about the greatest players in the history of the game. And Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are among the greatest players in the history of the game -- and really, there's no argument against either of those claims. They should be in the Hall.

If you don't want to have anything about them in the museum itself (also separate from the actual Hall of Fame), as more punishment, fine. If you want to add an asterisk at the bottom of their Hall of Fame plaque with "banned for life" or "indicted for steroid use" or some such designation, go right ahead. But you can't deny their place among the game's greats. And you can't deny them a place in the Hall of Fame. That's insulting to any baseball fan who watched them play. They were Hall of Famers -- put them in the Hall.

 

Again, I said I'm not getting into this here. Read "Burying the Black Sox," a recent book by SABR member and Black Sox expert extraordinaire Gene Carney, for more on this.

But one point of clarification: Comiskey KNEW as much as Jackson KNEW ... and possibly more ... even before the Series began. Everyone knew. Comiskey himself was told by Hugh Fullerton (with Pirates owner Barney Dreyfuss present), he was told by other writers, he was told by a gambler, even, that the fix was in.

He KNEW. He just chose not to do anything about it. Kid Gleason knew, Ban Johnson knew (and knew more than anyone). Everyone knew. It was a bungled fix from the beginning.

(That's why Landis' directive to Buck Weaver about reporting to proper authorities was a sham. There was nobody he could tell who didn't already know. Carney's book has footnotes and evidence -- check it out. The entire story is too complicated to make clear-cut judgments against anybody involved. You've also got to consider the context of their era -- fixing was common. It was part of the game. Owners turned a blind eye because their profits were rising, same as they did in the mid-1990s with steroids.)

 

I saw this topic and thought, "This is buckweaver's dream thread right here." Judging by his essay, I guess I was right.

 

Not making an editorial observation just saying - but I'm still amazed by the fact the Joe Jackson is STILL the all-time batting average leader for BOTH the Chicago White Sox (.340 career mark) and the Cleveland Indians (.375). That's incredible!

 

Looks like he's going to hold both records for a while longer, too.

 

I would say no, you don't let him in. But if you do let him in, then you have to let Pete Rose in too.

 

As far as I know, MLB does not operate the Hall of Fame, but merely works with it. The Hall of Fame is its own entity.

 

Bottom line is we'll never know Joe Jackson's true intent. My feeling is he took money to throw World Series games and did help fix some. He and Pete Rose - out. Box scores can't tell you how a player fielded a ball (slow getting to it, poor decision, etc.), but I thought I'd look at Jackson's performance in the World Series game-by-game (via retrosheet - love that site).

Game 1 - Reds 9, White Sox 1
Jackson 0-for-4, run scored
- reached on error in first, eventually scored on a Gandil single
- grounded out with no one on in fourth
- with first & second and one out in the sixth, grounded out to first (score was 6-1 at the time)
- flied out to lead off ninth

Game 2 - Reds 4, White Sox 2
Jackson 3-for-4, struck out
- doubled to lead off second, went to third on bunt, failed to score on Gandil's grounder to short (score was 0-0)
- in the fourth, followed a Buck Weaver single with a single. Advanced on a bunt. Weaver was out at home on a 3-2 FC by Gandil (who then stole second). Risberg popped out.
- In sixth, with Weaver on second, was called out on strikes
- In eighth, two-out single.

Game 3 - White Sox 3, Reds 0 (Dickie Kerr's shutout)
Jackson 2-for-3, scored, caught stealing
- Singled to lead off second. Advanced to third on an error by Fisher (Felsch to second) then scored on a Gandil single.
- Bunted runners over in third (can you imagine a No. 4 hitter doing that today?)
- In sixth, singled then was caught stealing. (Felsch, the next batter, did the exact same thing).

Game 4 - Reds 2, White Sox 0
Jackson 1-for-4, strikeout
- Doubled to lead off second. Advanced on a bunt. But didn't score as Gandil popped up; Risberg walked and stole second; Schalk walked and Cicotte grounded out.
- With two out in third, reached on Rath error.
- Grounded out to lead off sixth
- Struck out with one out in eighth (one of Ring's two strikeouts - the other being Gandil)

Game 5 - Reds 5, White Sox 0
Jackson 0-for-4
- In first, with runners on first and third, popped out to third
- With one out in fourth, grounded out
- Led off seventh with ground out
- With two out in ninth, Weaver tripled, but Jackson grounded out.

-- It is here, if I recall correctly, that the players wanted their money and decided (well, not Gandil), to stop the fix.

Game 6 - White Sox 5, Reds 4 (10 inn.)
Jackson 2-for-4, 1 run, 1 RBI, walk + outfield assist
- In first, with two out and man on first popped out
- In fourth, with one out popped out
- Bottom of the fourth, threw out Rath trying to score on a fly
- In sixth, Weaver led off with a double, Jackson then singled him in (making the score Reds 4, White Sox 2). Jackson then scored on Felsch's double.
- In eighth, led off with a walk. Went to second on a Gandil walk after Felsch flew out. Was thrown out at third after trying to advance on Risberg's fly out to center.
- In 10th, with Weaver on second, bunt singled. (Gandil would knock in the go-ahead run - the movie Eight Men Out made it seem like the game-winner. But Chicago was the road team and Risberg lined into a DP to end the 10th)

Game 7 - White Sox 4, Reds 1 (Cicotte's game "above board")
Jackson 2-for-4, two RBI
- In first, with two out, singled in Shano Collins
- In third, with two out, singled in Shano Collins - these were Chicago's first two runs
- In fifth, with one out, reached on an error to load the bases
- In seventh, grounded out

Game 8 - Reds 10, White Sox 5 (Lefty Williams actually got the first batter out, then surrendered four straight hits and was yanked)
Jackson 2-for-5, two runs, three RBI, double, home run
- In first, with runners on second and third, struck out (as did Weaver before him and Felsch after)
- In third, with two out, homered (made it 5-1 Reds)
- In sixth, with man on first, flied out (it was 9-1 at this point)
- In eighth, with one out, doubled in two runs

Again, box scores don't tell the intent of a person, but knowing what we know, it looks like a guy who helped fix games to me. Making key outs in losses, playing well in Cicotte's non-fix, then adding on some RBI in a blowout.

 

You know a lot of people who can "add on" RBI in a blowout on command?
I don't.

 

On command? No. But they sure can try a lot harder. I'm sure Jackson knew how to hit to a different field when he wanted to, or make a bad swing. Or go for a homer. I'd be more focused on what he didn't do than what he did, anyway.

Jackson is a very romanticized figure, I understand the defense of him. I'm trying to look at it without any prejudices. I've read a few books on the White Sox and Jackson .. I'm sure a compelling argument could be made both ways. But I see evidence in the box scores.