PDA

View Full Version : Joe Jackson's Innocence



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6

Bill Burgess
11-08-2005, 06:58 PM
Mark,

I feel bad that a breach has been opened between us. I respect your opinions highly, even when I must disagree with many of them.

I can not see any motive that Arnold Rothstein would have to steal the GJ testimony papers on his own. He was never even accused of anything.

But Charles Comiskey had all the motive in the world to want them pilfered, to save his team, if they could be salvaged. And the papers did end up in the briefcase of his attorney, during the 1924 Milwaukee civil backpay trial.

How they came to be there is not known to me, but some connection does seem obvious, doesn't it? Do you still find me "even more delusional than you thought", to suggest such a connection?

Sultan_1895-1948
11-08-2005, 07:16 PM
What happened will never be fully known, considering specific facts that routinely cause the two camps to part ways, have been taken to the grave. I believe that Jackson accepted money, but tried to give it back at some point, and he played his heart out in the series.

And for the record, Bill, your posts are regularly informative, often well researched, commonly thought provoking, habitually interesting, and rarely offensive. I say all that knowing you don't consider Ruth an all-time great :D jk man.

leecemark
11-08-2005, 07:25 PM
--Arnold Rothstein engineered the entire fix. He could have gone to prison. Commiskey was the primary victim of the fix. Why is it logical to assume that Commiskey conspired with the man who wrecked the great team he had built. Is there any evidence other than your imagined scenario?

Bill Burgess
11-08-2005, 07:33 PM
Thank you Randy. I so appreciate your support, especially after getting raked over by others. And Babe will always be an all time great. He's #5 for me now, and will probably move up to #4 when I get around to dealing with Barry's cheating.:dance

Bill Burgess
11-08-2005, 07:42 PM
--Arnold Rothstein engineered the entire fix. He could have gone to prison. Comiskey was the primary victim of the fix. Why is it logical to assume that Comiskey conspired with the man who wrecked the great team he had built. Is there any evidence other than your imagined scenario?

Where does my supposed imagination enter into this?

Given: GJ testimony is found in A. Rothstein's papers after he's killed.

Given: Said copies emerge from C. Comiskey's attorney's briefcase at 1924 Milwaukee trial.

Given: After the WS, their interests converged. Comiskey wanted testimonies to disappear so jury would find them "not guilty". Rothstein also wanted them to disappear, to erase the gambler's part of the fix.

Can't see where I'm imagining. Why can't you see where the interests of these 2 men, after the fact, became close enough to allow a distasteful connection. I'm not saying Comiskey enjoyed associating with the man who screwed him over. But saving his investment in his team became the over-riding concern by 1921. Bear in mind - nobody forsaw that Landis would prohibit their reinstatement if they were found "not guilty". They all assumed a fine, and suspension. Little could they intuit the nature of King Kenneth.

Ubiquitous
11-08-2005, 10:04 PM
Rothstein always had a price he was a middle man, he was THE middle man. He once shot three cops in front of 10 or so witness and he didn't even have to permanently lose his right to carry a firearm! Rothstein was the mastermind behind the fix, or I should say he was the money man behind the fix. Generally speaking anything big and illegal happening back then had Rothstein's fingerprints on them. He was afterall the "big bankroll". He in all probability paid for the confessions and the trial to go away. Comiskey probably paid Rothstein to get those confessions for the Milwaukee trial. Rothstein was the man to go to for anything.

Badfish
11-09-2005, 02:37 PM
There was also no rule for gambaling back then players would openly hang out with the gamblers, it wasn't like Rose who by a sign daily. As far as Joe's performance don't you think the weight of the fix would affect your play even if you are trying. I know when i played I preformed poorly when my mind wasn't right, lets face it thats a tough situation I say allow those guys in the HOF were they belong. Buck Weaver was part of the scandal yet he made no errors, He batted .324 with only 2 strike outs in 34 at bats.
You also have to look at the pitching match ups lets face it if Cinci made it to the series they must have had pitcher who could pitch.

Ubiquitous
11-09-2005, 05:56 PM
When Rothstein went to Chicago to appear before the grand jury he stopped on the way at Austrian's law offices.

He was probably their because of a deal he brokered with Ban Johsnon between johnson and one of Arnold's secret partners then owner of the Giants Charles Stoneham. Ban was on tenous ground and he had needed all the support he could get to keep his job. Ban was dangling the chairmanship of baseball to the presiding Judge Charles McDonald, so he had a lot of power on the grand jury. Arnold being the ultimate middleman brokered a deal in which Stoneham would get to name the 3rd member of the national commission, would secure a lease for an AL team at the Polo Grounds and let Stoneham pick who would be the AL New York owners. In return Stoneham would support Ban Johnson and Arnold would get his name and his keester out of the limelight as his payment for brokering the deal.

Ubiquitous
11-09-2005, 06:09 PM
I should also say that Arnold having the testimony and Comiskey and his lawyers having them in 1924 doesn't necessarily mean they were working together. Arnold was a dealer, he dealt everything, and everything had a price. It wouldn't be hard for Arnold to obtain copies of the testimony. Afterall Arnold employed the lead investigator on the case, Val O'Farrell on numerous occasions. Once it came out that the testimony was missing Rothstein was immediately accused, and his lawyer admitted to having copies of the testimony, he got them from one of indicteds defense counsel. A defense counsel who until very recently had been a assitant state's attorney in Chicago. In otherwords he was bought to deliver the info. Later on he could have then sold them off to Comiskey when he knew Comiskey would want them most, at the 1924 trial.

