PDA

View Full Version : Joe Jackson's Innocence



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Bill Burgess
09-23-2005, 03:15 PM
Vidor/Mark,

We're not making any progress here. No matter what the Jackson camp puts out there, you're like children who keep repeating, "Know you are but what am I".

That's the level of sophistication of your argument. No matter what we suggest, you keep chanting your mantra.

"He took the money. But he took the money. Did you read the part where it said, He took the money". Repitition doesn't strengthen your mantra. Sounds just as weak the 20th time around as it did when you first said it.

Things like motive, protecting others, testifying under pressure of your job - these things just can't enter into it in your minds. I suppose you consider these things legal niceties. Inconvenient legal matters that dull minds consider.

I just don't know what more can be done here. I think we're done. This conversation could & should have been a lot more promising, but that is only possible with different kinds of minds. More open to subtleties, nuance, grey areas. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world. Most of the rest of us prefer some color. Makes life more real.

Vidor
09-23-2005, 03:47 PM
There is a difference between "he took the five grand and expressley agreed to actively participate in throwing the series" and "he took the five grand because he had no choice."

He did have a choice. Buck Weaver had the same choice, and told the crooked players to get lost.

leecemark
09-23-2005, 04:03 PM
--We could discuss the degree of guilt forever. It doesn't really matter though. Knowing about and profiting from the fix is guilty enough for some of us. If it makes you feel better to have me agree that Jackson's soul wasn't as inky black as Hal Chase or Chick Gandil or Eddie Ciccotte or Lefty Williams, then fine I agree. It is a dark enough grey that he HAD to be banned from the game though and there is no good reason to reinstate him now. The only reason to do so would be for the purposes of giving him baseball's highest honor and he is guilty enough not to merit that.

Bill Burgess
09-23-2005, 05:29 PM
There are members here who are so seriously confused as to the actual factual, uncontested record.

Buck Weaver did attend BOTH cheaters meetings, and played his heart out.

Joe Jackson did NOT attend either meeting, and played his heart out.

Difference? Jackson played so much better, and no one tossed an envelope full of bills to Weaver, for him to get caught, "holding the bag".

Some members seriously require a course of remedial reading on this subject. By all means go with your gut and feel however you like, but please stop screwing up the uncontested, undisputed factual details of the case. We don't care how you feel about Jackson's guilt, just stop screwing up the factual details! Is that too much to ask? Maybe it is.

So are we all in agreement now?


My pal, Gene Carney, who knows this case like the back of his hand, agrees with me on a few basic things. Gene also believes that Joe Jackson played to win, was coached by Alfred Austrian to protect Comiskey.

Gene also mentions in this thread, that the jury for the second trial, heard all of this incriminating "evidence", and found for Joe Jackson, 11-1, and awarded Jackson his backpay from Comiskey. 11 impartial observers, sat for the entire process, heard everything more than we here on Fever are hearing, and believed Joe Jackson didn't throw those games. They heard that GJ testimony read to them, had copies to study, and disagreed with the Hang Jackson clique. And they were in an infinitely better position to judge than we!! They heard the anti-Jackson material read to them by a professional attorney, skilled in presenting material with their spin.

But the judge threw out their verdict, substituting his own personal judgment over that of 11 jurists, and threw Joe in jail, I think for a day. It is very INSTRUCTIVE that Charles Comiskey DID PAY JOE JACKSON, his backpay!!!! Even when he didn't have to. Charles Comiskey settled this backpay out of court with Joe Jackson, and the amount was not made public.

This is consistent with my opinion, and Gene's, that Comiskey always believed that Joe played to win.

Also interesting, if the judge was such a stickler for legalities, in jailing Joe for perjury, why did he not also jail Charles Comiskey for being in possession of stolen state testimony!!!!! He either stole it with his own agents, or paid outside agents (Rothstein's hoodlums?) to steal them for him. Either way, he committed a felony against the court.

So, the judge who jailed Joe and invalidated the jury's verdict, proved himself a prejudiced, arbitrary hypocrite, who selectively selected which "crimes" he chose to punish.

Bill Burgess

Ubiquitous
09-24-2005, 07:53 PM
Some of the email about Joe and the Grand Jury is off. I think it has to do with some people not understanding what the grand jury actually is.

The grand jury could have compelled Joe to take the stand, it isn't a matter of whether or not he should have been allowed. He went so voluntarily that is true but just like today that was more for PR then because he was framed or coached. If he decline to show then they subpeona him, and in terms of PR that looks bad. So you go voluntarily and that looks good. Secondly the grand jury is not a trial you are not on trial to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. You are simply trying to show enough evidence to show that there is enough "stuff" there to warrant a trial. Shoeless Joe's testimony was ample enough evidence to warrant a trial. He said he agreed to fix the series, was paid for it by gamblers, and that many other players were involved.

Thirdly during the grand jury process there is no defense attorney. The DA basically just asks a bunch of questions and hopefully the answeree answers truthfully.


Also by the way the Sox players were not in any real legal jeopardy. The states had the almost impossible task of convicting people who in all probabiliy committed no crimes against the state or its people. Baseball in terms of its impact on the citizens is a form of entertainment. So you can't really prove a case of fraud. You can't say that gamblers were defrauded because of the fix since gambling is illegal and therefore not a binding contract. Look at the judges instructions to the jury and you will see what an impossible case it was. It was not against the law to take money to lose a game of baseball on purpose.


Now then about the 1924 trial. A lot of people like to hold that up as the "truth" or some way having more "honest" integrity then what transpired in 1920-21. To that I say hogwash. Joe Jackson in 1924 wanted money from Comiskey. You don't sue your employer for money you believe is yours but was not given because you stole from the boss. Of course Joe is going to say he is innocent and of course Joe is going to do a complete 180 on his testimony. At the time he thought there would be no legal record of what he said or admitted to. Joe Jackson somewhere along the line lied under oath and because of that everything he said should be taken with a grain of salt, and generally speaking when somebody lies its generally not so they can look bad. Very very few people lie to get themselves into trouble, most people lie to get themselves out of trouble. So to me if you believe that his 1924 testimony is the truth then that means his 1921 testimony is a lie. To me that is a strange assignment of the lie.

Secondly it seems odd to me that Joe Jackson would get $5,000 and yet never play to lose or have it appear to the other members of the fix that he was not in on it. Afterall Buck who did attend a meeting never got a dime, while others did. Secondly if Joe was given the money without his consent or that he considered it found money then why did he complain about how little he got? That doesn't seem to fit somebody who knew nothing and wasn't in on it.

sweaver
09-24-2005, 08:03 PM
My belief is that Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver became remorseful about the time that the fix became public knowledge.
Same here. I also agree, at least in principle, with Cards85.

This incident is not really "murky." Most is a matter of public record, due to the confessions made by many of the players, which were printed in the Chicago papers before they were stolen from the courthouse. At least some of the players would likely have been convicted if that hadn't happened, but newspaper articles are not usually admissible in court.

leecemark
09-24-2005, 10:15 PM
--If you believe Rothstein and Commisky were partners in crime you are even more delusional than I thought. Commisky was the primary victim of Rothstein and the Black Sox scheme. It may be true that Commisky tried to cover up after the fact because he thought his team would be destroyed if the truth came out. However, it seems highly unlikely to me that he had anything to do with stealing the confessions.
--I suspect is judge set aside the jury verdict because it was clearly wrong. The jury was probably made up of the same kind of fans who don't want to believe Jackson was guilty here.

Ubiquitous
09-25-2005, 02:05 AM
Juries are screwy things and very often do not really follow the law or I should say made do not make their decisions based on the law. Which is why nowadays a lot of their decisions get overturned on appeal or at least altered. Juries are made of the common folk and the common folk like to stick it to business.

Nor to me can we really trust the people who took the stand in 1924. I'm not really going to trust Lefty Williams, Bill Burns, or Joe Jackson when they say things on the stand. Nor am I going to believe Comiskey. None of them are trustworthy at this point.

Can I believe that at some point Rothstein and Comiskey had dealings with each other? Yes I can believe that.

Can I also believe that Comiskey gave Jackson money not because he believed him innoncent but because he wanted the publicity and Jackson to go away? Yes I can. Comiskey from the very beginning wanted the spotlight on his team to go away and the 1924 embarassed him and also opened up his books to the public. He didn't like that and he wanted the problem to go away. But at the same time he needed to appear to the public like he did nothing wrong, which is why he didn't settle out of court during the trial. He needed to win the trial and then after the trial he simply did something that was beginning to become common in Jackson's life. He paid him off. But this time it wasn't for throwing the series but to go away. Which Jackson did after 1924.


Nor do I think either trial was really about throwing the world series but the damages throwning the world series did or did not cause. The players defense attorney all but admitted that the players took money for the fix in his closing remarks,

there may have been an agreement entered into by the defendants to take the gamblers' money, but it has not been shown that the players had any intention of defrauding the public or bringing the game into ill repute. They believed that any arrangement they may have made was a secret one and would, therefore, reflect no discredit on the national pastime of injure the business of their employer as it would never be detected. and the Judeg instructed the jury that throwing ballgmes was not enough to come back with a guilty verdict against the players. Most people think that the 1920-21 trial was to decide whether or not the players threw the world series, it was not, which is why they often the segue into the Landis verdict. They often say things like, "despite the not guilty verdict Landis banned all eight players". As if the not guilty verdict has anything to do with whether or not they fixed the world series.

Bill Burgess
09-25-2005, 08:26 AM
--If you believe Rothstein and Commisky were partners in crime you are even more delusional than I thought. Commisky was the primary victim of Rothstein and the Black Sox scheme. It may be true that Commisky tried to cover up after the fact because he thought his team would be destroyed if the truth came out. However, it seems highly unlikely to me that he had anything to do with stealing the confessions.

It may surprise you, but that is what most people have always believed. I put a question mark after Rothstein. If it wasn't his people, it had to be someone shady enough to steal state property.


I suspect is judge set aside the jury verdict because it was clearly wrong. The jury was probably made up of the same kind of fans who don't want to believe Jackson was guilty here.

The jury was composed of folks who barely knew baseball. Your belief in the jury system is underwhelming. Sure juries sometimes mess up. Look at the first OJ jury. Didn't want to believe ill of a popular sports hero. But why impugne this one?


Ubiquitous,

You're a pretty wise man. Properly cynical about the system. We disagree on Jackson's guilt, but I respect your opinions. Mark calls me delusional, but you can see my points. Thanks.

Bill

leecemark
09-25-2005, 08:28 AM
--Because it was probably as bad a decision making group as the O.J. one? In any case, that trial did not decide anything about the fix or Jackson's role in it. They were just deciding if Jackson should get paid regardless of his role in the Black Sox.

Bill Burgess
09-25-2005, 08:38 AM
--Because it was probably as bad a decision making group as the O.J. one? In any case, that trial did not decide anything about the fix or Jackson's role in it. They were just deciding if Jackson should get paid regardless of his role in the Black Sox.

Wrong again, Mark. The jury of the 1924 trial, in order to find for Mr. Jackson, and award him his backpay, had to first answer 9 questions.

The 6th question was: Did the Plaintiff Jackson, unlawfully conspire with Gandil, Williams and other members of the White Sox Club, or any of them, to lose or "throw" any of the base ball games of the 1919 World's Seires to the Cincinnati Baseball Club? Answer: NO.

The 10th and last question was: What sum of money will fairly and reasonably compensate the Plaintiff for the defendants's failure to give Plaintiff a contract in accordance with Defendan'ts representation? Answer: $16,711.04.

Ubiquitous
09-25-2005, 08:41 AM
Ubiquitous,

You're a pretty wise man. Properly cynical about the system. We disagree on Jackson's guilt, but I respect your opinions.
Depends on what you mean by guilt. I have no concrete proof that Joe Jackson actively tried to lose games. I wasn't there all we have is the record. Some PBP data suggest he fixe it, overall data looks like he didn't. The fact that he hit poorly with runners on in games that were known to be fixed games could be just random chance, having more to do with his fellow fixers, or something he actively tried.

What I do think he was guilty of was knowing and agreeing to the fix. It could very well be that before the Series started he chickened out but didn't have the courage to tell his fellow conspirators. Which is why he asked Kid Gleason to bench him. Though once that avenue was denied he went out and played to the best of his ability. Though if that is true then why did he get paid? Buck did not get paid, and Jackson getting paid is not in dispute. Nor does it explain why Jackson would admit in the grand jury testimony complaining about the lack of money being given.

To me his guilty, because he took the money, criminals are allowed to have guilt as well, and trying to inform Comiskey after the fact does not remove the fact that he took the money after game 4. Even if he never actually tried to throw a game he is guilty of being involved in a conspiracy. In a conspiracy you don't need to actually do the deed just be party to it. The money to me is pretty clear evidence that Jackson was party to the conspiracy.


The jury of the 1924 trial, in order to find for Mr. Jackson, and award him his backpay, had to first answer 9 questions.

The 6th question was: Did the Plaintiff Jackson, unlawfully conspire with Gandil, Williams and other members of the White Sox Club, or any of them, to lose or "throw" any of the base ball games of the 1919 World's Seires to the Cincinnati Baseball Club? Answer: NO.

The problem with the 6th question is that the answer has to be No. The first trial decided that fixing the game was not unlawful so there is no way that this jury could answer that question as a yes.

There is a saying but I forget the exact wording but it basically states that courts solve nothing. Looking towards a verdict as if it is actually an indication of whether or not something happened is folly. Many many times the trials and those deciding it are not privy to much of the info that is pertinent to the trial for one reason or another. Saying that Joe got a not guilty verdict in 1921 and a jury verdict in his favor in 1924 means very little in terms of the truth. Just like a judge over-ruling a jury verdict means very little in terms of the truth. Verdicts in terms of truth are not the the nail to the coffin, sometimes we never have that nail.

Bill Burgess
09-25-2005, 08:57 AM
The 1st trial should never have happened. Comiskey hated it, Landis felt there was no need of anyone but him to decide baseball matters.

Only Ban Johnson pushed for it. In an interview in 1926, Ban Johnson said, "I gave the trial to Landis to conduct. Months later, I asked him, "What's going on with the trial?" He said, "Nothing". I decided to take it away from him and proscecute it with league funds."

It was a real dog of a case to begin with. Throwing games wasn't a crime. It was all but unwinnable.

By the testimony, Jackson claimed to have been approached by Gandil twice before the 4th game, and refused him both times. He says that Gandil told him, "in or out, we're going through with it. You might as well be with us, to get a cut". And Jackson told him, "I'll take your word."

Let's assume for a moment, that Jackson agreed to "be with them" in that one moment. Who's to say that a minute later, he decides, "This is screwed. I'm not going to do this"? And doesn't tell that to anyone else. So Gandil has it in his head that Jackson is now one of them.

And we shouldn't forget, that Williams is Jackson's room mate, and has told the fixers that he was representing Jackson in the 2 meetings, so the fixers think Jackson is "with them", when in fact, Williams is just trying to reserve gamblers money for his room mate.

No wonder Jackson's name got mixed up with the others.

Bill Burgess

Ubiquitous
09-25-2005, 09:07 AM
Yes but he still got the money. And it wasn't like he said are you in or out, and then Jackson said yes and then was handed money. The fixers believed Jackson to be in on it, he got a cut of the money a sizable chunk at that, and then even groused about how small it was.

Now it could very well be had someone listened to Jackson before the series this all could have been averted but this does not change the guiltiness of Jackson. There is a lot of things he could have done and taking the money and grousing about the size is not one of the choices that paints oneself in a good light.

Chisox
09-26-2005, 02:38 PM
So are we all in agreement now?

About what?

Bill Burgess
09-26-2005, 04:14 PM
I was being ironicly wry, and cynicly sarcastic. The chances for us coming together in concensus here are less than 100%.

Ubiquitous
09-26-2005, 04:48 PM
Kenesaw Landis banned Joe Jackson from baseball forever due to his supposed "part" in the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Now let me give you some numbers and facts to show that Jackson was CLEARLY innocent.

In the 8 games Joe had a .375 Avg which was the highest of the series. The 2nd highest was the other innocent yet banned player Buck Weaver who batted .324. Joe also had 12 hits which is number 1 of the series. 2nd is also Weaver with 11. He also had 3 doubles which is 2nd to Weavers 4. He had 5 runs which is 2nd best in the series. weaver had 4 which was 3rd best. Jackson had 6 rbis which was 3rd best in the series. However Weaver had none in the series but that was probably because his guilty teammates didnt wanna get on base. It was also reported that Jackson received $5,000 from the scandal but he tried giving it to Charlie Comiskey however Comiskey told him to keep it. Jackson also begged to be benched the whole series but was forced to play. But again looking at the numbers Jackson had the stats to be MVP had his team won. Now I ask you try saying that is playing badly so my team loses.

