Shoeless Joe Jackson

The concept of players being banned for knowledge of -- not necessarily participation in -- fixed games was established in the Louisville Grays scandal of 1877.

It was not something that was suddenly made up and applied retroactively to the Black Sox.

Were baseball officials remiss in not effectively enforcing the rules against gambling in the years leading up to 1919? Of course they were.

But you gotta start somewhere. The fact that other players, many other players, got away with similar actions, doesn't excuse the Black Sox.

The evidence of Jackson's participation in the fix mainly centers on his defensive performance, where as I recall, he allowed an unusual amount of extra-base hits on balls hit into his territory, balls to drop in front of him, etc etc. Not errors -- he didn't botch balls on purpose -- but he jogged just slowly enough to let a good number drop in. That doesn't show up in the box score.

His hitting was very good, but it did appear to be highly concentrated in either thrown games which were already out of hand, or the "doublecross" games where the fixers, pissed off because they hadn't gotten all their money, tried to strike back at the gamblers.

Of the group, Buck Weaver is the one I have legitimate doubts about. From all evidence, he did not participate in the fix, and did make attempts to notify the club about it.

Comiskey should be thrown out of the HOF too. If anything, his slave-driver administration of the team (remarkably punitive and tight-fisted even in an era when most owners acted like that) made the conditions ripe for the scandal. Quite clearly also, he would have been perfectly happy to have swept the whole deal under the rug had it not blown sky-high in the papers in August 1920.

 

Starman justice here.
Blow up the HOF and start again.

 

Buck --

I agree that the Hall of Fame is about on the field performance. But where I differ is that unlike any other character flaw, gambling directly impacts on the field performance. At the moment an athlete or a manager becomes involved with gamblers, their performance takes on a whole new meaning. I don't care if, in the case of Pete Rose, he only gambled on his team to win. On that particular day, Rose wasn't managing in the long-term best interest of the Reds (resting players who needed the break, not using a reliever for the 3rd straight game, etc.) but in the best financial interests of Pete Rose. The moment we have to parse Shoeless Joe's performance for evidence that he wasn't playing on the up and up completely changes the complexion of the game and we cannot stand for it.

Gambling on your sport is the unforgivable sin in my book. I am absolute in saying those players should be held out of the Hall of Fame. In my view, Paul Hornung should not be in Canton -- he admitted he bet on the Packers. If baseball has evidence that Leo Durocher bet on baseball, he should be out. I have no problems with booting Comiskey for creating an environment where gambling flourished. I am fine with MJ and Barkley being known to gamble on the golf course or playing high stakes poker because there is no evidence they bet on basketball. Gambling on your own sport is the only line I draw. I don't care if Ty Cobb was a dirty player and a racist. I don't care if Lawrence Taylor did coke out of stripper's ass crack an hour before kickoff. The only thing that separates professional sports from professional wrestling is the notion that the outcome is not pre-determined and that every player is playing to win that game and the manager/coach is making moves in the best interest of the team. Crossing or even blurring that line is completely unforgivable and Hall of Fames should not recognize players or managers who have done so.

 

Whether Joe Jackson or Pete Rose are in the Hall of Fame or not has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with their accomplishments as players. Those are set in the record books.

Joe Jackson, AND Pete Rose, are in fact all over the Hall of Fame -- the next time you go and check out the museum, you can't hardly walk down a hallway without tripping over some exhibit or memorabilia from the careers of Joe Jackson and Pete Rose.

Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, in fact, are much much MORE famous because they are NOT in the Hall of Fame, than they would be if they were in.

Who thinks or talks about Tris Speaker or Honus Wagner any more? Nobody. They are in the Hall of Fame, and both of them were much, much better players than Joe Jackson, and nobody remembers them.

Who thinks or talks much about Mike Schmidt or Al Kaline these days? Nobody much. They're both in the HOF, and both much much better players than Pete Rose. But everybody knows about Pete Rose. Because he's NOT in the Hall of Fame.

 

I agree with Starman.

I voted NO and only the Ted Williams argument made me think twice.

Like I mentioned earlier - Shoeless Joe still holds records for a number of teams but I don't think he deserves enshriment.

I will agree that it is obnoxious that Wade Boggs is in while Rose and Jackson are out.

Wade Boggs can suck a long brown doodie out of my ass.

 

I think it would be really great all the way around if we stopped using terms like "enshrinement" for inclusion in what is essentially an hororary museum. This goes double for all arguments based on the "sacredness" of the record book. Baseball is uniquely afflicted with this quasi-religious self-absorption and, IMHO, it would be better off without it.

 

I'm not the guy who started saying "enshrinement".

Baseball is considered "special' to the soul whle football is considered more of a "martial" sport.

 

No on Jackson, for the very reason that it would give Rose's cause some hope.

 

As soon as I posted I thought, "Damn, Lou's going to think I hung this whole thing on him."
Apologies.
It didn't start with you.
But, god, I wish we were rid of it.

 

I knew what you meant and I didn't take it personal.

I think if you reflect on your wish though you may change your mind. Baseball lends itself to mystical poetry in motion type devotions. Taking religious analogy out of baseball would eliminate "enshrinement" but also things like baseball "cathedrals" and things like that as well. Baseball literature would be poorer for the change. Even Shoeless Joe is a quasi-religious figure playing the role of a martyr. Without his status as a martyr - we don't get Kinsella's Shoeless Joe (and the wonderful true story of how JD Salinger traveled the country with Kinsella to research the book). No Shoeless Joe book and then no Field of Dreams movie and the culture is poorer for the change.

 

I, alas, would be in favor of all of that disappearing - especially "Field of Dreams," which I find loathsome beyond the fact that it's "Steel Magnolias" for men. I confess, whatever it is that hooks people on baseball this way, I must be immune to it. I never heard the Salinger bit, though. Gotta source on that?

 

I'm with you, Fenian. There is very little that makes me more ill than the whole baseball poetry crowd and their ``woven into the fabric of our society'' crap. Give me a break and play ball.