None of the initial caper needs Comiskey's involvement nor is it necessary. The two did not have to be in cahoots nor did they ever have to be in cahoots. It could very well have been a simple transaction in which Arnold sells Comiskey a very valuable piece of info.

Bill Burgess
11-09-2005, 07:00 PM
If Arnold's attorney, William Fallon, received copies of the stolen GJ testimonies from one of the indicted's defense counsels, that is one thing.

It might shed some light on things if anyone read the book on William Fallon, written by Gene Fowler, The Great Mouthpiece, 1931.

If I could have been a fly on the wall, I would have very much liked to hear any conversations between Alfred Austrian and William Fallon. A connection never explored.

But if there are any surviving papers from either of those two parties, I wouldn't be surprised to discover tid-bits never before disclosed. Just the musings of a suspicious mind.

SABR Matt
12-31-2005, 11:57 AM
I believe Jackson accepted the money because he was desperae and needed the money...but I believe he couldn't throw the games when he got out there...that's why he ended up playing his best baseball.

Basically...his management was ripping him off...he needed the money...he took the money...but he didn't actually cheat in the games.

He should have reported the scandal...he should have stopped the throwing from happening...but I think he should be allowed back into baseball and into its' HOF.

Perhaps I am just a bleeding heart...

yanks0714
12-31-2005, 09:39 PM
I believe Jackson accepted the money because he was desperate and needed the money...but I believe he couldn't throw the games when he got out there...that's why he ended up playing his best baseball.

Basically...his management was ripping him off...he needed the money...he took the money...but he didn't actually cheat in the games.

He should have reported the scandal...he should have stopped the throwing from happening...but I think he should be allowed back into baseball and into its' HOF.

Perhaps I am just a bleeding heart...
I don't think there is any doubt that Jackson received money (accepted it; had it foisted upon him; was tricked into it by Gandil; screwed over by Comiskey and his minions; whatever). I don't believe he tried to throw any games. I believe he tried to win. I don't think he could have stopped his teammates from throwing the games on his own.
What he should have done was report it. Ah, but like Weaver not reporting it, it was a day and age where you simply did not do that to 'friends'.
He and Weaver should have been suspended for 1 year for failure to report the 'fix', not be banned for life.
As for Gandil, Cicotte, Williams. Felsch, Risberg, and McMullan...may they roast in Hades for eternity.

Dontworry
01-02-2006, 12:58 PM
Even if you ignore the ban, Shoeless Joe Jackson doesn't belong in the HoF. He just doesn't have the stats.

He's got only 9 seasons with as many as 100 PA. He's got a career total of 5690 PA, which is just too low for HoF consideration. 10 seasons is the HoF cutoff, and he's got about 8 1/2 seasons worth of games, total.

You say he's got great career rate stats? He does, but he also missed the entirety of his decline phase. Considering that in 5 of his last 7 years he was below his career averages (in ba, obp, sl%, and ops+), and you can see the decline coming. Give him 5 more years, and his rate stats fall below **** Allen's.

But then, we can't give him 5 more years, because he earned a ban from baseball. He didn't miss time because of a war, or a labor dispute, he missed it because he was an idiot. The best thing you can say about him is he took the money and kept the secret. And that's enough to deserve the lifetime ban.

Dontworry
01-02-2006, 01:00 PM
One more thing - joe hit 250, 1 run and no RBIs in the 4 thrown games.
.500, 4 runs and 6 RBIs in the other 4.

Not to mention a couple of 2 out 2 run triples in the LF corner in games 1 and 2, both of which were fixed games.

Sultan_1895-1948
01-02-2006, 01:19 PM
Even if you ignore the ban, Shoeless Joe Jackson doesn't belong in the HoF. He just doesn't have the stats.

With so few games played up until '20, he was a young 30. The game was just being geared toward offense. You really think he would have had a severe decline phase starting in '21? I've always thought he would have thrived for at least 5 seasons from '21 - '25, and then had 3 or 4 years of slow decline.

Dontworry
01-02-2006, 01:25 PM
With so few games played up until '20, he was a young 30. The game was just being geared toward offense. You really think he would have had a severe decline phase starting in '21? I've always thought he would have thrived for at least 5 seasons from '21 - '25, and then had 3 or 4 years of slow decline.

Well, that's true, however being 30 " then " isnt the same as 30 now, I think he would of taken a considerable decline, maybe not much.

After 91 ripken's MVP season, ripken never seemed to take advantage of 93's expansion year, or any high offensive season after, he seemed to never perform at a high level again.

Anyway - someone with 1772 hits, 873 runs, and 785 RBI is a not a HoFamer. Is it the 307 doubles, or the 54 HR that puts him over the top?

Joe Jackson isn't a HoFamer based on his career stats. He just doesn't have the counting stats. The only way you can make a case for him is to say "Well if he hadn't have been banned for life for taking money to throw the World Series, he would have collected the numbers." And that involves giving him a pass for the darkest moment in baseball history.

Frankly, it makes more sense to put Gooden and Strawberry in on the "If only they hadn't taken drugs" exemption. **** Allen gets in on the "mentally unstable" waiver, and Eric Davis gets in on the "made of glass" waiver. I mean, if we're going to project stats, lets pick people who didn't disgrace the game first

Sultan_1895-1948
01-02-2006, 01:39 PM
Well, that's true, however being 30 " then " isnt the same as 30 now, I think he would of taken a considerable decline, maybe not much.