Games clearly fixed.
Game 1
Game 2
Game 4
Game 5

Game 8 is possible that only Williams was throwing the game.

So what did Joe Jackson do in Games 1,2,4, and 5?

Game 1: 0/4 1 run. Reached on error sacrificed over to third and then fellow throwee knocked him in with a single. 3 ground outs and a fly out.

Game 2: 3/4 1 double, 2 singles

Game 4: 1/4, 1 double

Game 5: 0/4.

So in games clearly fixed Jackson went 4/16. With 3 hits coming in one game. Therefore in games widely believed that all members were trying to win (save Williams in game 8)Jackson went 8 for 16 with 1 double, 1 homer, 1 walk.

In games trying to win batted .500, games trying to lose batted .250.
.500/.529/.750 with no strikeouts.
.250/.250/.375 with 2 strikeouts.

Bill Burgess
09-26-2005, 06:47 PM
Ubiquitous,

Nice try. I like it. I like it very much. And I do appreciate anyone who takes a nice shot at proving a controversial premise. And I do not want to sour our previously cordial relations, since we seemed to get along rather nicely.

But you simply MUST forgive me for undermining your very nice work here. And it does appear rather suspicious. Almost damning. But let's steal a peak at some other relevant factoids here.

Your premise seems to be, that Joe Jackson was such a gifted hitter, that he could hit as well as he wanted, when he was motivated, and sloughed off when not. I must confess, although I bear great love for Joe's hitting prowess, not he, not anyone can hit World Series pitchers when he so felt inclined.

Not he, not Tyrus, not George Herman R. Nobody. In support of my rather obvious premise, may I remind you that Eddie Collins hit 7 x 31 = .226., only 1 double. Edd Roush hit 6 x 28 = .214, 2 doubles, 1 triple.

Was Tyrus trying to "lay down" in 1907, 1909?
The WS has a singular way of humbling even the greatest hitters of history. Could it be that Joe Jackson was human after all. Perhaps, he didn't have much luck in game one, due to facing the Reds' ace.

Below, I show some of the WS BA of some good hitters, in support of the fact that NO ONE hits as they so choose. NOT in the WS!

I fully expect some defecient person to say the lame, retarded response, "But Bill, don't you think it's unfair to not show their good WS performances?" And by that, they will have shown themselves to missed the entire point of the exercise. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Babe Ruth
21 5x16=.313
22 2x17=.118
26 6x20=.300

Lou Gehrig
27 4x13=.308
36 7x24=.292
37 5x17=.294
38 4x14=.286

Joe DiMaggio-10 WS
36 9x26=.346
37 6x22=.273
38 4x15=.267
39 5x16=.313
41 5x19=.263
42 7x21=.333
47 6x26=.231
49 2x18=.111
50 4x13=.308
51 6x23=.261
54x199=.271

M.Mantle-12 WS
51 1x5=.200
52 10x29=.345
53 5x24=.208
55 2x10=.200
56 6x24=.250
57 5x19=.263
58 6x24=.250
60 10x25=.400
61 1x6=.167
62 3x25=.120
63 2x15=.133
64 8x24=.333
59x230=.256

Sam Crawford-3 WS
07 5x21=.238
08 5x21=.238
09 7x28=.250
17x70=.242

Harmon Killebrew-2 WS
65 6x21=.286
69 1x8=.125
7x29=.241

Mike Schmidt
83 1x20=.050

J.Robinson-5 WS
49 3x16=.188
52 4x23=.174
53 8x25=.320
55 4x22=.182
56 6x24=.250
25x110=.227

Duffy Lewis
12 5x32=.156

Eddie Mathews-
57 5x22=.227
58 4x25=.160

Will Clark-
89 4x16=.250

Richie Ashburn
50 3x17=.176

Stan Musial-4 WS
42 4x18=.222
43 5x18=.278
44 7x23=.304
46 6x27=.222
22x86=.255

Zach Wheat
16 4x19=.211

Fred Clarke-2 WS
03 9x34=.265
09 4x19=.211
13x53=.245

Mel Ott
36 7x23=.304
37 4x20=.200

Bill Terry
33 6x22=.273
36 6x25=.240

Eddie Murray
79 4x26=.154
83 5x20=.250
95 2x19=.105
11x65=.169

wrgptfan
09-26-2005, 07:30 PM
Below, I show some of the WS BA of some good hitters, in support of the fact that NO ONE hits as they so choose. NOT in the WS!


Over the course of 4 to 7 games (especially playing against the best competition) almost every player will have a dry spell. Over the course of many games, the good hitters will hit well.

Here are all 225 players with 50+ AB in the WS since 1903 ordered by OPS. In general, the good players hit well, and the poor players hit poorly. There are some exceptions, but when dealing with such a small sample size, there are bound to be distortions.


Player AB H 2B 3B HR BB HBP Avg OBA Slg OPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Gehrig 119 43 8 3 10 26 2 0.361 0.731 0.483 1.214
Babe Ruth 129 42 5 2 15 33 2 0.326 0.744 0.470 1.214
Reggie Jackson 98 35 7 1 10 15 3 0.357 0.755 0.457 1.212
Lenny Dykstra 50 16 1 0 6 9 0 0.320 0.700 0.424 1.124
Paul Molitor 55 23 2 2 2 5 1 0.418 0.636 0.475 1.112
Pepper Martin 55 23 7 1 1 5 0 0.418 0.636 0.467 1.103
Lou Brock 87 34 7 2 4 5 0 0.391 0.655 0.424 1.079
Rickey Henderson 56 19 5 2 2 10 1 0.339 0.607 0.448 1.055
Hank Greenberg 85 27 7 2 5 13 2 0.318 0.624 0.420 1.044
Al Simmons 73 24 6 0 6 6 0 0.329 0.658 0.380 1.037
Jimmie Foxx 64 22 3 1 4 9 0 0.344 0.609 0.425 1.034
Dave Henderson 71 23 6 1 4 9 2 0.324 0.606 0.415 1.020
Hank Aaron 55 20 2 1 3 5 0 0.364 0.600 0.417 1.017
Carl Yastrzemski 54 19 2 0 3 8 1 0.352 0.556 0.444 1.000
Charlie Keller 72 22 3 2 5 7 0 0.306 0.611 0.367 0.978
Dwight Evans 50 15 3 1 3 7 1 0.300 0.580 0.397 0.977
Gene Woodling 85 27 5 2 3 19 0 0.318 0.529 0.442 0.972
George Brett 51 19 3 1 1 6 0 0.373 0.529 0.439 0.968
Willie Stargell 54 17 5 0 3 7 0 0.315 0.574 0.393 0.968
Frank Baker 91 33 7 1 3 5 0 0.363 0.560 0.396 0.956
Duke Snider 133 38 8 0 11 13 1 0.286 0.594 0.354 0.948
Billy Martin 99 33 2 3 5 5 1 0.333 0.566 0.371 0.937
Kirby Puckett 52 16 1 2 2 7 1 0.308 0.519 0.400 0.919
Roberto Clemente 58 21 2 1 2 2 0 0.362 0.534 0.383 0.918
Bobby Brown 57 19 5 3 0 5 0 0.333 0.526 0.387 0.913
Jimmy Ripple 50 16 2 0 2 10 0 0.320 0.480 0.433 0.913
Steve Yeager 57 17 4 0 4 3 0 0.298 0.579 0.333 0.912
Thurman Munson 67 25 5 0 1 5 0 0.373 0.493 0.417 0.909
Mickey Mantle 230 59 6 2 18 43 0 0.257 0.535 0.374 0.908
Marquis Grissom 77 30 4 1 0 6 1 0.390 0.468 0.440 0.908
Frank Robinson 92 23 2 1 8 11 3 0.250 0.554 0.349 0.903
Mel Ott 61 18 2 0 4 8 0 0.295 0.525 0.377 0.901
Earle Combs 60 21 3 0 1 10 1 0.350 0.450 0.451 0.901
Tim McCarver 74 23 2 3 2 10 0 0.311 0.500 0.393 0.893
Gene Tenace 57 13 2 0 4 17 0 0.228 0.474 0.405 0.879
Enos Slaughter 79 23 3 1 3 15 1 0.291 0.468 0.411 0.879
Tommy Leach 58 18 4 4 0 3 1 0.310 0.517 0.355 0.872
Scott Brosius 70 22 3 0 4 2 1 0.314 0.529 0.342 0.871
Pete Fox 55 18 9 1 0 1 0 0.327 0.527 0.339 0.867
Tom Tresh 65 18 3 0 4 8 0 0.277 0.508 0.356 0.864
Johnny Bench 86 24 4 1 5 8 0 0.279 0.523 0.340 0.864
Stan Hack 69 24 5 1 0 7 0 0.348 0.449 0.408 0.857
Tris Speaker 72 22 3 4 0 11 0 0.306 0.458 0.398 0.856
Bill Skowron 133 39 4 1 8 6 1 0.293 0.519 0.329 0.847
Reggie Smith 73 18 2 0 6 8 0 0.247 0.521 0.321 0.842
Chipper Jones 55 15 6 0 1 12 0 0.273 0.436 0.403 0.839
Goose Goslin 129 37 5 0 7 12 0 0.287 0.488 0.348 0.836
Julian Javier 54 18 4 0 1 3 0 0.333 0.463 0.368 0.831
Joe Jackson 55 19 3 0 1 2 0 0.345 0.455 0.368 0.823
Manny Ramirez 61 15 0 0 4 13 0 0.246 0.443 0.378 0.821
Terry Pendleton 94 28 7 1 2 9 0 0.298 0.457 0.359 0.817
Lonnie Smith 112 31 8 1 4 9 2 0.277 0.473 0.341 0.815
Yogi Berra 259 71 10 0 12 32 3 0.274 0.452 0.361 0.812
Duffy Lewis 67 20 6 1 1 5 0 0.299 0.463 0.347 0.810
Harry Hooper 92 27 3 2 2 11 1 0.293 0.435 0.375 0.810
Derek Jeter 129 39 6 1 3 12 3 0.302 0.434 0.375 0.809
Jimmie Dykes 59 17 4 0 1 11 0 0.288 0.407 0.400 0.807
Dan Gladden 61 16 4 3 1 6 0 0.262 0.475 0.328 0.804
Billy Cox 53 16 5 0 1 4 0 0.302 0.453 0.351 0.804
Matt Williams 68 19 3 0 3 7 0 0.279 0.456 0.347 0.803
Kiki Cuyler 64 18 5 1 2 2 1 0.281 0.484 0.313 0.798
Eddie Collins 128 42 7 2 0 10 1 0.328 0.414 0.381 0.795
Danny Murphy 59 18 7 0 1 1 0 0.305 0.475 0.317 0.791
Frank Schulte 81 26 6 1 0 6 0 0.321 0.420 0.368 0.788
Dick Bartell 68 20 6 0 1 7 0 0.294 0.426 0.360 0.786
Tommy Henrich 84 22 4 0 4 8 1 0.262 0.452 0.333 0.786
Joe Morgan 85 20 4 2 3 15 0 0.235 0.435 0.350 0.785
Alvin Dark 65 21 4 0 1 3 0 0.323 0.431 0.353 0.784
Charlie Gehringer 81 26 4 0 1 7 0 0.321 0.407 0.375 0.782
Buck Weaver 55 18 5 1 0 0 0 0.327 0.455 0.327 0.782
Bill Terry 61 18 1 1 2 4 0 0.295 0.443 0.338 0.781
George Selkirk 68 18 2 1 2 11 0 0.265 0.412 0.367 0.779
Aaron Ward 63 18 0 0 3 6 0 0.286 0.429 0.348 0.776
Frank Chance 70 21 3 1 0 9 3 0.300 0.371 0.402 0.774
Phil Cavarretta 63 20 3 0 1 4 0 0.317 0.413 0.358 0.771
Joe Rudi 70 21 2 0 2 5 1 0.300 0.414 0.355 0.770
Irish Meusel 87 24 3 2 3 4 0 0.276 0.460 0.308 0.767
Fred Clarke 53 13 2 1 2 6 1 0.245 0.434 0.333 0.767
Ross Youngs 91 26 2 1 1 17 1 0.286 0.363 0.404 0.766
Wally Schang 94 27 4 2 1 11 0 0.287 0.404 0.362 0.766
Honus Wagner 51 14 3 1 0 7 3 0.275 0.373 0.393 0.766
Devon White 83 21 7 3 1 7 1 0.253 0.446 0.319 0.764
Gil Hodges 131 35 2 1 5 17 0 0.267 0.412 0.351 0.764
Tony Lazzeri 107 28 3 1 4 12 1 0.262 0.421 0.342 0.762
Joe DiMaggio 199 54 6 0 8 19 1 0.271 0.422 0.338 0.760
Dave Parker 53 15 4 0 1 4 1 0.283 0.415 0.345 0.760
Rudy York 77 17 2 2 3 13 1 0.221 0.416 0.341 0.756
Don Buford 58 12 2 0 4 8 0 0.207 0.448 0.303 0.751
Steve Garvey 113 36 5 1 1 4 0 0.319 0.407 0.342 0.749
Joe Gordon 103 25 5 1 4 12 0 0.243 0.427 0.322 0.749
Dave Concepcion 64 17 2 3 1 3 1 0.266 0.438 0.309 0.746
Tino Martinez 82 22 1 0 3 11 0 0.268 0.390 0.355 0.745
Eddie Mathews 50 10 5 0 1 15 0 0.200 0.360 0.385 0.745
Stan Musial 86 22 7 1 1 12 0 0.256 0.395 0.347 0.742
Paul O'Neill 92 24 6 2 0 16 0 0.261 0.370 0.370 0.740
Cesar Geronimo 57 14 2 1 2 6 0 0.246 0.421 0.317 0.739
Ron Cey 79 20 1 0 3 12 1 0.253 0.380 0.359 0.738
Solly Hofman 57 17 1 1 0 8 0 0.298 0.351 0.385 0.735
Bobby Richardson 131 40 6 2 1 5 0 0.305 0.405 0.331 0.735
Willie McGee 89 25 5 0 3 2 0 0.281 0.438 0.297 0.735
Pete Rose 130 35 5 1 2 16 2 0.269 0.369 0.358 0.727
Paul Blair 66 19 3 0 1 6 0 0.288 0.379 0.347 0.726
Mickey Cochrane 110 27 4 0 2 25 0 0.245 0.336 0.385 0.722
Carl Furillo 128 34 9 0 2 13 1 0.266 0.383 0.338 0.721
Chief Meyers 62 18 2 2 0 3 1 0.290 0.387 0.333 0.720
Johnny Evers 76 24 4 0 0 4 0 0.316 0.368 0.350 0.718
Walker Cooper 60 18 3 1 0 3 0 0.300 0.383 0.333 0.717
Frankie Frisch 197 58 10 3 0 12 1 0.294 0.376 0.338 0.714
Heinie Groh 72 19 2 2 0 11 0 0.264 0.347 0.361 0.709
Bill Dickey 145 37 1 1 5 15 1 0.255 0.379 0.329 0.709
Brooks Robinson 76 20 2 0 3 4 0 0.263 0.408 0.300 0.708
Mark Lemke 91 26 2 3 0 6 0 0.286 0.374 0.330 0.704
Roy Campanella 114 27 5 0 4 12 1 0.237 0.386 0.315 0.701
Jerry Coleman 69 19 6 0 0 6 0 0.275 0.362 0.333 0.696
Pee Wee Reese 169 46 3 2 2 18 1 0.272 0.349 0.346 0.695
Keith Hernandez 53 13 2 0 1 9 0 0.245 0.340 0.355 0.694
Chris Chambliss 51 14 3 0 1 1 1 0.275 0.392 0.302 0.694
George Burns 86 22 7 1 0 10 0 0.256 0.360 0.333 0.694
Elston Howard 171 42 7 1 5 12 3 0.246 0.386 0.306 0.692
Gil McDougald 190 45 4 1 7 20 1 0.237 0.379 0.313 0.692
Tony Perez 95 23 3 0 3 11 0 0.242 0.368 0.321 0.689
Davey Lopes 90 19 1 1 4 13 0 0.211 0.378 0.311 0.688
Reggie Sanders 53 12 1 0 2 7 1 0.226 0.358 0.328 0.686
Clete Boyer 86 20 6 1 2 7 0 0.233 0.395 0.290 0.686
Willie Randolph 72 13 3 1 3 13 0 0.181 0.375 0.306 0.681
Gabby Hartnett 54 13 2 1 2 1 0 0.241 0.426 0.255 0.680
Bernie Williams 120 25 3 0 5 20 0 0.208 0.358 0.321 0.680
Marty Marion 78 18 7 1 1 7 0 0.231 0.385 0.294 0.679
Jackie Robinson 137 32 7 1 2 21 0 0.234 0.343 0.335 0.679
Hank Bauer 188 46 2 3 7 8 1 0.245 0.399 0.279 0.678
Lou Piniella 72 23 2 0 0 0 1 0.319 0.347 0.329 0.676
Billy Johnson 59 14 1 4 0 3 1 0.237 0.390 0.286 0.676
Jorge Posada 77 16 4 0 2 15 0 0.208 0.338 0.337 0.675
Chuck Knoblauch 86 21 2 0 2 11 1 0.244 0.337 0.337 0.674
Roger Peckinpaugh 64 16 4 0 1 6 0 0.250 0.359 0.314 0.674
Frank Snyder 55 15 1 0 2 0 0 0.273 0.400 0.273 0.673
Red Rolfe 116 33 4 1 0 9 0 0.284 0.336 0.336 0.672
Joe Dugan 90 24 4 1 1 4 1 0.267 0.367 0.305 0.672
David Justice 124 25 3 0 4 26 2 0.202 0.323 0.349 0.671
Roger Maris 152 33 5 0 6 18 0 0.217 0.368 0.300 0.668
Ty Cobb 65 17 4 1 0 3 2 0.262 0.354 0.314 0.668
Bert Campaneris 76 20 2 1 1 2 3 0.263 0.355 0.309 0.664
Jo-Jo Moore 73 20 4 0 1 2 0 0.274 0.370 0.293 0.663
Billy Rogell 53 15 3 0 0 3 0 0.283 0.340 0.321 0.661
Whitey Kurowski 83 21 5 1 1 3 1 0.253 0.373 0.287 0.661
Phil Rizzuto 183 45 3 0 2 30 1 0.246 0.295 0.355 0.650
Billy Herman 66 16 3 1 1 4 0 0.242 0.364 0.286 0.649
Willie Wilson 56 15 1 1 0 5 0 0.268 0.321 0.328 0.649
Eddie Murray 65 11 1 0 4 10 0 0.169 0.369 0.280 0.649
Mike McCormick 52 15 3 0 0 1 0 0.288 0.346 0.302 0.648
Red Schoendienst 78 21 5 1 0 2 0 0.269 0.359 0.288 0.646
Fred Merkle 88 21 3 1 1 9 1 0.239 0.330 0.316 0.646
Harry Steinfeldt 73 19 3 1 0 4 2 0.260 0.329 0.316 0.645
Patsy Dougherty 54 10 0 2 2 5 1 0.185 0.370 0.267 0.637
Boog Powell 77 18 2 0 2 7 0 0.234 0.338 0.298 0.635
Sam Rice 63 19 0 0 0 3 0 0.302 0.302 0.333 0.635
Larry Doyle 76 18 3 1 1 5 1 0.237 0.342 0.293 0.635
Kenny Lofton 56 14 2 1 0 5 0 0.250 0.321 0.311 0.633
Bob Meusel 129 29 6 3 1 12 0 0.225 0.341 0.291 0.632
Buck Herzog 94 23 6 2 0 3 1 0.245 0.351 0.276 0.627
Larry Gardner 86 17 3 2 3 4 1 0.198 0.384 0.242 0.625
Mike Shannon 81 19 2 0 3 2 0 0.235 0.370 0.253 0.623
Sam Crawford 70 17 5 0 1 2 0 0.243 0.357 0.264 0.621
Harry Davis 61 15 5 0 0 3 1 0.246 0.328 0.292 0.620
Jack Barry 87 21 9 0 0 3 1 0.241 0.345 0.275 0.620
Joe Tinker 68 16 2 0 1 7 0 0.235 0.309 0.307 0.615
Bill Russell 95 25 2 2 0 3 0 0.263 0.326 0.286 0.612
Jim Gilliam 147 31 5 0 2 23 2 0.211 0.286 0.326 0.611
Bucky Harris 56 13 0 0 2 2 1 0.232 0.339 0.271 0.610
Eddie Stanky 61 13 2 0 0 13 1 0.213 0.246 0.360 0.606
Joe Collins 92 15 3 0 4 14 0 0.163 0.326 0.274 0.600
Bing Miller 66 17 4 0 0 0 2 0.258 0.318 0.279 0.598
Willie Mays 71 17 3 0 0 7 0 0.239 0.282 0.308 0.589
Darrell Porter 57 12 2 0 1 6 0 0.211 0.298 0.286 0.584
Dusty Baker 69 16 0 0 2 2 1 0.232 0.319 0.264 0.583
George Kelly 101 25 2 0 1 5 0 0.248 0.297 0.283 0.580
Jimmy Sheckard 77 15 6 0 0 11 1 0.195 0.273 0.303 0.576
Kent Hrbek 50 8 1 0 2 7 1 0.160 0.300 0.276 0.576
Red Murray 68 14 4 1 0 6 1 0.206 0.294 0.280 0.574
Maury Wills 78 19 3 0 0 5 0 0.244 0.282 0.289 0.571
Omar Vizquel 53 11 2 1 0 6 0 0.208 0.283 0.288 0.571
Jim Bottomley 90 18 5 1 1 7 0 0.200 0.311 0.258 0.569
Graig Nettles 80 18 2 0 0 11 0 0.225 0.250 0.319 0.569
Tony Kubek 146 35 2 0 2 5 1 0.240 0.295 0.270 0.564
Sal Bando 68 14 2 1 0 8 1 0.206 0.265 0.299 0.563
Chick Gandil 53 13 1 1 0 1 0 0.245 0.302 0.259 0.561
Dick Groat 54 11 3 1 0 4 0 0.204 0.296 0.259 0.555
Curt Flood 86 19 2 1 0 8 0 0.221 0.267 0.287 0.555
Mark Koenig 76 18 3 1 0 1 0 0.237 0.303 0.247 0.549
Jerry Grote 50 12 2 0 0 1 1 0.240 0.280 0.269 0.549
Wes Covington 51 12 1 0 0 4 0 0.235 0.255 0.291 0.546
Andy Pafko 72 16 3 1 0 2 1 0.222 0.292 0.253 0.545
Wally Pipp 67 15 2 0 0 6 0 0.224 0.254 0.288 0.541
Amos Strunk 65 13 2 2 0 4 0 0.200 0.292 0.246 0.539
Jimmie Wilson 66 16 2 0 0 2 0 0.242 0.273 0.265 0.537
Tom Herr 79 15 4 0 1 7 0 0.190 0.278 0.256 0.534
Greg Gagne 54 10 2 0 2 1 0 0.185 0.333 0.200 0.533
Mule Haas 62 10 1 1 2 5 0 0.161 0.306 0.224 0.530
Frankie Crosetti 115 20 5 1 1 14 1 0.174 0.261 0.269 0.530
Mickey Rivers 63 15 2 0 0 1 0 0.238 0.270 0.250 0.520
Bill Buckner 52 11 1 0 1 0 1 0.212 0.288 0.226 0.515
Frank White 53 9 3 0 1 4 0 0.170 0.283 0.228 0.511
Johnny Logan 52 8 3 0 1 5 1 0.154 0.269 0.241 0.511
Chick Hafey 88 18 7 0 0 2 0 0.205 0.284 0.222 0.506
Davey Johnson 73 14 3 0 0 7 1 0.192 0.233 0.272 0.504
Gus Mancuso 52 9 3 0 0 7 0 0.173 0.231 0.271 0.502
Rube Oldring 62 12 2 1 1 0 0 0.194 0.306 0.194 0.500
Max Bishop 66 12 0 0 0 12 1 0.182 0.182 0.316 0.498
Ossie Bluege 60 12 2 0 0 4 1 0.200 0.233 0.262 0.495
Fred Snodgrass 55 10 2 0 0 4 3 0.182 0.218 0.274 0.492
Johnny Kling 65 12 2 0 0 8 0 0.185 0.215 0.274 0.489
Mariano Duncan 62 13 0 1 0 3 0 0.210 0.242 0.246 0.488
Orlando Cepeda 76 13 3 0 2 2 0 0.171 0.289 0.192 0.482
Stuffy McInnis 65 13 2 0 0 4 0 0.200 0.231 0.246 0.477
Mark Belanger 61 10 0 1 0 9 0 0.164 0.197 0.271 0.468
Taylor Douthit 50 7 2 0 1 4 1 0.140 0.240 0.218 0.458
Art Fletcher 94 18 3 0 0 2 1 0.191 0.223 0.216 0.440
Ozzie Smith 75 13 0 0 0 9 0 0.173 0.173 0.262 0.435
Johnny Roseboro 70 11 1 0 1 5 0 0.157 0.214 0.213 0.428
Dave Bancroft 93 16 1 0 0 6 0 0.172 0.183 0.222 0.405
Bris Lord 69 11 4 0 0 1 0 0.159 0.217 0.171 0.389
Willie Davis 54 9 2 0 0 0 1 0.167 0.204 0.182 0.386
Dal Maxvill 61 7 1 1 0 8 0 0.115 0.164 0.217 0.381
Everett Scott 90 14 0 1 0 3 0 0.156 0.178 0.183 0.361
Johnny Hopp 50 8 0 0 0 2 0 0.160 0.160 0.192 0.352
Travis Jackson 67 10 1 0 0 3 0 0.149 0.164 0.186 0.350

Bill Burgess
09-26-2005, 10:04 PM
Dave,

I think you proved my case. Your list at the top is pretty random.

11 bold-faced players are not the ones anyone would expect in the top 20.

Lou Gehrig
Babe Ruth
Reggie Jackson
Lenny Dykstra
Paul Molitor
Pepper Martin
Lou Brock
Rickey Henderson
Hank Greenberg
Al Simmons
Jimmie Foxx
Dave Henderson
Hank Aaron
Carl Yastrzemski
Charlie Keller
Dwight Evans
Gene Woodling
George Brett
Willie Stargell
Frank Baker

ElHalo
09-26-2005, 10:15 PM
Everyone should expect Pepper Martin to be there.

Bill Burgess
09-26-2005, 10:36 PM
I think I proved my case that noone can hit as they wish in the WS. If that were true, where's Cobb, Wagner, Hornsby, Williams, Mays, Musial, Mantle, DiMaggio? Near the bottom, that's where. Case proven.

Pepper? Good man, not in the company listed above.

BB

Sultan_1895-1948
09-26-2005, 10:44 PM
I don't think Jackson could have turned it on, and turned it off in certain games. It just doesn't work like that.

Ubiquitous
09-27-2005, 03:45 AM
You are right no one can really simply turn it on and off as they wish and have it consistently happen. But people can most certainly turn it off can they not? Jackson can not hit the ball if he chooses right? Could it all be a statistical fluke? Sure it can, never said it was nail in the coffin. Just a counterpoint to the people who simply look at the overall batting line as if that is the nail in the coffin. Neither one the question is more complicated then that.

So how about the other 4 hitters? Felsch, Gandil, Risberg, and McMullin? how they do?

Fixed
Happy: 1/11
Gandil: 4/15
Risberg: 1/12 2 walks
McMullin: 1/2
The starters went 6/38 and with McMullin they went 7 for 40 and 2 walks

but their non fixed games are just as bad, so it could very well be nothing. Or it simply could mean that light hitting first basemen and shortstop were not as good as Joe Jackson was when it came to hitting.


Personal note to Bill,
If you disagree with me that is fine, simply say you disagree with me and tell me why. Your replies can come off as sounding patronizing or smug. AS if you are the elderly wiseman and we mere toddlers. People can take it the wrong way as you saw with DoubleX.

Bill Burgess
09-27-2005, 07:49 AM
Ah, c'mon! I was trying to communicate with some style and grace! And that is criticized too? But ok. If you prefer it blunt, I'll just say it straight. Just plain disagree with your whole "Turn it on/off, honest/dishonest games theory. Jackson couldn't do that.

Is that better?

Cubsfan97
09-27-2005, 10:34 AM
the one thing I find twisted in this is that the 2nd half of the Series The Sox were out to win but then come the 8th game the gamblers threatened the starting pitcher and he threw the series. AHd that gambler not threatened then the Sox would most likely have won and none of this would have happened.

Bill Burgess
09-28-2005, 11:34 PM
http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv217/BillBurgess/Miscellaneous/img064.jpg
-----------------------HE KEPT BASEBALL'S BLACKEST SECRET FOR 36 YEARS. . .

-----------------------THIS IS MY STORY OF THE BLACK SOX SERIES---------------

The ringleader of the infamous plot, the first baseman of the team which exploded baseball's dirty business with the game's worst scandal, breaks his silence to speak for the first time

------------------------by Arnold (Chick) Gandil as told to Melvin Durslag
-------------------------------Sports Illustrated, 1956

About this time each year when people start getting excited about the World Series, I find myself wanting to crawl into a cave. I think you'd feel the same if you had the memories I do.

I have played in two World Series, the last time 37 years ago when I was first baseman for the Chicago White Sox. The Sox haven't been in a Series since. We played the Cincinnati Reds and had a hell of a ball club, the best I've ever seen. But people didn't remember us afterward for our playing. They remembered us only as the "Black Sox."

A lot of you young readers have probably heard of the Black Sox scandal fom your dads or granddads. It was some mess. Eight of us Sox were accused of throwing the 1919 World Series to Cincy. We were taken into court in Chicago, tried and acquitted. But organized baseball banned us for life.

To this day I feel that we got what we had comning. But there are certain things about the Series that have never been told and which I would like to clear up right now.

I'm an old man by any standards. I'm going to be 69 in January. I have worked the past 35 years as a plumber, mostly in Oakland, California. Now I'm about to retire. The wife and I plan to take a small place in the country, out in Napa Valley. We've been married 48 years.

A lot of stuff has been written by newspaper and magazine people about the Black Sox scandal, but most of it has been rumor and guesswork because none of us involved ever told our story. Four of the Black Sox were supposed to have made secret confessions with immunity before the Cook County grand jury in 1920, but they all denied the statements later and refused to talk. When we went on trial in 1921, all of us stood on our rights and dummied up.

Why should I wait until now to tell the real story of the Black Sox? One by one the Black Sox players have been taking the secret to their graves. Joe Jackson is gone, so are Fred McMullin and Buck Weaver. I'm sure I could go the rest of my life easily without talking. But after thinking it over--and against the better judgement of my wife--I asked myself, why not? It should be on the record. So here goes.

To start with, I think I should recall to you the main charactors involved.

First, there was Charles Comiskey, the White Sox owner. He was a sarcastic, belittling man who was the tightest owner in baseball. If a player objected to his miserly terms, Comiskey told him: "You can take it or leave it." Under baseball's slave laws, what could a fellow do but take it? I recall only one act of generosity on Comiskey's part. After we won the World Series in 1917, he splurged with a case of champagne.

Comiskey's manager was William (Kid) Gleason, who had been our coach in 1918 and became manager in 1919 when Clarence (Pants) Rowland resigned. He was a tough little guy, and he had a hard time trying to keep peace among the malcontents on our club. But most of the players liked him and gave him their best.

The players involved were most of the top guys on the club. There was Joe Jackson, the left fielder; Buck Weaver, third base; Oscar Felsch, the center fielder; Swede Risberg, our shortstop; Eddie Cicotte, our leading pitcher; Fred McMullin, a utility infielder; Claude Williams, who was basically perhaps even a better pitcher than Cicotte; and, finally, myself, the first baseman.

Let me tell you a little more about myself. I was 6 feet 2 inches tall, weighed 195 pounds and had been playing baseball for 14 years. I had run away from my home in St. Paul, Minnesota at the age of 17 and hopped a freight bound for Amarillo, Texas to play semipro. Then I caught on with an outlaw team in Cananea, Mexico, just across the Arizona border.

Cananea was a wide-open mining town in those days, which suited me fine. I was a wild, rough kid. I did a little heavyweight fighting at $150 a fight. I also worked part-time as a boilermaker in the copper mines.

I slowed down some after my marriage in 1908, but I guess I still remained a pretty roughhouse character. I played minor leauge ball for a couple of years, then was sold to the White Sox in 1910. I then bounced around to Washington and Cleveland but landed again with The White Sox in 1917. I have often been described as one of the ringleaders of the Balck Sox scandal. There's no doubt about it. I was.