It's debatable whether Jackson did "disgrace the game," which is why threads like this exist I guess.

Where do you get that 30 then wasn't what 30 now is? Because players back then were tough, and not pampered like today's stars? It's this toughness and love for the game that makes me think Jackson would have played til he was 38 or 39, had he not been banned.

Bill Burgess
01-02-2006, 01:51 PM
Joe Jackson isn't a HoFamer based on his career stats. He just doesn't have the counting stats. The only way you can make a case for him is to say "Well if he hadn't have been banned for life for taking money to throw the World Series, he would have collected the numbers." And that involves giving him a pass for the darkest moment in baseball history.

You are assuming Jackson did wrong. Many of us feel that is unproven, via due process, or ANY PROCESS.

the darkest moment in baseball history?

How about the worse injustice against a player in baseball history? Every coin has 2 sides.

If given what we have now, and a hypothetical trial was held today, there would be no way Jackson could be proven to have done wrong, beyond a reasonalble shadow of a doubt.

And that very issue was affirmed in 1923 in the Milwaukee case. 12 people heard EVERYTHING, saw the original GJ testimonies, and believed Joe Jackson did no wrong in the 1919 WS.

Bill Burgess

Appling
01-02-2006, 01:56 PM
He (Jackson) and Weaver should have been suspended for 1 year for failure to report the 'fix', not be banned for life.
As for Gandil, Cicotte, Williams. Felsch, Risberg, and McMullan...may they roast in Hades for eternity.
I will accept even the "ban for life" -- but not for "eternity". Their lives are now over.

I realize that Joe's stats may not be good enough for HOF selection, but he should be given a chance on the ballot. (By my data Joe had only 4981 career at-bats. Has any position player been elected with fewer than 5000 AB? Hack Wilson has just 4760 career AB, and Roger Bresenhan has just 4481. Roy Campanella has only 4205 and Jackie Robinson just 4877 AB, due to their delayed admission into MLB.)

It is a shame that this episode cost Jackson his livelihood, in the only profession he knew. Too late to fix that now, but can't he be removed from the "banned from baseball" list now that he is dead?

Dontworry
01-02-2006, 02:01 PM
It's debatable whether Jackson did "disgrace the game," which is why threads like this exist I guess.

Where do you get that 30 then wasn't what 30 now is? Because players back then were tough, and not pampered like today's stars? It's this toughness and love for the game that makes me think Jackson would have played til he was 38 or 39, had he not been banned.


" Where do you get that 30 then wasn't what 30 now is? Because players back then were tough, and not pampered like today's stars? It's this toughness and love for the game that makes me think Jackson would have played til he was 38 or 39, had he not been banned "

It's simple, modern medicine, players today are naturally stronger and are supposed to last longer.

Dontworry
01-02-2006, 02:02 PM
You are assuming Jackson did wrong. Many of us feel that is unproven, via due process, or ANY PROCESS.

the darkest moment in baseball history?

How about the worse injustice against a player in baseball history? Every coin has 2 sides.

If given what we have now, a hypothetical trial was held today, there would be no way Jackson could be proven to have done wrong, beyond a reasonalble shadow of a doubt.

And that very issue was affirmed in 1923 in the Milwaukee case. 12 people heard EVERYTHING, saw the original GJ testimonies, and believed Joe Jackson did no wrong in the 1919 WS.

Bill Burgess


Joe Jackson knew about the fix and accepted money to throw the World Series. That's from a) his testimony, both written and under oath and b) his co-conspirators. Everyone who was involved in the plot has named him as a participant, even as they gave Buck Weaver a pass (he knew about it, but took no money and didn't participate).

As to whether or not he was actually throwing games (as opposed to merely taking money and keeping the secret), we observe the following: He hit much better in games the White Sox tried to win than he did in the ones they tried to lose. The Reds had a suspicious number of extra-base hits to left. Observers of the time (including Christy Mathewson, IIRC) thought he was helping to throw the games.

So the evidence seems to show a likelyhood that he was throwing games. But even if he wasn't, the best you can say about him is that he took the money and kept the secret. And that's enough for a ban.

Just to add -
Also, if you look at the splits, Jackson hit .250 with a single run and no RBIs in the four games that were thrown, and hit .500 with 4 Rs and 6 RBIs in the other four. Both of the first two games (both of which were thrown) also included 2 out triples to LF with 2 men on... so much for "the place triples went to die", as Jackson's glove was allegedly called....

Even if he didn't do a single thing on the field to throw the series... is it OK to take gamblers' money to throw a game as long as you make sure you try hard? I don't think that's a message to send....

Sultan_1895-1948
01-03-2006, 04:53 PM
" Where do you get that 30 then wasn't what 30 now is? Because players back then were tough, and not pampered like today's stars? It's this toughness and love for the game that makes me think Jackson would have played til he was 38 or 39, had he not been banned "

It's simple, modern medicine, players today are naturally stronger and are supposed to last longer.

With advanced weight training, many players carry more weight than their natural frames are meant to. (which is why steroid users take HGH). This puts added stress on joints and ligaments. You'd think because they're "stronger" that they would last longer, but this isn't true across the board. Also, dedication to the game, simply loving to play the game, and not having the money to retire at age 25 like most today, goes pretty far.