For all their skill, the White Sox in 1919 weren't a harmonious club. Baseball players in my day had a lot more cut-throat toughness anyway, and we had our share of personal feuds but there was a common bond among most of us--our dislike for Comiskey. I would like to blame the trouble we got into on Comiskey's cheapness, but my conscience won't let me. We had no one to blame except ourselves. But, so help me, this fellow was tight. Many times we played in filthy uniforms because he was trying to keep down the cleaning tab.

Most of the griping on the club centered around salaries, which were much lower than any other club in the league. Cicote, for example, had won 28 games in 1917 and still wa making only $6,000 a year, Jackson, a great hitter, was earning the same. I had been making $4,500 a year for the past three seasons. Only one man on the club was drawing what I'd call a decent salary, Eddie Collins, who had finagled a sharp contract in coming to the Sox from the Philadelphia Athletics. He was making about $15,000 a year. Naturally, Collins was happier with Comiskey than we were.

So when the opportunity came in 1919 to pick up some easy change on the World Series, Collins, though a key man, wasn't included in our plans. Neither was Catcher Ray Schalk or Outfielder Nemo Leibold.

Where a baseball player would run a mile these days to avoid a gambler, we mixed freely. Players often bet. After the games, they would sit in lobbies and bars with gamblers, gabbing away. Most of the gamblers we knew were honorable Joes who would never think of fixing a game. They were happy just to be booking and betting.

I had always considered "Sport" Sullivan as one of those gamblers until he approached me in Boston in 1919, about a week before the World Series.

I had only had social contacts with gamblers until that September day in 1919 when Sullivan walked up to Eddie Cicotte and me as we left our hotel in Boston. As I recall, we were four games in front the final week of the season, and it looked pretty certain that the pennant was our.

I was kind of surprised when Sullivan suggested that we get a "syndicate" together of seven or eitht players to throw the Series to Cincinnati. As I say, I never figured the guy as a fixer but just one who played for the percentages.

The idea of taking seven or eight people in on the plot scared me. I said to Sullivan it wouldn't work. He answered, "Don't be silly. It's been pulled before and it can be again."

He had a persuasive manner which he backed up with a lot of cash. He said he was willing to pay $10,000 each to all the players we brought in on the deal. Considering our skimpy salaries, $10,000 was quite a chunk, and he knew it.

Cicotte and I told Sullivan we would think it over. The money looked awfully good. I was 31 then and couldn't last much longer in baseball. Cicotte and I tried to figure out first which players might be interested. And of those who might be, which ones would we care to cut in on this gravy. We finally decided on Jackson, Weaver, Risberg, Felsch, McMullin and Williams--not that we loved them, because there never was much love among the White Sox. Let's just say that we disliked them the least.

We played our game that afternoon and won. That night Cicotte and I called the other six together for a meeting and told them of Sullivan's offer. They were all interested and thought we should reconnoiter to see if the dough would really be put on the line. Weaver suggested we get paid in advance; then if things got too hot, we could double-cross the gambler, keep the cash and also take the big end of the Series cut by beating the Reds. We agreed this was a hell of a brainy plan.

I met Sullivan the next morning and told him I could close the deal only if the players got their money in advance. He explained it would take a little time to raise all that cash so quickly but said that when he got it he would contact me in Chicago. As we parted, he told me that no player was to yap about the fix to other gamblers.

When the White Sox returned to Chicago for their final games of the season, Cicotte brought a friend of his to see me, a former big leauge pitcher named Bill Burns. Somehow Burns had got wind of our negotiations with Sullivan; one of our players must have talked. Burns asked that we definetely not accept Sullivan's deal until he could contact a rich gambling friend in Montreal. He said he could top any offer.

Cicotte and I called a meeting of the players that night and told them about Burns. Weaver piped up, "We might as well take his money, too, and go to hell with all of them."

I personally disliked and distrunted Burns and said that we should stick with Sullivan. But I was overruled by the others who voted at least to listen to Burn's proposition when he returned from Montreal.

Later in Chicago I got word from Sullivan that he was bringing a friend from New York to sew up the deal. A meeting was arranged at the old Warner Hotel on the South Side, where many of the players lived. Sullivan introduced his friend as "Mr. Ryan", but, having met this man two years before in New York, I recognized him as Arnold Rothstein, the big shot gambler. His plan was this:

We were to try our best to win the first game behind Cicotte, who was the leauge's leading pitcher. The White Sox were rated as 3-1 favorites in the Series. A win in the first game would boost the price higher. We were then to lose the Series at our convenience. At that time, a World Series was decided by five out of nine games instead of the four-out-of-seven system used today.

Rothstein said nothing until we asked for our $80,000 in advance. He asked calmly, "What's to assure us you guys will keep the agreement?" We offerd him our word. He answered, "It's a weak collateral."

The deal was about to fall apart when Rothstein came up with a compromise. He would give us $10,000 in advance and pay the remaining $70,000. in installments over the first four games, each payment amounting to $17,5000.

We asked Sullivan and Rothstein to come back in an hour. I got the gang together and we decided to accept the deal. Rothstein returned and gave us ten $1,000 bills. When the gamblers left we entrusted the money with Cicotte until it could be changed inconspicuously. He put the bills under his pillow. At Rothstein's insistence, we had given our solemn word that no other gambler would be tipped off, but as soon as he left, we agreed to take any money we could get from Burns, too.

Worry and Arguments

The next day, I got a telephone call from Jake Lingle, the Chicago reporter who was later to be murdered by gangsters. Lingle said he heard the Series was fixed. "Where did you hear that crazy story," I said and hung up. I now began to worry. That night Sullivan paid me a visit. He was mad. He said that someone had yapped to Chicago gamblers about the fix. The price on the Sox had suddenly begun to drop. We had a hot argument that came close to turning into a fist fight. We both apologized, and an agreement was made for Sullivan to make the cash payments after each game to a friend of mine.

By the time we arrived in Cincinnati to open the Series the rumors were really flying. Even a clerk in a stationery store, not recognizing me as a ballplayer, told me confidentially, "I have it firsthand that the Series is in the bag." Waitresses and bellhops were talking the same way. Reporters were buzzing about, asking questions.

We were now convinced that every move on the field would be watched like a hawk and we were beginning to sweat. Burns and a friend, the prize-fighter Abe Attell, came to see Cicotte and me at the hotel. They asked that we arrange a meeting with the gang--which we did grudgingly. Attell took the flooer and produced a telegram which read, "Will take you in on any deal you make. Will guarantee all expenses." It was signed, "A. R."

Attell idntified A. R. As Arnold Rothstein. The players exchanged looks. Obviously the telegram was faked, and Attell and Burns knew nothing of Rothstein's private deal with us. We walked out of the room.

This was the last of our group meetings with any gamblers. But now our troubles were just beginning. That night, the eve of the Series, several players got threatening phone calls. I must have had five during the early part of the evening. Many of them--maybe all of them--came from cranks, but they still left me creepy. Cicotte was so upset that he left the hotel about midnight and took a long walk. I don't think he slept an hour all night.

I had just fallen asleep when Sullivan knocked at my door and awakened me. He said excitedly that a couple of the players had told him the deal was off. I said to him, "Well, maybe it is." He replied, "I wouldn't call it the best policy to double-cross Rothstein."

Deep down, I knew he was right. In my nervous state I got mad at Sullivan and told him to get out. I sat on the edge of the bed, trying to think. 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 $10,000. We were never remorseful enough to want to return the ten grand to Rothstein. We gambled that he wouldn't dare do anything to us since he was in no position himself to make a fuss over the cash. Our only course was to try to win, and we were certain that we could.

But when we trotted out on the field that day for the opener, we were still a tense buch of ballplayers. And, as if things were't bad enough, some joker in the stands yelled to Cicotte, "Be careful, Eddie. There's a guy looking for you with a rifle."

Cicotte wasn't worth a wooden nickel in that opening game. He was knocked out of the box in the fourth inning when Cincy scored five runs. The Reds were unstoppable that day. Even their pitcher, Dutch Ruether, got two triples and a single, driving in three runs. When Cicotte was lifted in the fourth with the Reds leading 5-1, Gleason sent in Roy Wilkinson. The Cincy batters slugged him too, just as they did our next pitcher, Grover Lowdermilk. Cincinnati got 14 hits that day and beat us 9-1.

RUMORS AND PHONE CALLS

Rumors of a fix began to circulate right away, and, though I didn't see Comiskey, I heard he was running around like a wild man, trying to track down information. What the wiseacres didn't know was that our original agreement with Rothstein was to try to win the first game.

That night I got more threatening phone calls. I'll never know whether they came from screwballs or from gamblers. I half expected a visit form Sullivan or one of his men, but I imagine things were hot for them, too. By this time I'm sure they knew the deal was off, especially since our collection man didn't show up after the game to try to get the first installment of the $70,000.

The White Sox made 10 hits in the second game against four for Cincinnati, yet we were beaten 4-2 when we should have own easily. In the fourth inning, with no score, we had runners on second and third with one down, but I grounded into an out at the plate and Risberg popped up to kill our chances.

In the last of the fourth our pitcher, Williams, hit a wild streak, gave up three walks and a triple to give the Reds a 3-0 lead. They stretched it to 4-0 in the sixth, but we made two in the seventh when Risberg and Schalk scored on a wild throw by Greasy Neale, the Cincinati right fielder who later became a pro football coach.

After the game the cynics made quite a thing of the six walks issued by Williams, and there were rumors that he wasn't following his catcher's signals. But nothing was said about Neale's wild throw, or some dumb base running By Edd Roush, the Cincy center fielder, who was caught in a trap and tagged out after trying to go to second.

When the doubt is planted, it is easy to mistake plain and simple boners in a ball game for acts of crookedness.

The pressure eased when we came back to Comiskey Park for the third game and Dickie Kerr threw a shutout for a 3-0 win. I batted in our first two runs in the second inning with a long single to center. We made our third run on a triple by Risberg, who then scored on a slick bunt by Schalk.

That night I was paid an unexpected visit by Burns, who was in a panic. He and some other gamblers, going on the assumption the Seris was fixed, had bet heavily on the Reds. Now they had their doubts. Burns said that if I could assure him that the players would go along with the fix, he would guarantee me $20,000. Since I personally didn't feel that Burns could guarantee me 20 cents, and since I was troubled with enough outside pressure as it was, I told him I wasn't interested. Meanwhile, the threatening calls got so heavy that I had to quit answering the telephone.

Cicotte went to the mound in the fourth game and allowed only five hits, but we got only three and were beaten 2-0. Both of the Cincy runs were scored in the fifth inning, partly due to two errors by Cicotte. One was probably my fault. Eddie fielded an easy roller and threw wide to first, permitting the runner to move to second. When the next batter singled to left center, and Jackson threw to the plate to try to cut off a run, I yelled to Cicotte to intercept the throw. I felt we had no chance to get the man at home but could nail the batter now trying to reach second. Cicotte juggled the ball and all hands were safe. The next man then doubled, and Cincy had both its runs.

Well, you can imagine all the gossiping that took place that night. Everyone talked of Cicotte's two errors, but no one even mentioned that he had allowed only five hits. After listening to all the talk in the hotel lobby, Gleason called a meeting of the players. He asked if there were any truth to the rumors he had been hearing. We who were involved with gamblers got all huffy about this; the players who were not kept quiet. Gleason was happy to let the matter drop, but Comiskey was now convinced that we were out to throw the Series. He suspected the whole club.

With the Reds now leading three games to one, we came back with Williams in the fifth game against Hod Eller, who was one of those fellows who could be either real bad or real good. This day he was good. He had a mean shine ball that had us missing all over the place. He struck out the side in two straight innings--and half of those he fanned were never in on our plot.

Williams allowed Cincy only four hits that day, three comning in the sixth inning in which the Reds scored four runs. But before Eller was through with his shine ball, he struck out batters and shut us out 5-0.

Felsch got the blame for that loss. He had thrown wild after fielding a Texas leaguer in the sixth inning and later chased a long fly to the fence which he couldn't get and it went for a triple. When Collins booted one later permitting the fifth run to score, the experts must have thought that he was in on the fix, too.

We went back to Cincinnati for the sixth game which we won 5-4 behind Kerr, after we had overcome a 4-3 Cincy lead. this was the only game to go into extra innings. In the 10th, Weaver doubled and I drove him home with a single for the winning run.

WE HIT OUR STRIDE

Though Cincy now led the Series 4-2, we honestly felt we had hit our stride and would have no trouble taking the next three games. We were even more confident the next day when Cicotte won his third start easily, 4-1. We breezed in this game, led all the way and only Collins committed an error.

Things had quieted down by the time we got back to Chicago for the eighth game. The Series now stood at 4-3 in favor of the Reds and a lot of the skeptics decided that maybe the Sox meant business after all. It was Gleason's feeling that if Williams could finally win in the eighth game, then he would start Kerr in the ninth and have Cicotte ready for relief at the first sign of trouble.

But Williams lasted less than an inning. Cincy drove him out with four runs, and that was the game and Series. We lost 10-5 as Eller pitched his second win for Cincinnati.

If there is any doubt about our trying to win the Series, let's look at the record. Jackson was the leading hitter with .375. He didn't commit an error.

Weaver was our seond man with .324. He didn't boot any, either. Total hits favored Cincy only 64 to 59, and each side committed 12 errors. Though I hit only .233, it was still seven points better than our star Eddie Collins, and two of my hits knocked in winning runs.

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 defense for the thing we conspired to do. It was inexcusable. But I maintain that our actual losing of the Series was pure baseball fortune.

The loser's share amounted to $3,254 apiece, which Comiskey held up while he conducted a private investigation. I never did get any part of Rothstein's $10,000 and I don't know who did. Since Rothstein probably won his bets anyway, he never gave us any trouble. Naturally, I would have liked to have had my share of that ten grand, but with all the excitement at the Series' end and with Comiskey's investigation, I was frankly frightened stiff. Besides, I had the crazy notion that my not touching any of that money would exonerate me from my guilt in the connspiracy. I give you my solemn word I don't know to this day what happened to the cash.

During the next two months, after returning to my winter home in Los Angeles, I heard some wild reports about the killing I made on the World Series. One account said I was flashing around a bankbook with a $25,000 entry. Another said I had been paid off in diamonds. And still another had me plunking down cash for a house. The truth was, I did buy a house--with $2,500 I had borrowed from the bank for down payment. The loan was repaid when I finally got my World Series check from the White Sox.

By the time the 1920 season came around, I was kind of sour on baseball, Comiskey and everything else. I didn't care whether I went back to the Sox or not. I asked for a $2,000 raise, which Comiskey naturally refused. I became the only one of the eight conspirators not to report that year. Instead, I played semipro ball twice a week for the Elks Club in Bakersfield, Calif. I earned $75 a game.

News about the 1919 World Series was disappearing from the newspapers--which was fine with me. And then came the explosion. It happened in September of 1920 while the Sox were fighting for the league lead. I recall the headline I read clearly: WHITE SOX CONFESS SERIES FIX.

Cicotte, for reasons unknown, appeared to have told the story of our plot to Comiskey, who ordered him to confess (with immunity) before the Cook County grand jury. There were reports that Williams, Jackson and Felsch squealed, too. Meanwhile Comiskey banned from the team the seven players connected with the conspiracy. It was just before the end of the pennant race, and the Sox lost out to Cleveland.

No one really knows for sure what the players confessed privately to the grand jury, and we'll never find out because the confessions later turned up missing (in my opinion, this was Rothsteins's work), and everyone repudiated the things that were supposed to have been confessed.

The grand jury brought an indictment against the eight of us in Septemeber 1920, but the case didn't come to trial until July 1921. I was picked up by police in Los Angeles and spent a night in jail before being extradited to Chicago.

The trial dragged out for 15 days. Upon advice of our attorneys none of us testified, and without our testimony the state had no case. When the jury finally found us not guility there was loud cheering in the court room, and the jurors even carried a few of us out on their shoulders. What a scene.

SUSPENDED FOR LIFE

But our ban from baseball stuck, and when Judge Landis took office as commissioner a short itme later, one of his first acts was to extend the suspensins for life.

Inasmuch as we were legally freed, I feel Landis' ruling was unjust, but I truthfully never resented it because, even though the Series wasn't thrown, we were guilty of a serious offense, and we knew it.

Aside from embarrassment and personal qualms I have never suffered any hardship because of the Black Sox incident. The doors to jobs have never been closed to me. We have lived quietly away from the news, and I have attended only half a dozen ball games - all minor league - during the past 37 years.

For a good many years, I held a deep resentment against Cicotte for his initial confession. I felt I would never forgive the guy, but I think I have by now. Still, I don't believe we would have ever been caught if he hadn't gabbed.

Ubiquitous
09-29-2005, 07:21 AM
Highly believable article on Gandil's part.

Bill Burgess
09-29-2005, 07:34 AM
Do you really think so? Or are you being sarcastic? Not looking to be argumentative here.

Ubiquitous
09-29-2005, 07:47 AM
Being sarcastic.

For starters if they only got 10,000 dollars then how did Shoeless get $5,000 to try and show Comiskey?

Secondly it seems that Gandil has no idea about the Jackson-Comiskey trial.

MyDogSparty
09-29-2005, 08:04 AM
Just plain disagree with your whole "Turn it on/off, honest/dishonest games theory. Jackson couldn't do that.


I disagree with that. Anyone can shut it down if they want to, they just can't turn it on when they want to. Historians like numbers of course because they're tangible and they like to use Joe Jackson's numbers as proof that he didn't participate in the fix. However Ubiquitous has shown that it's possible to look at the numbers as proof that he did participate in the fix. The numbers don't prove anything to me. I think leecemark summed this issue up best with these two questions (which I'm not sure Bill ever addresed)...

1) Was Jackson told about the fix by the conspirators before it happened?
2) Did Jackson receive a cut of the money?

Bill Burgess
09-29-2005, 08:29 AM
I agree with you Ubiquitous. Sounds as if he never heard about the refound grand jury papers. Plus he had motive to lie. This may be a pack of lies, with some truths sprinkled in, or not.


Sparty:
1) Was Jackson told about the fix by the conspirators before it happened?
I believe so.

2) Did Jackson receive a cut of the money?
Yes, he did. What his intentions were in picking up that envelope of money, I am not sure of. And that is the big question in my mind.

leecemark
09-29-2005, 04:24 PM
--Whatever his intentions, he did keep the money. Having gotten a yes from Bill on the only 2 questions I see as pertinent to judging Jackson's guilt, I bid this thread good day.

ElHalo
09-29-2005, 08:59 PM
--Whatever his intentions, he did keep the money. Having gotten a yes from Bill on the only 2 questions I see as pertinent to judging Jackson's guilt, I bid this thread good day.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that the "yes" answers to both of those questions come nowhere near close enough to establish a guy's guilt.

Bill Burgess
09-29-2005, 09:51 PM
Mark is beyond our influence, Jim. Factors such as motive are technical, irrelevant details to him, and several others here. Some members are hardly legally sophisticated.

They actually believe that they have a better grasp of the big picture than the second jury, who sat there and heard all the anti-Jackson attorneys apply their spin, and believed in Jackson's not throwing the games.

Whenever they recite their mantra, "He took the money", they remind me of "Know you are but what am I?" Sigh.

Joe Jackson didn't have to be 100% "innocent" to be a LONG way from "guilty". But these are subtlties they will never fathom.

Ubiquitous
09-29-2005, 10:47 PM
As a lawyer, I can tell you that the "yes" answers to both of those questions come nowhere near close enough to establish a guy's guilt.
You are a lot closer to announcing guilty then you are announcing innocent.


Joe Jackson didn't have to be 100% "innocent" to be a LONG way from "guilty". But these are subtlties they will never fathom.
Joe Jackson didn't have to be 100% "guilty" to be a LONG way from "innocent".

Bill Burgess
09-30-2005, 01:02 PM
Touche. Nice comeback. You are a lot brighter and more nuanced than most anti-Jackson members here. Wish we had you on our side.

oscargamblesfro
09-30-2005, 01:36 PM
personally, i would say sympathetic yes, innocent no..

i have a related question to this topic, and hope it hasn't been discussed before...

in the glory of their times, edd roush asserted that the reds would have beaten the white sox even if the white sox hadn't thrown the games..

what i'd like to know from other posters is whether or not you feel this is a ludicrous assertion..while it's certainly possible , after all, that the reds could conceivably have won, it's highly unlikely in my estimation.. so what i'd like to hear people's opinions on is what do you feel about roush's claim- is it true, total b.s. or what?

Vidor
09-30-2005, 01:42 PM
We finally decided on Jackson, Weaver, Risberg, Felsch, McMullin and Williams--not that we loved them, because there never was much love among the White Sox. Let's just say that we disliked them the least.

We played our game that afternoon and won. That night Cicotte and I called the other six together for a meeting and told them of Sullivan's offer. They were all interested and thought we should reconnoiter to see if the dough would really be put on the line.

Hey, thanks for posting that article by Gandil, which apparently establishes that Jackson DID attend meetings devoted to fixing the Series, as well as accepting money for doing so. Thank you very much for providing further evidence that Jackson was guilty and richly deserved his punishment.

And despite your sneering and condescension, yes, we do believe "he took the money" ends the argument. It is too bad that YOU are so wrapped up in your Joe Jackson fetish that you can't accept that Jackson took the money, which establishes his guilt, and that he admitted so in open court. I would advise you not to make comments about the intelligence of others if you are incapable of grasping basic, elemental facts.

The rest of that article, I think, can be dismissed. We know that the Sox went out there with the intention to throw the first game, because Cicotte hit the first batter, which was the pre-arranged signal.

Bill Burgess
09-30-2005, 02:09 PM
Vidor,

Well, once again, we find ourselves at the end of each other's swords. You once again SELECT that which you wish from Gandil's article, while dismissing THAT WISH INCONVENIECNES YOU. And I wonder why that is, but it is legally suspect.

I don't know if I can believe a word of Gandil's piece. He certainly had huge motive to lie. He asserts that only $10,000. came in and that flies in the face of Eddie Cicotte's claim that he got $10,000. all for himself. So where did the extra $5,000. come from for Jackson.

If you really want to designate the "Jackson attended the Meetings" as the hill you choose to die on, then you must tell the rest of us Fever members why Lefty Williams told the fixers that he was representing Jackson! No need if Joe was there, right?! Or do such contradictions cause you no bother?

Once again, just like in the GJ testimonies, you feel you have license to pick and choose your favorite passages and dismiss that which you will.

In law, just like in logic, your approach just doesn't fly with more discriminating persons. Such as Gene Carney, myself, ElHalo and about 15 other members who have cared to post here.

I am not being mean or harsh with you, Vidor. It is your composing style, such as;

1. "He took the money. Hence, he is guilty."
2. End of story.

Those are the precise things which bring the tone which you so resent. I post graciously to those who afford me the same courtesy. Perhaps we might veer upwards from here on out. Is that possible?

Bill Burgess

MyDogSparty
09-30-2005, 03:07 PM
RE: Gandil "He certainly had huge motive to lie."

Bill, I've seen you use this line before but I'm not sure I've ever see you use it in conjunction with Joe Jackson.

You kind of remind me of Bill James attempting to discredit the Dowd Report and prove Pete Rose's innocence in many of his writings and in the ESPN court room with Alan Dershowitz.

James now looks pretty foolish in the end.

Bill Burgess
09-30-2005, 05:38 PM
Bill, I've seen you use this line before but I'm not sure I've ever see you use it in conjunction with Joe Jackson.

You kind of remind me of Bill James attempting to discredit the Dowd Report and prove Pete Rose's innocence in many of his writings and in the ESPN court room with Alan Dershowitz.

James now looks pretty foolish in the end.
I can't begin to unravel what you are trying to tell me. Could you be any more clear?

Bill

leecemark
09-30-2005, 06:45 PM
--I think he means that you often say people who incriminate Jackson had motive to lie, but fail to see that Jackson also had strong motive to lie. In fact we KNOW Jackson lied about his involvement because his statements - under oath - conflicted with one another. Conflicted enough that he was jailed for perjury.

Bill Burgess
09-30-2005, 07:16 PM
Oh I do believe Joe Jackson lied under oath. He incriminated himself foolishly. The Free Jackson Committee members believe that he lied to protect his owner. We believe he was coersed by Commy's attorney to give a false confession.

We have only said this a million times. Yes, Joe LIED. Suckered by snakes all around him. He LIED, he LIED, he LIED. Are the Hang Joe Committe satisfied now? We certainly hope so. Oh BTW, Joe LIED UNDER OATH.

Bill

MyDogSparty
09-30-2005, 07:50 PM
Well, the first part, I'm sure you understand... Just like anyone else, Joe Jackson had motive to lie but I've never heard you admit it.

The second part; most of your messages are as pro Joe Jackson as Bill James was on Pete Rose gambling. Now that Pete Rose has confessed, Bill James looks a little foolish for being so pro Rose. He seemed so busy debunking everyone's claim that Rose gambled on baseball that he never gave credence to anyone's argument but his own.

Regardless of your great ability to see things that should be there that are missing (which IS very valuable), you're never EVER going to get to the bottom of this and you'll never be able to offer proof of Jackson's intent or motive. In that regard I think you're starting to look a little foolish yourself since you don't appear to give anyone else's argument any credence. All you've done is debunk everyone who's posted in this thread who has a different opinion than yours. Their opinions seem very logical yet you've tried to trivialize them or make them seem simple minded.

PS: I see that you admited it in the post above. However, you make it sound like Joe Jackson wasn't responsible for his own lies. Sorry, I must have been posting at the same time you were.

Bill Burgess
09-30-2005, 08:20 PM
MyDogSparty,

I'm a little discouraged. The less argumentative I try to be, the more the attacks keep coming. But I try to not allow that to make me more defensive.

I have tried to do whatever the opposite camp asks. I've answered their questions. Yes, I believe Joe knew of the plot. As did Comiskey, Gleason, Ban Johnson, Eddie Collins. Jackson was so messed up with forboding he tried to get out of playing.

I've admitted he accepted the money. I don't know his motive. I'm inclined to believe one set of assumptions, based on his refusal to jump to the Federals for 3 times his ML salary. But I admit I have no more real knowledge than anyone else. We are all Columbos here.

I have always steered clear of the Pete Rose fiasco. I don't know why you would use this issue against me. Please let's not use that to muddy the waters.

Yes, of course I can see that J. Jackson had motive to lie. He had motive to lie out of self-interest to make himself appear less culpable than he might have been. If that is what has bothered others about my position, there you have it.

Just because I lean against that theory, does not imply that I can't SEE it. Certainly that possibility has always been there. And maybe I'm all wrong about Joe Jackson. Since he never held out, was not known to complain bitterly, passed on the Federals offer, I can see no pattern of greed on his part. No tell-tale indication of corruption.

But no one from the opposite camp has yet given any credence to the point that Joe was still an employee of Comiskey. The man who had offered $10,000. to anyone with proof of wrong-doing.

How would it have appeared if Joe testified to the GJ, saying he went to the team, offered to tell them what he knew, and return the fixer's money. How would Comiskey have appeard to his White Sox fans? And what would Comiskey have done about that?

So, if you guys are disappointed in my performance throughout these debates, imagine my chagrin that no one utters a peep about the many salient arguing points I bring to the debate table. I work long hours to make good points, and seldom get the satisfaction of anyone addressing my hard work.

So, the discouragement goes both ways. I haven't felt like I achieved a darn thing here, despite the hours I have put in. If I look foolish, maybe I am a fool.

Vidor
10-01-2005, 12:11 AM
Yes, I believe Joe knew of the plot...I've admitted he accepted the money.

Ah. Then you too have admitted that Jackson was guilty and deserved his punishment. Good on you.


no one utters a peep about the many salient arguing points I bring to the debate table.

Because you haven't brought any. If you admit that Jackson 1) knew of the fix and 2) accepted money for the fix, then the discussion is over, the debate is settled, and Jackson's guilt is acknowledged. All else that you have written is navel-gazing. And staring at your own belly button isn't very interesting.

Bill Burgess
10-01-2005, 09:14 AM
Vidor,

Have a nice day.

Bill Burgess

Ubiquitous
10-20-2005, 10:15 PM
On a baseball fever thread a discussion of the black sox came up. Author Eric Enders who has written a book on the World Series wrote a post in which he said he had a talk with author Asinof a few years back in which Asinof told Eric that he made up the part about a hit man threatening Williams before game 8. He said he did it in part to protect against plagiarism.

Ursa Major
10-20-2005, 11:14 PM
El Halo quoted Leecemark as follows:
Whatever his intentions, he did keep the money. Having gotten a yes from Bill on the only 2 questions I see as pertinent to judging Jackson's guilt, I bid this thread good day.

And then El Halo said: "As a lawyer, I can tell you that the "yes" answers to both of those questions come nowhere near close enough to establish a guy's guilt."Ah, c'mon, El Halo, I'm a lawyer too, and I think we can do a bit deeper job of analysis than that. If the only question is: "Did Jackson have advance knowledge of the fix and fail to immediately tell baseball authorities of it?" Well, that's pretty obviously a "yes" and you're right. But, I don't think that's the issue that divides baseball authorities. The question is: did Jackson throw the series? But, "guilt" or "innocence" can turn only on precisely what he is charged with in the court of baseball history. He was guilty of taking money from gamblers he knew were trying to fix the series; that alone poses a pretty serious to the integrity of the game, no?

My reading of his grand jury testimony -- which I think holds together well enought that it negates any argument that he lied to protect Comiskey -- is that he was told that the fix was on and that he could get $$$ for simply allowing the others to tell the gamblers that he, Jackson, was in, and that Jackson in actuality could play any way he wanted. And, I think he played as well as he could.

IMHO, I don't think that the fix was "on" or "off" in any coordinated sense in any games after the first one or two games. The players' cabal was too fractured by that point.

westsidegrounds
10-20-2005, 11:28 PM
"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."

- KM Landis, August 4, 1921

Brian McKenna
10-21-2005, 08:32 AM
he was never innocent - not in 1919, not in 1920, not in 2005, not in 3005. write him off with the others and you'll enjoy life much more

Bill Burgess
10-21-2005, 10:20 AM
[/B] He was guilty of taking money from gamblers he knew were trying to fix the series; that alone poses a pretty serious to the integrity of the game, no?

My reading of his grand jury testimony -- which I think holds together well enough that it negates any argument that he lied to protect Comiskey -- is that he was told that the fix was on and that he could get $$$ for simply allowing the others to tell the gamblers that he, Jackson, was in, and that Jackson in actuality could play any way he wanted. And, I think he played as well as he could.

IMHO, I don't think that the fix was "on" or "off" in any coordinated sense in any games after the first one or two games. The players' cabal was too fractured by that point.

Ursa,

Let's take your words in order.


"He was guilty of taking money from gamblers he knew were trying to fix the series"
Is this something you know to be true? I'd like to know how you know it. Is there a difference in your mind between "taking the money", and "trying to turn the money in", failing, and get caught "holding the bag". I ask the question, because there seems to be a large number of people, unable to distinguish the difference. Intention is a subtlety they are unable to handle. Legally, it's called motive.

What do you attribute Jackson's motive in touching the envelope? That is the salient, wedge issue. If he "took the envelope" because he intended on keeping it, or if he ever for a moment entertained the thought of sloughing off his playing efforts, then he was a crook. Guilty as charged.

My defense of him is simple.

1. He never for a moment told anyone he was "in with them".
2. He never let down on the field.
3. He never intended on "not turning the money in to management".

Those are the items which have never been proven to my satisfaction. Murky, I concede, but still unproven.

The grand jury testimony? I place that in the category of other such sworn testimony as:

1. Michael Jackson: "I would never molest a boy".
2. Orenthal Simpson: "I am 100% not guilty of these charges."

Joe Jackson did lie under oath. He said he received money from gamblers. And was told they'd give him more.

At least Jackson lied to protect his owner, or else. For you to say you don't buy the "protecting Comiskey" angle, you don't give a reason why. I asked many times, what else could Jackson have done at that moment?

And you are silent. I will ask you again. What do you suppose would have happened to Jackson, a Comiskey employee, if he exposed Comiskey as a lying hypocrite?

Comiskey had feigned being unaware of anything wrong for over a year. Had offered $10,000. to anyone with good information of a fix.

So what would have happened to Jackson if he'd sworn under oath that Comiskey knew everything, refused to hear anything, and stonewalled the whole thing?

That is a question the "Hang Jackson Committee" MUST answer if they are to remain in a serious discussion with adults.

But, alas, they can't. And so, we must sadly pull the bus over, and let them off the bus. They were never in the discussion to deal with the hard issues. So, we let them off the bus, and dismiss their loud whining as mob noise.