Bill Burgess
01-03-2006, 05:13 PM
Even if he didn't do a single thing on the field to throw the series... is it OK to take gamblers' money to throw a game as long as you make sure you try hard? I don't think that's a message to send....

Worry,

In a court of law, where we all agree we need to control a process, to seek truth, it isn't what we believe that counts, but what we can "prove".

In a hypothetical trial today, any good lawyer could win an acquittal for Joe.

All the so-called evidence against Jackson is heresay. Legend. Every aspect is shrouded in intrigue.

1. When did Joe take money? After what game? Why did he take money?

2. Was he merely trying to act as courier, to return the money to management? Did management know he was there to return tainted cash, and therefore deny him entrance, to maintain "plausible deny-ability".

3. Was he taking money, and still playing to win?

4. Can anyone prove he didn't play to win in the field?

5. The breakdown of "thrown games" and "try to win games", is all circumstantial and interesting, but does it rise to the level of proof?

6. Even in the games that he was "supposedly throwing", Joe out-hit Eddie Collins and Edd Roush.

So, at the end of the day, what do you really have? A lot of supposition, hearsay, legends, etc. Does anything really rise to the level of proof positive? I don't think so, Worry. It has always been the American democratic way to make sure someone did wrong before we deny anyone of their rights.

Just my 2 cents.

Cochran Ass., Inc.

Dontworry
01-05-2006, 06:06 PM
Worry,

In a court of law, where we all agree we need to control a process, to seek truth, it isn't what we believe that counts, but what we can "prove".

In a hypothetical trial today, any good lawyer could win an acquittal for Joe.

Bill - The lack of a conviction means nothing, since the Black Sox would have been entitled to one even if they had confessed in open court... I can't recall the details perfectly, but basically throwing games by itself wasn't the issue, in order for them to be found guilty the prosecution had to show that their actual intention in doing so was to defraud the public... of course their intention wasn't to defraud the public but to make some extra money.

Plus of course we always have Joe's very own grand jury testimony/admission on the matter anyway.

I'll find a quick link for you with some of the evidence.

Here we go, from the pen of the late, great, and truly missed Doug Pappas:

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/shoelessjoe.htm
http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/bb99-6.htm


Infact - Rob Neyer wrote a great article about 7-8 years ago about Shoeless Joe's performance in the WS. He did a very in-depth analysis. I wish I had the article, or the time to look for it...but I remember that he pointed out that Jackson was a dead pull hitter, yet in key situations in games they lost, he was popping up to third, grounding out to the left side, etc. It was a very extensive article that was pretty convicting.

Bill Burgess
01-05-2006, 09:00 PM
Worry,

You know what? We're not communicating in the slightest. And it's not entirely your fault. You have no way of knowing that I've been fighting this particular battle since I arrived on Fever.

It's my experience, that after a lot of fury, few if any ever change their minds about the essentials. The 2 camps can barely even stand to talk to each other civilly.

This case brings out the worst in Fever members. You seem like a very nice guy, with good perceptions, and I just don't want to fight with you. Especially over a subject that we're almost doomed to not change over.

Let me post a link to refer you to something worthwhile.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=408466&postcount=185

My good pal, Gene Carney is by far the most authoritative, knowledgeable person on this subject. He has traveled the country in his research, and this spring his book, "Bury the Black Sox", will hit the stores.

You may or may not find his perceptions of interest. So far, we haven't clashed, and I hope to avoid that. Is that ok?

Bill

Appling
01-06-2006, 07:10 PM
Bill - The lack of a conviction means nothing, since the Black Sox would have been entitled to one even if they had confessed in open court... I can't recall the details perfectly, but basically throwing games by itself wasn't the issue, in order for them to be found guilty the prosecution had to show that their actual intention in doing so was to defraud the public... of course their intention wasn't to defraud the public but to make some extra money.

Interesting thought. If Joe Jackson went to court under today's legal standard I think he would win damages against MLB. I don't think there was any written rule explicitly forbidding players to gamble, socialize with gamblers, or even "avoid deliberately throwing a game". There likely was good evidence that most or all of these standards had been violated prior to 1919, often by the game's most prominent stars, yet those deeds went unpunished.

Baseball needed to punish someone for the embarrassment they suffered, and it sure wasn't going to be the OWNERS.

This said, it is probably good for baseball that strong (perhaps illegal) action was taken, to discourage such actions in the future. It is too bad that some innocent players (Buck Weaver and perhaps Joe Jackson) had to be punished along with those players who were the ringleaders.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 12:23 PM
http://seansatt.pbwiki.com/f/jackson1.gif
http://seansatt.pbwiki.com/f/jackson2.gif
I like Joe's last sentence that I posted.

In the grand jury testimony Joe talks a lot about the money and how much each player got. For a person who supposedly had this money fall in his lap he sure was concerned about getting his fair share. He talks about them having conversations before during and after the series about the pay and what each person got. It even continues on into spring training of next year.

Another point is that in his testimony he talks about a meeting in after the 4th game and after he got his money in which he talks to Cicotte about the money and about how much he was supposed to get.

The defenders of Jackson on BBF push the view that the money was given to Joe without his knowledge or his consent. So far as I can tell this is the only place that this view is actually pushed.