If you can deal with the difficult issues at hand, I'd be glad to discuss them. But we can sweep no difficulties under the carpet, regardless of how much they want us to.

Let me know if you are capable of continuing.

Bill Burgess

Ubiquitous
10-21-2005, 10:42 AM
So what would have happened to Jackson if he'd sworn under oath that Comiskey knew everything, refused to hear anything, and stonewalled the whole thing?

That is a question the "Hang Jackson Committee" MUST answer if they are to remain in a serious discussion with adults.

Bill Burgess

It isn't a hard question. Its a what if. It's a what if for apologists who are trying to deal with the grand jury testimony. How do we deal with the testimony? We'll ignore it claim it is false and then throw it back at those who believe Jackson is guilty. It's the old declare victory, hand out the medals and get the hell out of the there method of politics. In order to make Shoeless look good one has to spin a whole bunch of what ifs.

Bill Burgess
10-21-2005, 11:22 AM
The ability to conduct an honest "what-if" hypothetical is not an ability granted to all. It requires a soft, deft mind. Not a mind, coarsened by cirrhosis, to only handle the easy ones.

I don't duck the hard ones. I confront them head on and do my best to deal with them.

I take note that not only didn't you even attempt to answer the question, I must question your ability to do so.

I'll pull the bus over. This is your stop. Please watch your step, and disembark carefully.

Anyone else? Next.

leecemark
10-21-2005, 11:27 AM
--Bill, most people stick at least fairly close to the facts when making arguments here. It is difficult to debate an issue with someone, such as yourself, who imagines scenarios, states them as facts and then asks his opponents to prove they are not accurate. Disproving something which is imaginary to begin with is a fools errand.

Ubiquitous
10-21-2005, 11:50 AM
Shakes head and sighs. Bill it seems that whenever you meet someone you can't bend you end up insulting them. How you ever became a mod is beyond me. You are one of the biggest lightening rods here.
I can create a million what ifs and that is what some people do. They create a mythical beast where when you cut off one head 9 more grow in its place. Its' futile to argue with your what if because it is all conjecture. I can dispute your what if but all it will do is desolve the conversation into a million different what ifs. Which is a pretty common debating tactic. Leecemark is right again on his last post.

Bill Burgess
10-21-2005, 12:09 PM
Ya know, you guys are pretty good.

I had finished with this thread, and it wasn't me who brought it back. You did.

I was indulgent enough to participate, AGAIN, and now see what I get?

My hypothetical was not a myth.

Joe Jackson WAS working for Charles Comiskey when he gave his grand jury testimoney. Not a what-if. A FACT.

Charles Comiskey HAD IN FACT spent his last year, pretending to have no knowledge of a fix, and HAD IN FACT offered a $10,000. reward to anyone with solid information.

So - I DARED ask the most plausible question, was Joe Jackson in a position to expose his employer, under oath, to the media, as a hyprocrite?

It is NOT a WHAT-IF. It was a question that Joe Jackson had to ask himself.

And now you guys act like it's a MYTH.

GROW UP.

If you can't debate a logical, plausible question, based strictly on those facts, fine. At least admit it.

And ubit, I don't insult people I can't bend. But I do get tired trying to have a conversation with people who refuse to even try to answer real questions. If you don't want to answer a question, FINE. Don't answer it. But please stop pretending that the questions are stupid, irrelevant, out of context to the debate, or other such tactics.

I get tired of repeating why the GJ testimoney should be questioned. If you need to take it at face value, fine. But at least quit trying to pretend that those of us who don't are mindless, gullible, naive suckers.

We're not. We have good reasons to doubt it's validity. We have told you why so often we're exhausted.

And I didnt' insult you. I WAS sarcastic, after you couldn't/wouldn't answer a totally relevant question.

And oh, by the way, thanks for the cheap shot about me being a moderator. Appreciate it a ton. Are you here every day, working behind the scenes to make Fever a nicer place to visit? My uncredited hours here, when I'm not posting are things you know not of, but thanks for the cheap shot anyway.

So far, you guys won't debate.

Ubiquitous
10-21-2005, 12:17 PM
You know your working behind the scenes would probably be a lot more helpful if you were not so confrontational. You can act like the innocent lamb but you cause confrontations. You caused this confrontation by posting what you posted, and how you posted it. What do you think sarcasm is? Was your sarcasm directed at a mythical object or was it directed at a few posters? You are a mod, not a poster.

Bill Burgess
10-21-2005, 12:30 PM
My post 146 was not sarcastic, but sincere.

Your post 147 was sarcastic. Very.

My post 148, was throwing it back.

You accuse me of being confrontational.

I think you need to reread the sequence of posts, and reevaluate your conclusions. My sincerity comes across.

You need to reread. You were looking for a fight when I was seeking a hypothetical, to reach a resolution, to plumb the issue to a new level.

And your questioning my motives, my mod status, is wearing thin. What are your motives?

Brian McKenna
10-21-2005, 12:35 PM
let's play nice kids

Bill Burgess
10-21-2005, 12:48 PM
Perhaps it was an error of judgment on my part to rejoin this particular debate.

Feelings might be set too deeply to change them now, at this late date.

So, I am exiting this thread.

Have a wonderful day day, gentlemen. No sarcasm intended.

The World Series starts tomorrow, so perhaps we can all get some good entertainment.

Thank you, bkmckenna, despite your earlier post.

Ubiquitous
10-21-2005, 12:58 PM
That is a question the "Hang Jackson Committee" MUST answer if they are to remain in a serious discussion with adults.

But, alas, they can't. And so, we must sadly pull the bus over, and let them off the bus. They were never in the discussion to deal with the hard issues. So, we let them off the bus, and dismiss their loud whining as mob noise.

If you can deal with the difficult issues at hand, I'd be glad to discuss them. But we can sweep no difficulties under the carpet, regardless of how much they want us to.

Let me know if you are capable of continuing

Yes sincere, sincerely sarcastic.

Brian McKenna
10-21-2005, 01:09 PM
i enjoy your posts mr. burgess. they are always well thought and backed up but you do take up the hard cases.

have a good day as well and this should be a great series for the die hard fans - lots of pitching. hope you enjoy that. personally, i love to have two new teams in it. sure the networks don't though.

westsidegrounds
10-21-2005, 02:42 PM
--Bill, I think its likely that the root source for most of the favorable "evidence" for Jackson is Jackson himself. Only a few people could possibly have known what went on between Commiskey and Jackson or Austrian and Jackson and neither Commisky nor Austrian would be likely to talk about the things you claim they did to Jackson. If the source is Jackson or somebody who heard the story from Jackson (or somebody who heard it from somebody who heard it from Jackson and so on) it totally lacks credibility.

I guess we're finished here, essentially, but just a final note in defense of Atty. Austrian:

- Joe Jackson is summoned to appear before a Cook County grand jury on suspicion of "Obtaining Money and Goods by Means of the Confidence Game".

- Alfred Austrian coaches Jackson on what to say.

- Jackson does what Austrian tells him to do.

- "We, the jury, find the defendant, Joe Jackson, not guilty."

Looks like pretty good lawyering by Mr Austrian.

Cubsfan97
10-21-2005, 07:11 PM
Wow! I give you credir Mr. Burgess. You have taken everything people have thrown at you and threw it back. i give you a standing ovation:clapping:clapping :clapping :clapping :clapping Bravo Bravo!

And yes He did accept the money he DID lie under oath but then why did he put up the BEST numbers in the series. I just dont understand that part and I dont see how anyone else an. I also believe his intentions on the money was not to accept it. He tried turning it in. He wnated to give it to Comiskey. I believe he is innocent on that part. And lying under oath he was tricked and its a shame. Joe never had any intention since day 1 to EVER throw a World Series. I proclaim him INNOCENT!

leecemark
10-21-2005, 08:21 PM
--Since CubsFan97 is apparently the Chief Justice here I guess the case is closed.

Ubiquitous
10-22-2005, 01:39 AM
The what if game:

Before Game 1 Joe asks out of the game. At this point one can say that Joe most definitely knew about the fix. If he doesn't then why does he ask out of the series? If Joe is not in on the fix but is merely bait to attract gamblers (meaning Williams only used his name to get the gamblers) then why is Joe Jackson asking out of the game? If Joe Jackson is strong enough to ask out of the biggest game of the seasons and with historical consequences then why isn't he strong enough to tell Williams to shove it when he finds out he was bait? Or why couldn't he simply say "forget you, I'm playing to win"? Instead he asks out, is it because he has cold feet and he is too scared to back out and wants somebody else to do the deed for him?

Now Jackson plays, by the time game 4 is to start 6 of the 8 players have recieved money. McMullin who is a bit player and is only in on it because over-heard Gandil does not recieve money and neither does Weaver. Now why does Jackson get money and Weaver does not? Why is it that the players do not think Weaver deserves a cut but Jackson does? Again if Jackson is merely bait or is clearly not in on it why does he get a cut? Weaver it appears by all accounts makes it very clear that he is playing to win and therefore does not get money. Does Joe Jackson not take the money? No. Does Joe Jackson run straight to Comiskey with the money? No. He complains that he didn't get enough money and then goes 1 for 8 in the next to thrown games.

The series is over, the players have been cheated by the gamblers, the players have cheated their fellow teammates out of a world series and its winnings. Joe Jackson's own wife who was a big influence on Joe cries and is against what happend. Now Joe Jackson feels remorseful he goes to Comiskey's office. Comiskey does not see him. Later on we learn from Jackson that he went there to talk about the money. He even writes a letter.

A new season begins and plays, some bombshells happen which lead to the grand jury testimony. In his testimony Jackson admits to taking money, and he even says he went to Comiskey and was ignored even though he wanted to talk. Now then people want to say Joe was put on the stand and coached to protect Comiskey. But why would Joe say that he wanted to talk but wasn't allowed? That doesn't look good for Comiskey and it implicates him not protects him. Secondly people like to say that the players fixed the series for money because Comiskey was a cheapskate and didn't pay fair wages, that the players hated Comiskey. Yet Joe Jackson in one of his most pivotal moments of his life and his career decides to protect Comiskey even though it implicates him in on a fix that he supposedly was innocent of, and he does this for a guy he is supposed to hate?

In the end Joe Jackson knew about the fix, his fellow players thought he was in on the fix enough to give him money. Joe Jackson thought he was in on the fix enough to squabble over the money and to even say he was out of the fix in the middle of the series (again see grand jury testimony, and then secondly why would he lie about being in it and then being out of it in the middle of the series?). Perhaps with the urgings of his wife Joe Jackson feels guilty and wants to come clean, after Cicotte breaks the ice he finally gets his chance. With that chance to tell all what does Jackson do? Well according to some he lies and says he is guilty. He lies even though after the series and into the spring he tries to tell his story. To others they feel that Joe finally given the chance decideds to confess to his part in the series fixing.

yanks0714
10-22-2005, 11:17 AM
ps. just scrolling down that list from WRGPTFAN's, and noticed Mantle had 230 WS AB without a single HBP. How does that happen? Either nobody ever threw inside to him, or he was a contortionist :noidea[/QUOTE]


The word in baseball was don't throw at Mickey. When you did, Mickey never got angry but he bore down even harder...and crushed you.

A story I read: In the 50's, early in Mickey's career, a veteren pitcher (whom I think I remember to be Virgil Trucks) was to face the Yankees. Before the game the pitching coach said, "...don't throw at Mantle....he'll kill you...".

In Mickey's first AB he got a hit off trucks. Drove in a run I believe witha single or double. Trucks, a crusty old vet, was disgusted with himself.

He told his catcher that, "...the kid has had it to easy for too long...I'm going to teach him a lesson".

Next time up Trucks threw a fastball up and in to Mantle. Mickey went down, hitting the dirt, helmet flying one way, his bat another direction. The Tigers catcher (who was relating the story (Tebbetts?) remembers watching to see how Mantle reacted. Mickey got up, dusted himself off, picked up his helmet and bat, and never said a word. BUT...the catcher noticed that Mantle had a more determined look and was taut with anticipation. Mantle supposedly hammered the next pitch deep into the right center field stands for a HR. As Mickey was rounding the bases, Trucks was fuming on the mound watching him. The catcher walked halfway to the mound to toss Virgil a new baseball and said, "You really taight the kid a lesson there".

Later in his career it was don't throw at Mickey because he didn't have the ability to get out of the way due to his leg problems.

yanks0714
10-22-2005, 12:09 PM
I think leecemark summed this issue up best with these two questions (which I'm not sure Bill ever addresed)...

1) Was Jackson told about the fix by the conspirators before it happened?
2) Did Jackson receive a cut of the money?


Let me try. I am in the pro-Jackson club:

1) Yes, he was aware of it but told Williams that he was not interested. The gamblers were told Jackson was in on it so that they would go along with the payroll.
2) Yes, Jackson received money....unsolicited money. He tried to take it to Commiskey who refused to talk to him. I've read that Jackson never used the money. His wife later used it to start up Jackson's Fishing n' Bait shop and gave the rest to charity.

Am I an apologist for Jackson? Maybe some might look at it that way. I think Jackson and Weaver should have been fined and suspended for a year for not reporting the conspiracy to fix the Series.
I think the other 6 got what was coming to them...let them fry in H___.

Ubiquitous
10-22-2005, 02:30 PM
Who gives out unsolicited money? Why would you give Joe Jackson money if A)you were screwed out of your share of the money, and B)He was not in on the fix and did not know of it or did not think he was attached to it in anyway?

Why would Williams who was promised more then 5,000 give Joe 5,000 dollars if he didn't have to? How does that make sense?

"Oh hey Joe here is $5,000 for not taking part in a fix, we tried to throw the series for cash, used your name to help sell the con, then got screwed out of our share but hey we'll give you an equal share just for the rights to your name"

It doesn't look right at all.

Cubsfan97
10-22-2005, 02:53 PM
But why did he want to give the money to Comiskey. I see how it is odd that Jackson got the money. Im assuming right now you are saying he wanted the money for his supposed part in the fix but if he wanted the money then why would he voluntarily attempt to give it to a guy who will kill a man for a nickel. That makes even less since.

leecemark
10-22-2005, 05:14 PM
--First of all, we only have Jackson's word that he attempted to give the money to Commiskey. That "fact" gets tossed around as gospel, but it isn't exactly hard evidence. Secondly, even by Jackson's own account he didn't try to return the money immediately, but only after the scheme started to go wrong. That suggests to me a man trying to get out from under a plot gone wrong. Lastly, Jackson complained around not getting his full share. That doesn't jobe with the money beign forced upon him against his will.

yanks0714
10-22-2005, 05:31 PM
Who gives out unsolicited money? Why would you give Joe Jackson money if A)you were screwed out of your share of the money, and B)He was not in on the fix and did not know of it or did not think he was attached to it in anyway?

Jackson, as per Williams himself, did not want any part of the fix. Can you possibly consider that the $5,00 was an attempt by Williams and Gandil to keep Jackson quiet?
The money was part of the original amount given to Gandil as upfront payment to Cicotte who wanted his before the WS started or he wouldn't go along with it.

Why would Williams who was promised more then 5,000 give Joe 5,000 dollars if he didn't have to? How does that make sense?

I don't think it was Williams at all. It was Gandil. I sincerely beleive that it was Gandil who had the money and told his teammates the gamblers wleshed on the deal after the WS. He went west after the WS and settled out there never to really return to stay. Where he get the money to do that.

"Oh hey Joe here is $5,000 for not taking part in a fix, we tried to throw the series for cash, used your name to help sell the con, then got screwed out of our share but hey we'll give you an equal share just for the rights to your name"

It doesn't look right at all.

As I said, Jackson received the unsolicited money BEFORE the WS started...as did Cicotte. Maybe, just maybe the gamblers handed over the money to Chick Gandil. Cicotte got his upfront because he threatened to not go along with the fix if he didn't. Jackson got 'unsolicited' money, something he didn't ask for nor request, in an effort to get him to go along with it {or} as 'hush' money.
Williams, Felsch, Risberg, and McMullin wre squeezed out by Gandil who tells them the gamblers welshed...while, in fact, he had the money himself.

leecemark
10-22-2005, 05:59 PM
--Another fine fairy tale from Burgess and the Seven Dwarves. Is this not all an imagined scenario? Also, even if it is true wouldn't Jackson taking a bribe to keep quiet about the fix reason enough to ban him from baseball?