Joe says he knew about the fix well before the series, and that he agreed to take part for $20,000. But somehow that gets turned into this rather silly notion in which Joe is given $5,000 because they used his name and they felt he should get some compensation for that. Even though the players got ripped off by the gamblers and Chick ripped off his fellow teammates they still felt a guy who supposedly had nothing to do with the fix and had no knowledge that they used his should get some money for it.

Then when that proves unconvincing it gets turned into the whole testimony is a lie that was orchestrated by Comiskey and his cronies to protect Comiskey. Even though Joe implicates Comiskey. But wait suddenly his future trial testimony Joe and yes even some of the other black sox members are telling the truth this time. So it becomes Joe Jackson lied to destroy himself and told the truth in attempt to get money from Comiskey.

So then it becomes that yes indeed Joe lied to destroy himself because he was duped by Comiskey because Comiskey needed him to be the fall guy. Even though Comiskey didn't need him to be the fall guy and in fact it would have been better for Comiskey if Joe was an innocent and was able to stay on the team. Comiskey already had Cicotte and already had Chick Gandil gone. He didn't need to dupe an innocent Jackson into destroying himself. What he did need was to make sure that Jackson did not drag Comiskey down with him in his guilt.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 12:24 PM
This deserves repeating

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 12:25 PM
Heres another thing that always bothers me about the Jackson defenders theories. How come Joe never used them?

How come Joe never said "Hey Austrian told me to say this" or "Commy told me to lie". He doesn't say that, you don't think that would be juicy bit in his civil trial against Comiskey? How come in the 30 odd years that Joe was on the earth he never presents these very theories that many of you hold as concrete now? How come none of the other ballplayers ever came out and said we were coached, we were misled? We were told to say this and that and it would be okay. They don't say that, at no time does anyone involved in this scandal say somebody told me to say this. Why? Why wouldn't Joe after he gets suspended for life start squawking like plucked chicken? Why when he is suing Comiskey for backpay does he not bring this up? You don't think his new lawyer would have thought that good for his case?

From the transcripts that Jackson defenders present on the internet of the 1924 civil trial we see that Jackson presents and entirely new timeline for the scandal and pay off. Yet they never present what his and his lawyers response was to the entering of the old grand jury testimony into evidence. I haven't seen it, I wonder what it says.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 12:26 PM
Over on blackbetsy they have an article in which Joe Jackson many many years later give sort of his side of the story, this is the first few sentences of that article

WHEN I walked out of Judge Dever's courtroom in Chicago in 1921, I turned my back completely on the World Series of 1919, the Chicago White Sox, and the major leagues. I had been acquitted by a twelve-man jury in a civil court of all charges and I was an innocent man in the records. I have never made any request to be reinstated in baseball, and I have never made any campaign to have my name cleared in the baseball records.
And funny enough Joe is lying again.
okay so what about this?


SHOELESS JOE ITEMS FOR BID
By PAUL DOTTINO
Date: 08-15-1998, Saturday

A document from the one of the most historic episodes in baseball
history is expected to draw bids of at least $10,000 during the
Christie's East auction on Nov. 1 in Manhattan.

The 1923 document is a letter from baseball commissioner Kenesaw
Mountain Landis, responding to a request for reinstatement from Shoeless
Joe Jackson. Jackson was banned for his involvement in taking money to
throw the 1919 World Series.



Shoeless Joe Jackson pieces highlight Christie's East sale.
The November 3rd 1998 Christie's East auction featured a grouping of 30 lots from the estate of Joe Jackson including letters between Joe and AL President Ban Johnson and Commissioner Landis regarding possible reinstatement of Jackson into baseball's good graces. The grouping included a pair of letters from Landis essentially denying Jackson's request for reinstatement which brought $19,550.00 and another grouping of letters from Joe brought $9775.00.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 12:52 PM
And funny enough Joe is lying again.
okay so what about this?

Fraud, fraud, & more fraud. I dropped out of the other thread, in realization that any further participation was futile. And now you come here. Sigh!

Your willingness to speculate on what happened in Jackson's mind is boggling.
If Jackson said that he didn't ask Landis for reinstatement, then he didn't, and your reproduction of this stuff is taking every thing for granted.

Jackson couldn't write, so he wrote nothing to Landis. He wouldn't have known how to compose such a letter in any case. So, it is obvious his wife, in conjunction with an attorney did that work, and we don't know if Jackson himself cared in the least. Greenville had a lot of Joe supporters, who might have allied with Katie and an attorney to produce those "requests".

And again, your smearing the GJ testimony all over this thread is relevant only to the anti-Jackson lynch mob.

NOTHING of that GJ testimony has value, since Joe was still an employee of Comiskey, and as such, had an invisible gun to his head. Wasn't free to speak his mind. But he did try to sneak in his innocence. All the money talk could have been manufactured, as so much testimony under oath always is.

Unsurprisingly, you don't go out of your way to find any testimony from the second trial, when the gun was no longer at his head.

If Commy was willing to lose the case, when he admitted Joe played to win, and even tried to opt out of the entire series, you conveniently "forget" to address the pro-Joe material.

I have no further interest in discussing the Jackson case with yourself, Mark Leece, Macker, etc. There just isn't any point. You repeat the same old mantras, evade the points on morality I posted twice, and not even Gene Carney had the slightest effect on any of you. And if he couldn't make a dent, how can any other human, who knows so much less than him. Carney has read 100 times more information than you ever will the day they place pennies on your eyes, and he insists Joe Jackson played to win. As did Comiskey.

Here were a few of Gene Carney's remarks. Gene's remarks are in bold-faced caps.
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=384935&postcount=9

You guys are very bright men, but no one would ever surmise it from this topic.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 01:17 PM
oh my god this is spin control at its finest. Wife did it without his knowledge, "invisible gun to head"

As for the second trial, almost none of it is available on the interntet. A few passages and that is it. There is a book SAy it aint so but the closest copy to me is 45 miles away.

Oh and actually I never evaded your points on morality.


amazing 4th quarter in playoffs!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

leecemark
01-15-2006, 01:19 PM
--Bill, I most definately wouldn't confess to a crime I didn't commit because my employer told me to and said it would be alright. Comiskey didn't control the courts and couldn't assure Jackson or anybody else that confessing wouldn't lead to jail time. I am pretty sure virtually everyone else here would pass on making a false confession to a felony to protect their boss - especially a supposed evil boss like Comiskey.
--I appreciate your taking my suggestion to provide a warning that you might delete posts that don't follow what you hope to achieve when you start themat the beginning. Its not as good as forgoing censorship altogether, but at least we all know our efforts might be deleted or altered if they don't meet with your approval. Its a little late to add that warning to a thread we are already 5 pages into though.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 01:19 PM
Concerning the utter garbage you spewed all over 2 threads, on Jackson's GJ testimony, where he talks about the money, timeline, Gandil, etc., how does anyone know it wasn't worked out before he went into the GJ room.

It was well-known that he conferred with Alfred Austrian for about an hour or two before he went in. What do you think they talked about? The weather?

How do you know it was concocked as an elaborate story to sound credible? Since they were all under the mistaken impression that Landis was only out to crush the gamblers, why isn't it reasonable to lie about everything, to assuage Landis? If Landis believed all of that, then he might merely fine the players, and go after the gamblers?

How do you guys "know" anything? You sound like legal virgins, willing to swallow any lie you're fed. Especially if you're fed an easy victim?

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 01:28 PM
I have reads Gene's responses before and I have read his notes at his site.

Here is some of the statements from the guy who has done all the researching:

NO. THE ASSUMPTION WAS, IF YOU TOOK MONEY, YOU MUST HAVE EARNED IT SOMEHOW.
JACKSON ADMITTED TO TAKING MONEY, LESS THAN HE WAS PROMISED. HE ALSO SAID HE
PLAYED TO WIN! BUT WHAT HE NEVER SAID -- OR WHAT NEVER MADE IT TO THE RECORD
-- WAS THAT HE TRIED TO TELL HIS TEAM ABOUT THE FIX (BEFORE OR AFTER).


Now you and Carney think, I believe that Jackson got this money because they used his name and that is it. To me that is spin and you guys who always claim we can't handle the tough questions never can answer why a bunch of swindlers who were busy cheating each other and who stiffed one another who then suddenly out of generosity/guilt suddenly give Joe Jackson $5,000 for simply using his name. Thats awfully nice of them to give Joe such a huge chunk of the money they got. How much did Williams get? How much did Risberg and Felsch? How about McMullin? Awfully generous of them.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 01:29 PM
I appreciate your taking my suggestion to provide a warning that you might delete posts that don't follow what you hope to achieve when you start them at the beginning. It's not as good as forgoing censorship altogether, but at least we all know our efforts might be deleted or altered if they don't meet with your approval. It's a little late to add that warning to a thread we are already 5 pages into though.

Oh don't worry. I wouldn't delete this for anything. I want your thoughts to live here FOREVER. I hope your grandchildren might find their way here someday and say, "Gee, Grandpa. You sure had it in for Joe Jackson! Was he as bad as Charlie Manson?"

Your wisdom is quite safe in this hallowed sanctuary, where only the purest crap is preserved in its pristine clarity. My censorship? Your libertarian concerns prove you don't know me very well. As a Libertarian Party member since 1982, I abhor censorship as much as you do, and "my approval" isn't a criteria. Plenty of stuff I disagree with is off limits to deletion, and I have only deleted posts which were conversational fluff, hostility, etc, in threads I'm cultivating as long-term, viable instruments for Fever. You never knew me, Mark.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 01:35 PM
Concerning the utter garbage you spewed all over 2 threads, on Jackson's GJ testimony, where he talks about the money, timeline, Gandil, etc., how does anyone know it wasn't worked out before he went into the GJ room.

It was well-known that he conferred with Alfred Austrian for about an hour or two before he went in. What do you think they talked about? The weather?

How do you know it was concocked as an elaborate story to sound credible? Since they were all under the mistaken impression that Landis was only out to crush the gamblers, why isn't it reasonable to lie about everything, to assuage Landis? If Landis believed all of that, then he might merely fine the players, and go after the gamblers?



How do you guys "know" anything? You sound like legal virgins, willing to swallow any lie you're fed. Especially if you're fed an easy victim?


It's odd that you would call me a legal virgin or should say sound like one. From what I have read of yours so far I believe I know much more about the legal system then you.

"How do you guys "know" anything"

I don't and neither do you, unlike you I don't pretend that what I believe is irrefutable fact.

As for the rest, again I'll ask a question, and pulling a Bill I'll even challenge you to answer the question you have evaded. If Joe was coached, if Joe was told to say this how come he never mention this? How come once he gets kicked out he doesn't spill the beans? How come when he is suing Commy he doesn't say "oh by the way I was told to say all that stuff in 1920."?