Ubiquitous
10-22-2005, 10:34 PM
But why did he want to give the money to Comiskey. I see how it is odd that Jackson got the money. Im assuming right now you are saying he wanted the money for his supposed part in the fix but if he wanted the money then why would he voluntarily attempt to give it to a guy who will kill a man for a nickel. That makes even less since.

Remorse? Possibly his wifes influence.

Joe got $5,000 dollars or basically the winners share. joe had his doubts about the fix from the start of the series and possibly by the end with every one getting the shaft he wanted to make it right. Joe in his grand jury testimony said he wanted out of the series before series started and then said he told Gandil in the middle of the series after he got his money that he wanted out. He was a man with doubt and remorse.

Also it is not known whether or not Joe wanted to give Comiskey the money. In his testimony he said he showed (I forget his name) Comiskey's assistant the money and wanted to know what he should do with it. As far as I know Joe never said he was trying to give the money to Comiskey, but merely wanted to know what to do with it.

Ubiquitous
10-22-2005, 10:38 PM
As I said, Jackson received the unsolicited money BEFORE the WS started...as did Cicotte. Maybe, just maybe the gamblers handed over the money to Chick Gandil. Cicotte got his upfront because he threatened to not go along with the fix if he didn't. Jackson got 'unsolicited' money, something he didn't ask for nor request, in an effort to get him to go along with it {or} as 'hush' money.
Williams, Felsch, Risberg, and McMullin wre squeezed out by Gandil who tells them the gamblers welshed...while, in fact, he had the money himself.


no he didn't. Joe never ever has said he got the money before the series. No source has ever made that claim. Joe in his grand jury testimony said he got the money before game 4. The gamblers in court case explained that Cicotte got his money before the series, Gandil got money around game 2, which he kept, and then after game 3 the gamblers gave Gandil another 20,000 dollars which he split up amongst the 4 other players. Excluding McMullin and Weaver. Now then in his 1924 trial Joe changed the time line and said that he got the money afterthe series and that he didn't know that he was connected to the fix and that was the first time he knew that his name was used. Again though at no time has Joe said he got the money before the series. Unless you got some unknown source that part isn't even up for debate.

CygnusX1
10-23-2005, 01:48 AM
Shouldn't the Arizona Diamondbacks be on your list of
"Teams who won their first World Series Appearance"?

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 11:59 AM
I submitted some of Ubiquitous' comments to Gene Carney. Just curious to see what Gene had to say. I just got back this email from him, and thought some of you might find his remarks worthwhile to hear.

For the reader's convenience, I have high-lighted the text.
Red = ubiquitous
Blue = Gene Carney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill,
As I said to Keith Olbermann on his MSNBC-TV show Friday night -- Joe Jackson's case is very complicated! (Keith read the review copy, loved the book & gave the publisher a nice "blurb".)

I don't have any strong objections to your reply ... but I'll add a few comments.--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before Game 1 Joe asks out of the game.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS? ASINOF, 1963. SPORTING NEWS, 1961, STORY OUT OF GREENVILLE. WOULD LOVE TO FIND ASINOF'S NOTES & SEE IF IT CAME FROM FELSCH OR FABER.

At this point one can say that Joe most definitely knew about the fix.

JOE CLAIMED LATER THAT HE TALKED WITH COMISKEY ABOUT THE THREATENED FIX, WELL BEFORE THE SERIES & AGAIN RIGHT BEFORE. NEEDS CORROBORATION, MISSING FULLERTON ARTICLES? HE ALSO SAID BILL BURNS TALKED WITH HIM THE MORNING OF GAME ONE, CONFIRMING THE FIX WAS IN (BURNS THOUGHT JOE WAS IN THE KNOW, HE WASN'T.) "BEGGING TO BE BENCHED" (SPORTING NEWS) BEFORE GAME ONE IS CRUCIAL DETAIL. CALL ATTENTION TO ONESELF, IF PLAYING TO LOSE?

Now Jackson plays, by the time game 4 is to start 6 of the 8 players have received money. McMullin who is a bit player and is only in on it because over-heard Gandil does not receive money and neither does Weaver.

EXACTLY WHEN MONEY WAS REC'D, HOW MUCH BY WHOM, NOT AT ALL CLEAR. NEVER WAS!

Now why does Jackson get money and Weaver does not? Why is it that the players do not think Weaver deserves a cut but Jackson does? Again if Jackson is merely bait or is clearly not in on it why does he get a cut? Weaver it appears by all accounts makes it very clear that he is playing to win and therefore does not get money. Does Joe Jackson not take the money? No. Does Joe Jackson run straight to Comiskey with the money? No. He complains that he didn't get enough money and then goes 1 for 8 in the next to thrown games.

JACKSON KNOWS WHAT LEFTY TOLD HIM. LEFTY DIDN'T KNOW EVERYTHING. DIDN'T KNOW
IF GAME 3 WAS PLAYED TO WIN (I THINK IT WAS). LEFTY GIVES JAX, HIS FRIEND, $5,000. SAYS GANDIL GAVE HIM $10,000 TO SPLIT ... BUT DID CHICK DO THAT, OR JUST REWARD LEFTY FOR DELIVERING THE L's? JOE'S WIFE THERE, NOT AT ALL CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WORDS WENT WITH THE MONEY. SHE SAID SHE DIDN'T CRY, AS JOE HAD IT IN HIS COACHED (BY AUSTRIAN, NOT HIS OWN ADVOCATE) TESTIMONY, GIVEN HALF-DRUNK. WHAT WE KNOW IS THAT JACKSON KEPT THE FIVE GRAND, GAVE IT TO KATIE, SHE BANKED IT, USED IT FOR HOSPITAL BILLS (JOE'S SISTER). DID JOE SHOW IT TO HIS TEAM RIGHT AFTER THE SERIES? I THINK SO (SO DID A MILWAUKEE JURY, 11-1). HE WROTE COMMY OFFERING TO COME TO CHI, TELL HIS STORY; NO TAKERS. HE WENT TO THE GRAND JURY WITH SAME IN MIND, TO CLEAR HIS CONSCIENCE. TOLD GRAND JURY HE PLAYED TO WIN -- THAT WENT UNREPORTED. WHY? (ALSO SAID HE WAS OFFERED TEN, THEN TWENTY GRAND, AND THAT HE WAS GIVEN ONLY FIVE. THE "ONLY" HURT HIM. "WHY WAS HE EXPECTING MORE, IF HE PLAYED TO WIN?" WHEN HIS GJ TESTIMONY WAS REPORTED AS A "CONFESSION" HE IMMEDIATELY OBJECTED, AND DID SO THE REST OF HIS LIFE. THE GJ FOREMAN BACKED HIM UP.

I THINK AUSTRIAN COACHED JAX ON ONE BIG POINT: KEEP COMMY & GLEASON OUT OF
IT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet Joe Jackson in one of his most pivotal moments of his life and his career decides to protect Comiskey even though it implicates him in on a fix that he supposedly was innocent of, and he does this for a guy he is supposed to hate?

***I don't find the players hating Commy. He signed their paychecks, and as underpaid as they surely were, they were still ALL grateful to be playing ball for a living, making more than the avg American, and NOT having to work -- except in the off-season! I find Commy being respected ... a tyrant, yes, tight on salaries, yes ... not an ogre, not Scrooge, just typical -- also a soberin' thought, as Pogo might put it. I think they resented Commy, he broke his promise to give them $5000 for winning the Series in 1917. So there was a credibility problem. But he still held the purse-strings, and their future. ***

***Commy also testified in 1924 that he thought Joe played the Series to win, by the way, and at that point he wasn't trying to salvage him ... in fact, admitting that might have cost Commy over $16,000, Jackson's back pay.

Actually, the jury DID find in Jax' favor, but the verdict was overturned -- thanx to that awful, ambiguous 1920 grand jury statement, which had been stolen ... but which surfaced in 1924, conveniently, out of Commy's lawyers' briefcase.***

***Wait -- leaked grand jury testimony condemns star left-fielder? Was that 1919 ... or just last year?***

Gene

Ubiquitous
10-23-2005, 12:13 PM
Gene ignores a crucial point. He says JOe was coached to keep Comiskey out of it but yet Joe brings up Comiskey and him going to Comiskey about the fix before and after the series. Again if Joe was coached why does he bring it up. If that was the big major point that Austrian was making sure Joe did not bring up then he failed. And if he failed at that what else did he fail to properly coach Joe on?

Ubiquitous
10-23-2005, 12:16 PM
***I don't find the players hating Commy. He signed their paychecks, and as underpaid as they surely were, they were still ALL grateful to be playing ball for a living, making more than the avg American, and NOT having to work -- except in the off-season! I find Commy being respected ... a tyrant, yes, tight on salaries, yes ... not an ogre, not Scrooge, just
typical -- also a soberin' thought, as Pogo might put it. I think they resented Commy, he broke his promise to give them $5000 for winning the Series in 1917. So there was a credibility problem. But he still held the purse-strings, and their future. ***


Gene

I like this point, I'm glad somebody who has done the research has come to this conlcusion. I have held this view of Comiskey for awhile now but most people still think of him as this vile and hated owner. Though I would like to know what he means by underpaid. Does he mean in general as in all players were underpaid or that Comiskey underpaid his players? If it is the latter it isn't true.

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 12:33 PM
I am STILL trying my utmost to deliver the best info I know, for the thousands of invisible eyes who read us here.

And Gene Carney's opinion on the Black Sox is state of the art, cutting edge stuff. I submit it for the house, not for those who have ripped me and called me a Seven Dwarf, etc.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 12:42 PM
Austrian must have surely felt he failed to put the proper muzzle on Joe. But he didn't fail completely. Joe spoke under the influence of Austrian at many moments, and then blurted out the truth in other moments.

One testimoney, 2 distinct currents of influence, which gave the testimoney that peculiar, schizoid flavor.

But if you liked Gene's letter, you will surely enjoy this email from Gene, which just came in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill,

First, I apologize for all the CAPS in that last reply. I do that to distinguish my stuff from the stuff I'm commenting on, when I don't have bold or a different font handy ... I finally switched to using *** instead.

Meant to ask -- are you in the B-Sox Yahoo group? I thought you were. That's about 80-90 folks with more than a little interest in 1919 & aftermath ... not all agree, so we get some good discussions going, but there are some very knowledgeable folks in there, too, not just authors, but folks like Bob Hoie, a true B-Sox expert. There's a link to the group, it's easy to join, at my site www.baseball1.com/carney ... in issue #361 (there's a huge archive, but 361 is up top right now) there's an essay "On the B-Sox Trail" which your friends might enjoy. (I started my research with issue #268!)

Below is a sample of the kind of stuff the Yahoo group does, or is doing these days, with the 1919 Series back in the news. If you know any Buck Weaver fans, I posted another letter I sent him (and I "defend" Buck in #345).

Someone called me The Hub today, and I guess I am, because I can either answer Q's or refer people to experts on Felsch or Fullerton or Jackson or Commy ETC. I expect that someday there will be a B-Sox SABR committee (the Yahoo group functions as one, but we don't need to publish!)

Gene

PS: Anyone who wants notices when new issues of NOTES go up can just email me at THIS address. The BORG address no longer works. something to keep in mind if you're in the Notes Archive.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Carney
To: 1919 B-Sox
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:35 PM
Subject: An Open Letter to Dave Anderson, NY Times


Dear Mr Anderson,

I read your column of October 19, "White Sox Cannot Rinse Out Stain of 1919," with much interest. That's because I've been doing some research on the 1919 World Series and the scandal that followed. And I want to suggest some corrections to the account you have passed on.

The eight White Sox players who were banned were certainly not equally guilty (or innocent). Not all took bribes, not all sat in on meetings, and there is some evidence that not all kept the Fix from their team's manager and owner. There is evidence, however, that the manager and owner, as well as the baseball authorities in charge of the World Series, had "guilty knowledge" of the Fix even before Game One started. If the players failed to speak up, those in power failed to halt the Series to investigate the strong "rumors," failed to investigate right after the Series, and were less than candid with the public about what they knew about the ties from gambling that were strangling baseball. They chose to pretend that "eight men out" punished baseball's single sin -- as if the 1919 Series was the first tampering, and the last. Of course, it was not.

You are correct, the Cook County grand jury was convened in September 1920 to look into the charges that the August 31 Cubs-Phils game was fixed (and into baseball pools). But Buck Herzog and the Boston Braves had testified in a NL hearing earlier that spring, mentioning the Big Fix of October 1919; NL president John Heydler kept that quiet. It came up in September only because Rube Benton of the Giants didn't know that Heydler had exonerated Herzog and the others, quietly, earlier. Benton himself was on the stand before the grand jury thanks to Ban Johnson; Benton supposedly had bet on his knowledge of the Big Fix.

The grand jury never subpoenaed Rothstein. Arnold came to Chicago on his own, a pre-emptive strike, and was never indicted.

Abe Attell and Sleepy Bill Burns never made it to the grand jury, either. Attell was indicted, but fled. Burns was brought to Chicago as a star witness for the 1921 trial. But neither went on record in 1920. Billy Maharg did, to a Philadelphia newspaper.

The names of the eight Sox players who were eventually called "the Black Sox" surfaced long before the grand jury. Comiskey withheld their Series checks, and Hugh Fullerton wrote on Oct 10, the day after the Series, that seven of the players would not return the next season -- he was quoting Comiskey, he later revealed. A Chicago paper devoted to gambling printed the names of players and gamblers in Fall 1919, and in December Hugh Fullerton challenged baseball to investigate, naming Attell, Burns, Rothstein, the reporters who knew, and some of the "clean Sox" who might help identify the crooked players.

The Sox were not "vastly underpaid" -- they may have had the highest team payroll in 1919, although they were still probably earning less than they deserved. All players were, thanks to the reserve clause, a weapon wielded by all the owners. Comiskey was probably not exceptionally stingy; he was likely typical. Asinof painted him as Scrooge, but that was not his image in 1919. The Sox who took the bribes were not getting even, they were just trying to get some easy money. Were they any greedier than the owners? We don't know.

Cicotte indeed was the first player to go to the grand jury, voluntarily; they were not going to disrupt the pennant races by asking players to appear. Jackson followed Cicotte, not to confess, but to plead his innocence. Both were advised by Comiskey's lawyer; was he on their side? Well, he had them waive immunity, so they could be indicted; Alfred Austrian was protecting Comiskey. Advised by their own lawyers, the three players who testified to the grand jury all repudiated their statements, a year later. Jackson always denied that he had confessed complicity, and the grand jury foreman said that he heard it that way, too.

Jackson did say he was promised $20,000 and accepted $5,000, but he also said he played every inning of every game to win. Charles Comiskey, who knew more about the Fix than we do, also thought Jackson played the whole Series to win. (So did Buck Weaver. Fred McMulln batted .500 in the Series, 1-for-2.) We can discuss Cicotte for pages.

The "Say it ain't so, Joe" story has many versions. Jackson denied it ever happened. The most colorful and popular version was apparently penned by a reporter in New York at the time. He caught the symbolism, but probably was "embellishing."

Comiskey did not suspend anyone a minute before he had to, and not before indictments were handed up. He was always hopeful the players would be fined or suspended, then return and continue the dynasty he had put together. He never suspended Gandil, Chick chose to stay out west, rather than accept a pay cut, while all the other Sox (clean or soiled) got hefty raises.

The "Clean Sox" indeed celebrated after the cover-up of the Fix ended. But the Sox were never a close-knit team, they had always been cliquish. Ever wonder why none of those Clean Sox ever spoke up, during or after the Series? Or why they testified in the 1921 trial to restore their teammates? I think they took their cues from manager Gleason, and from Comiskey.

The grand jury records indeed disappeared (in December 1919, Ban Johnson was pretty sure. They reappeared later, some of them, from the briefcase of Comiskey's lawyer in 1924, and others in the papers Arnold Rothstein left behind. Teamwork?) But the statements of the players could be recreated from stenographers' notes. What set back the trial were the stolen signed waivers of immunity, and the lack of any evidence regarding conspiracy, which was the crime for which they players were put on trial. There was no law against tossing or fixing games. (Also, before Judge Landis ruled in 1921, it was perfectly OK for players to talk with, eat with, play cards and travel with gamblers. So, Weaver was accused of breaking a law that was made later.)

I suggest that Landis' edict, fair or not, was effective in freeing baseball of the gambling menace, and it instantly improved the game's badly tarnished image. But I don't think it created the "grimy ghost" -- the folks who engineered the cover up of the Fix, and almost succeeded in burying it forever, get credit for that. As long as versions of this story, like yours, continue to focus on "the Black Sox" and "eight men out" -- as if that summed up the scandal -- the grimy ghost lives. Just one final question. Would you also sum up Watergate in a phrase like "Five burglars caught"?