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 01:46 PM
Now you and Carney think, I believe that Jackson got this money because they used his name and that is it. To me that is spin and you guys who always claim we can't handle the tough questions never can answer why a bunch of swindlers who were busy cheating each other and who stiffed one another who then suddenly out of generosity/guilt suddenly give Joe Jackson $5,000 for simply using his name. Thats awfully nice of them to give Joe such a huge chunk of the money they got. How much did Williams get? How much did Risberg and Felsch? How about McMullin? Awfully generous of them.

The reason Jackson had an envelope of money tossed to him was that Lefty Williams was his only pal on the team. They roomed together. Lefty wanted his pal, Joe to get money if he took part or not.

That is why Lefty Williams told the fixers that Joe was in it with them. Joe refused to attend either of the fixers' 2 meetings, but Weaver did. Lefty Williams told the other fixers that Joe was "in it with them", and he (Lefty) was "representing" Joe. That is how & why the others believed that Joe was one of them.

So when Cicotte confessed, he was under the impression, gained from Lefty Williams, that Joe was "in it with them". And that is how Joe got associated in the first place. Why Commy thought Joe was involved. And held up Joe's WS check.

That is why, when he realized he was being included with the fixers, he went to the GJ, to clear his name. Which is what he fully intended to do, until Austrian got ahold of him and told him Landis was only after the gamblers. Begged him to lie. So that is how it played out.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 01:51 PM
All that came out at the second trial. Lefty Williams confessed that he used Jackson's name without permission from Jackson, or even his knowledge that his name was mentioned at both meetings.

Lefty told the jury that he did not have Joe's permission to use his name, and that he didn't even ask Joe for permission. He probably knew he would have had a fight on his hands.

Jackson said that when he was first approached, he went for the man, and the 4 bystanders DID testify to that effect at the second trial.

Hugh Fullerton also volunteered to testify for Joe, that Joe had asked to opt out of the WS. Goes to motive of greed.

And that second jury DID have the opportunity to monitor Joe's tone, facial expressions, body language, and 11-1 believed he was telling them the truth.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 02:03 PM
It's odd that you would call me a legal virgin or should say sound like one. From what I have read of yours so far I believe I know much more about the legal system then you.

Maybe you do. I do not know much about law, even though I watch quite a bit of the Judge shows, and Court TV. I just ask the questions that I feel need to be addressed.

"How do you guys "know" anything"

I don't and neither do you, unlike you I don't pretend that what I believe is irrefutable fact.

Oh, but you do. You are so cocksure of your hearsay that you'd ban a man from the Hall of Fame, and BB eligibility. You'd defame a man on hearsay. I'd call that pretty damn sure of yourself. In the face of over-whelming hearsay, I defend the presumption of innocence principle.

As for the rest, again I'll ask a question, and pulling a Bill I'll even challenge you to answer the question you have evaded. If Joe was coached, if Joe was told to say this how come he never mention this? How come once he gets kicked out he doesn't spill the beans? How come when he is suing Commy he doesn't say "oh by the way I was told to say all that stuff in 1920."?

Pull a Bill? How cheesy. Why didn't he come out with all that stuff? He may not have realized that anyone would have believed such Byzantine, Machiavellian machinations. Or maybe he did bring it out in the second trial, and we just don't know it! Again, you are SO sure of everything.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 02:15 PM
And so are you Bill, you believe you are SO right. Joe from his own mouth said he agreed to the fix. I'm willing to ban him for that.

And you are right its cheesy, I wish you would stop acting like you are some gunslinger calling us out to the street. IF we don't answer a question to your satisfaction you accuse us of evading the question or even somehow ignoring it.

leecemark
01-15-2006, 02:18 PM
--Bill, Ubi and I are not trying to ban Jackson from the Hall. He is already banned and by men who had access to more and better information that we do. You and his supporters are trying to get him unbanned. He who would change the status quo has the burden of proof on them.

pvictory
01-15-2006, 02:41 PM
To all supporters of Shoeless Joe for the Hall of Fame:

I've recently posted a website in support of lifting the ban so Jackson can be considered for the Cooperstown. I started this effort when MLB turned down Greenville SC's request to name our minor league team "The Joes" in honor of our native son. It's gone far enough. The man deserves a break.

Please take a look, and be sure to sign the petition to Bud Selig.

www.hallyes.com

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 02:46 PM
And so are you Bill, you believe you are SO right. Joe from his own mouth said he agreed to the fix. I'm willing to ban him for that.

If I didn't feel I knew more of the case, I'd not be involved here. You, Mark and Macker do not sound as if you are very aware of the details. I say that because you repeat the same mantras so often, it gives the impression that is all you know.

"Out of Joe's own mouth", Jackson says that he tried to throw a man out a window for propositioning him to throw the WS. He claims the 4 witnesses to that incident DID INDEED testify to that effect at his second trial.

Sports Writer Hugh Fullerton heard him ask to opt out of the WS.

When Gandil solicited him again, he turned him down.

When Gandil persisted, Jackson seemed to acquiesce to join the conspiracy. I guess you are basing all of your feelings on that one sentence. But here is the downfall of your doing that.

You & I do not know if Jackson gave in to temptation for 1 second, 10 seconds, or an afternoon. How many times does a person say something, only to change their mind a moment later. How often does one give in to something in their minds, only to "not act on it".