Gene Carney
Utica, NY

Ubiquitous
10-23-2005, 12:46 PM
Another What-if.

Why does Comiskey say those nice things about Joe and his WS perofrmance in a trial in which Joe is suing Comiskey for money that Commie doesn't want to give Joe? Those comments help Joe's case, so why would Commie make them? Well it might be because Commie is looking at the bigger picture and protecting himself and his club. If Charlie says on the stand that he thought Joe was in on it or that he suspected him then Charlie would be in trouble. All kinds of uncomfortable questions would be asked. If you knew or suspected why didn't you do anything during the Series? Why didn't you do anything after the series? Why did you offer them contracts for the next season? Why did you play them the next season? Why did you offer a reward for info when you knew all about it? why did you spurn Joe several times during this problem?

Another reason that can go right along with it is that COmiskey is trying to look like the innocent lamb that was jumped by wolves. "I thought my boys were playing to their fullest and I was as shocked as you were that they were throwing the game. They broke my heart".

The final reason would be the reason that nailed Joe. Which is perjury. What did Comiskey say in the first trial, if saying anything that deviates from it would put him in the hot seat just like it did Joe Jackson.


A final note on juries and civil trials. Civil trials the majority of time are he said/she said type problems. The jury in the end has to decide who they believe more, they do this by generally siding with those they like, sympathize with, or can relate to. Now I'm thinking that 12 proletariats from the Heartland are going to side with Joe a lot more then they are going to side with the "evil" rich baseball owner who was a skinflint. Like i said before its why juries hand out huge insande awards to stupid cases against big business. Its a way for the peon to strike back at the evil conglomerate.

So a trial that ends with a 11-1 verdict for Joe is not a nail in the coffin in terms of answering anything. Nor does the verdict necessarily mean that the 11 jurists thought joe was playing on the level. or that he was part of the fix in someway.

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 12:47 PM
Though I would like to know what he means by underpaid. Does he mean in general as in all players were underpaid or that Comiskey underpaid his players? If it is the latter it isn't true.

Eddie Collins made $15,000. per annum, 1915-1920. Joe Jackson made $6,000. per annum, 1915-1919. He was bumped up in 1920 to $6,000. with a $2,000. "bonus". Harry Gabiner lied to Joe and told him they'd give him $8,000.

It was actually the same $6,000. contract, with a $2,000. bonus. Joe couldn't read the contract. They treated him like Rothstein would have. Still think Joe wasn't underpaid?

Ubiquitous
10-23-2005, 12:53 PM
Austrian must have surely felt he failed to put the proper muzzle on Joe. But he didn't fail completely. Joe spoke under the influence of Austrian at many moments, and then blurted out the truth in other moments.

One testimoney, 2 distinct currents of influence, which gave the testimoney that peculiar, schizoid flavor.



I enjoys Gene view (and have visited his notes sevearl times) on it because it echoes much of what I believe happened and he reached that point with a lot more research than I am capable of. So he nails the timelines and some of the harder to find details down on print. We come to a different conclusion though.

AS for the first part I think that is the true problem with this case. There are so many conflicting statements in this case that people on both sides tend to view the statements that support their case as the truth while the ones that don't were the ones that were told as lies.

Brian McKenna
10-23-2005, 12:56 PM
It was actually the same $6,000. contract, with a $2,000. bonus. Joe couldn't read the contract. They treated him like Rothstein would have. Still think Joe wasn't underpaid?

How much did the average illiterate, 30-year old American male make in 1919 from April to September?

Ubiquitous
10-23-2005, 12:57 PM
Eddie Collins made $15,000. per annum, 1915-1920. Joe Jackson made $6,000. per annum, 1915-1919. He was bumped up in 1920 to $6,000. with a $2,000. "bonus". Harry Gabiner lied to Joe and told him they'd give him $8,000.

It was actually the same $6,000. contract, with a $2,000. bonus. Joe couldn't read the contract. They treated him like Rothstein would have. Still think Joe wasn't underpaid?


We have been down this road before. I have reprinted the Sox players salaries, I have reprinted other players salaries, and we have discussed this much. Joe Jackson for much of his career with the White Sox was under a contract he signed with Cleveland. If he was underpaid it was because of himself and Cleveland. Joe signed a bad contract at the very moment in history that the players had the most leverage until free agency came about. As for the 1920 contract, I think one could make the argument that Comiskey thought he could force the black sox to play for whatever price he wanted to give them. If you fix a series and everybody knows it are you going to hold out for $15,000 the next year?

Ubiquitous
10-23-2005, 01:00 PM
Here are the posts:


This is for 1918
Eddie collins 5yr contract at $15,000 per
Ray Schalk 3yr $7,083 per
Joe Jackson $6,000
Buck Weaver $6,000
Eddie Cicotte $5,000 plus $2,000 signing bonus
Chick Gandil $4,000
Happy felsch 2yr $3,750 per
Lefty Williams $3,000
Fred McMullin $2,750
Swede Risberg $2,500
Pants Rowland $7,500

Average Salary for 1917 baseball player was $3,000

Buck Weaver at the time was the highest paid third basemen, Ray Schalk was the highest paid Catcher. Shoeless Joe Jackson signed a contract extension in 1915 that covered the years 1917 to 1919. So like any basball player nowadays his salary level and its lowness is his own fault.

Chick Gandil made about what a journeymen firstbasemen would get. Swede was a young player just coming off a weak rookie year. Just like todays players the youth is on the low end of the pay spectrum. Eddie Cicotte was slightly underpaid but he still got a $2,000 dollar raise from his previous contract and got another 2,000 bonus as well.

Comiskey spent money to house and field the best team he could. He spent $15,000 to get Ray Schalk, the highest price ever paid for a catcher up to that time, and then made Ray the highest paid Catcher in baseball. That is not being a cheapskate.

Jackson was getting paid $6,000 because he agreed on it. Comiskey did not make that contract. That was the contract that he signed when he was in Cleveland. Bill Veeck has said that Joe Jackson was one of the worst negotiators he has ever seen in baseball.

Eddie Cicotte made $9,000 dollars that year. The best pitcher in baseball made $15,000. His yearly salary was raised by $2,000 despite the fact that America was entering the War and nobody knew if baseball was going to be played. Cicotte in his initial contract wanted $7,000 dollars a year for three years. He ended up getting a 3yr $5,000 plus $3,000 signing bonus. So he got $18,000 instead of $21,000. How is this a terribly low salary? Cicotte thought he was worth 7 Comiskey thought 5 he ended up getting 6.

Brian McKenna
10-23-2005, 01:01 PM
It seems to me that Gene Carney makes a lot of sense and seems to have a good handle on the timeline of events which is key here. There is also a lot of misinformation we read/hear everyday about little points which accumulate and in the end render everyone confused and also muck up the story.

his book comes out 2/8/06 - looking forward to it

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 01:24 PM
Jackson was getting paid $6,000 because he agreed on it. Comiskey did not make that contract. That was the contract that he signed when he was in Cleveland. Bill Veeck has said that Joe Jackson was one of the worst negotiators he has ever seen in baseball.

Player salaries: 1919

Ty Cobb - $20,000.
Tris Speaker - $18,000.
Joe Jackson - $6,000.
Eddie Collins - $15,000.
Edd Roush - $10,000.
Harry Hooper - $9,000.

In 1919, Joe Jackson was firmly, solidly ensconced in most prominent baseball figures minds, as part of the All-Time Outfield.

Baseball Magazine had nominated him in 1912 as Cobb's closest pursuer. To say that Charles Comiskey wasn't grossly underpaying him is just so wrong.

And to continue to try to blame his under-compensation on the Cleveland contract of 1915 is again, just so wrong. These allegations, in light of the facts I just presented, are a tenacious denial of justice.

Harry Hooper was making 50% more than Joe Jackson. Why do you refuse to adjust your wrong interpretation?

To allege that Comiskey wasn't exploiting an illiterate star is wrong. To pardon Comiskey and blame Jackson's poor negotiating skills is grossly bad taste.

I hire many poor Mexicans in my area, and pay them almost $20./hr., even though many don't speak English, and would work for me for $12./hr. Not all employers are cheap, even when we are in the position to take advantage of our fellow man. Comiskey had the choice to do the "right thing", and he chose not to. It's that simple. We're speaking of salaries here, not anything else.

Bill Burgess

Brian McKenna
10-23-2005, 01:34 PM
Bill,

how much did fellow ballplayers know about who was making what back then?

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 01:43 PM
Probably not a lot. Unless you were a top star, and maybe not even then.

Jackson had good reasons to hide his low pay. Made him appear less valuable, less a shrewd negotiator, etc.

Also, there might well have been fear. To tell your income, to expose your employer publicly might bring reprisals, come next negotiating round.

Remember. Before free agency, if your "owner" decided to send you to the minors, you could NOT shop your services elsewhere. You could quit. Find another profession. That was about it.

I remember one story. Connie Mack played a rookie. The rookie did well. After the game, on the bus or train, sat next to Mr. Mack, asked for a small raise. Mr. Mack had the youngster on the next train to his minor league team. Just like that. Times were tough before free agency.

Ubiquitous
10-23-2005, 01:44 PM
Player salaries: 1919

Ty Cobb - $20,000.
Tris Speaker - $18,000.
Joe Jackson - $6,000.
Eddie Collins - $15,000.
Edd Roush - $10,000.
Harry Hooper - $9,000.


joe Jackson had a contract through 1919. In 1920 its up and a new contract must be signed. Joe Jackson is involved in someway with the fix. Comiskey knows this as well. Who has the leverage at this point? "I know you cheated and if it ever comes to light you will never play again so do you really want to play hardball with me?"

Secondly how much did joe ask for?

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 01:52 PM
A Gene Carney email you all might find entertaining.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Oberjuerge:

I am replying to your recent column, "Sox Still Paying for Past Sins."

I think you are picking unfairly on the White Sox franchise. In 1919, gambling was strangling baseball -- that was the view of reporter Hugh Fullerton, one of the chief whistle-blowers of the Big Fix of that October.

What I want you to think about is this: would you say "Five Burglars Caught" pretty well sums up the Watergate scandal? Yet you refer to "Eight Men Out" as if it documents the sins of 1919. (It has nary a footnote, by the way.) My point? That YES, there was tampering by gamblers in October 1919 -- and plenty before. And some after. Just like the Watergate break-in was a petty crime, but the cover-up a misdeed that cost the country a president -- so was the cover-up of the Fix in 1919 the bigger story. But it went unreported, for lots of reasons.

It was not just Comiskey, protecting his investment, his dynastic Sox. It was also Ban Johnson, still Czar then, and the owners who were turning into millionaires, who hushed it up. For almost a year. You can look it up. Just as no one player could fix a Series, it seems clear to me that Comiskey alone could never have engineered the cover-up without a little help from his friends. So let's not focus the blame only on the Sox.

It will be easier to look up in my book:Burying the Black Sox: How Baseball's Cover-up of the 1919 World Series Fix Almost Succeeded, available March 2006 from Potomac Books, Inc. (www.potomacbooksinc.com ) Maybe they will give you a review copy -- ask Kevin Cuddihy, my editor.

You wrote: "The players, most of them, were jaded and greedy." That may be the case. But so were the baseball authorities, who were informed that the fix was in before Game One, but did nothing to investigate -- because huge turnouts were expected for this best-of-nine series, bringing in record revenues. Baseball's policy was to close its eyes, that was standard procedure. When the players came forward and confirmed that there WAS tampering (bribing -- which was not against any Illinois law at the time -- shocked?), baseball hurried to save its image as a clean sport, by installing an almighty Commissioner who looked like God.

You wrote: "When key players were offered $25,000 each to tank the 1919 World Series, a sum four or five times what they were paid all season by Comiskey . . . they agreed to lay down." I won't quibble, but the original deal was $20,000 each. Lefty Williams was making around $2,500 plus a small bonus. You do the math. I don't think Comiskey was exceptionally Scroogelike, by the way. He was a typical owner. The Sox had one of the game's highest payrolls -- maybe the top! The players just wanted more money, and thought the bribes were worth a shot. Why should Hal Chase have all the fun?
You wrote: "The conspirators made just enough bad plays to lose the World Series. Cicotte and Williams collaborated to lose all five games in the best-of-nine series." There is a lot of evidence that the Fix was OFF, after Game One or Two -- that is also what the gamblers testified at the trial. Cicotte was supposed to win Game Four, even if the Fix had stayed on; ironically, his own errors cost that game; but he always maintained he was trying to win, and you have to believe his manager thought so, too, because he gave Eddie yet another start in Game Seven. Which he won.

You wrote: "Is it coincidence the White Sox haven't won a World Series since 1919? We think not. The baseball gods have seen to it." I tend to agree with Ozzie Guillen -- the Sox have had (bleeping bad) teams. The Sox carry no curse. The scandal of 1920 is a blot on BASEBALL'S permanent record. The Sox were made an example, to send a message. Fair or not, their sentence of a lifetime ban and disgrace effectively ended gambling's stranglehold. Eight men out -- historian David Voigt calls it the myth of baseball's single sin. The fact that it was a group public hanging, as if all were equally guilty (and the many other players, managers and execs who KNEW, equally innocent), is why this case lingers in history -- begging for justice.

Please -- stop perpetuating the cover story. Baseball is strong enough to take it now, isn't it?

Gene Carney

Utica, NY

www.baseball1.com/carney

History Of Baseball Fan
10-23-2005, 01:56 PM
i heard somewhere that Jackson made too many throwing errors, and seemed to slow up for fly balls.

but his .375 batting average would seem to say that he was not involved in the fix. however, it could have been a cover up for him, to throw suspicion off of himself. or he just loved hitting, and maybe agreed to play bad in the field, instead of striking out alot.

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 02:19 PM
Joe Jackson had a contract through 1919. In 1920 its up and a new contract must be signed. Joe Jackson is involved in someway with the fix. Comiskey knows this as well. Who has the leverage at this point? "I know you cheated and if it ever comes to light you will never play again so do you really want to play hardball with me?"

Secondly how much did Joe ask for?

Charles Comiskey could have ripped up that contract and offered a better, more fair one at any moment he chose. Why didn't he? Many other owners did so, when they wanted to show their players they appreciated their efforts on their behalf.

To hind behind the "he had a contract" defense is disingenuous. And for Comiskey to even think to do that made him a vile abuser of the reserve clause, and a exploiter of Joe Jackson.

I am not a rich man, and I don't do things like that to my own employees, nor would it cross my mind to allow anyone working for me to be abused to that gross extent.

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 02:22 PM
I have not seen that Jackson was on a multi-year contract. Most players wanted them and couldn't get them. Is there a link, or source for that reference?

Bill Burgess
10-23-2005, 02:43 PM
Another What-if.

Why does Comiskey say those nice things about Joe and his WS perofrmance in a trial in which Joe is suing Comiskey for money that Commie doesn't want to give Joe? Those comments help Joe's case, so why would Commie make them? Well it might be because Commie is looking at the bigger picture and protecting himself and his club.

Why indeed did Comiskey say he believed Joe played to win? Salient, wedge question.

And don't think the jury didn't hear it, loud & clear. That one piece of testimony probably cost Comiskey the case. The jury found for Jackson, 11-1.

But your spin is curiously out of sync. Comiskey knew in 1924 that the jig was up. His players were suspended, Landis had decreed that they'd never be let back in, his team was in shambles, and protecting the team was too late by then. Horses had left the barn in 1920.

All your speculative questions of why Comiskey might have said that are off point. All of those things had already been brought out in the second civil trial. Or they knew they soon would be. So, for Commy to say it first, might make him appear better, to be coming from him. He was merely saying what everybody already believed.

Also, Comiskey wasn't saying he believed the other players played clean, only Joe Jackson! I think you are blurring that distinction.

As far as I know, Comiskey continued to pretend that he didn't know of the fix until everybody else found out. All he said in the 1924 civil trial, is that he never believed Jackson was in with the other fixers.

And if Charles Comiskey can have admitted that, in the trial over Jackson's back pay, and it cost him the case, why can't the "Hang Jackson Committee" find the same integrity to do the same?

Ubiquitous
10-23-2005, 03:14 PM
I have not seen that Jackson was on a multi-year contract. Most players wanted them and couldn't get them. Is there a link, or source for that reference?

During the federal league years owners handed out multi-year contracts to players to keep them locked up. It was the price they had to pay to kill of the FL, well that and higher wages.