If I give in to a seductive thought, let's say to cheat on my girlfriend, and then not think any more of it, is that still a "wrong". Would not a person need to actually commit a deed to make it "count"?

I concede that there is a sentence in the GJ testimony where Jackson seems to agree to join the fixer's conspiracy. But if I recall, that moment occurred 4 games into the WS. And that included the 1st 2 games that you guys say were thrown.

It is apparent, that even if Joe Jackson gave Chick Gandil to understand that he was belatedly joining them, he didn't hold to that very long. And no one can show anything that proves he acted on it.

If someone agrees to rob a bank, but then doesn't rob it, can we ban him from the Moose or Elks clubs? Can we hold anyone responsible for weakness in their thoughts? Because that is the only way we can indict Joe Jackson for ANY participation in the fixers schemes.

The GJ testimony, which you seem to hold as sacrosanct, only has Jackson as agreeing to wrong-doing at one moment, and we do not have a way to know how long he held to that feeling.

So, if Joe Jackson must be banned for actions we do not know he did, we all should be banned for honors in our lives. We have all thought/felt stuff that was not ennobling or honorable. Once in my life, I so hated another, I fantasized torturing them. I'm not proud of that, but by your standards, I should be in prison for felonious thoughts

IF we don't answer a question to your satisfaction you accuse us of evading the question or even somehow ignoring it.

It's not my imagination. Entire segments of mine have been ignored. Below is an example of this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MLs forcibly enforced the Color Ban, its infamous Wall of Hatred, and put the man who enforced it for 23 yrs. into the Hall of Fame, yet can't forgive a man for keeping $5K, when he shouldn't have!

The MLs forcibly enforced the infamous Reserve Clause, never said it was sorry. Never asked for forgiveness from its hundreds of victims, never apologized and promised not to do that again. It didn't have to forgive itself, because it never admitted it screwed so many hundreds of ballplayers out of their market value.

The MLs, when it finally created a pension plan for ballplayers, in the 50's, screwed the early players out of ANY share of it. Never said it was sorry. Never apologized.

Today, with the untold millions of dollars coming into ML coffers, it could easily share a part of it with former Negro L. players, for its past crimes against them. Organized Baseball will never even consider restitution to its former black victims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why was no one banned, fined, suspended, punished in any way? All of the above are far more serious moral transgressions than anything Joe Jackson ever contemplated. But no one here rails against them. Steroid abusers are not banned. Barry Bonds will be celebrated if he keeps playing. Why was Giambi not punished?

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 03:07 PM
Yet when Chick approachs him he doesn't try to throw him out the window, instead he agrees on 20,000 dollars.

In terms of law it doesn't matter if he only decided to do it for a second, a minute or ten years. Once he agreed to it, he was guilty.


If someone agrees to rob a bank, but then doesn't rob it, can we ban him from the Moose or Elks clubs?

Well actually yes they can. If they don't want a guy who took part in a plot to a commit a crim that is their choice. And by the way agreeing to a rob a bank is against the law even if you don't rob it or actually take part in it.

As for your moral questions why should I answer that question? Why am I against that view of yours? Who says I think what the Majors did to minorities is correct. In fact what I have said in that thread was that adding another wrong to the pile does nobody justice.

Though I don't see how you get Joe finally agreeing to be part of the fix after two games and not before the series from his GJ testimony.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 03:13 PM
[COLOR="blue"]"Out of Joe's own mouth", Jackson says that he tried to throw a man out a window for propositioning him to throw the WS. He claims the 4 witnesses to that incident DID INDEED testify to that effect at his second trial.



If I'm in a criminal endeavor and some stranger approaches me in public surrounded by people to commit a crime I am going to not be happy about this.

Joe being mad at this stranger for approaching does not necessarily mean that Joe is a saint, nor does it mean his is a devil. It simply means he did not like this guy asking him. His GJ testimony and everything else he has said about this shows that he never acted that way to his teammates.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 03:22 PM
From the testimony I posted it says this
http://seansatt.pbwiki.com/f/jackson4.gif

So after the first game Joe who you claim wasn't in on it and you claim that according to the GJ testimony doesn't get involved until later approaches Chick for money. Joe then says that he and the others went ahead and threw the second game. So right there again in his GJ testimony he states he was part of the fix and he states that he was part of it from the beginning. Not after the second game not after the 4th game not never but from the beginning.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 03:23 PM
Yet when Chick approachs him he doesn't try to throw him out the window, instead he agrees on 20,000 dollars.

In terms of law it doesn't matter if he only decided to do it for a second, a minute or ten years. Once he agreed to it, he was guilty.

And this merely proves how radical, extremist, drasticly out of balance this opinion of yours is.

Most of the rest of us judge others on what they actually, in fact do. As an example; for a long time, if a man stalked a woman, the police had to wait until a crime was committed. Even threatening letters were not enough to arrest someone.

But in your world, "out of your own mouth", if Joe Jackson gave in to temptation for but a moment, and never did the crime, he is subject to banning!

I pray my country never comes to where people are damned by their thoughts.

I don't know if you've thought through your values/words, or are just shooting off your mouth, in the heat of trying to win a conversation. But since your are holding Joe Jackson's feet to the fire, I am holding your feet (or words) to the fire.

I don't agree with you, but I'll die for your right to say/think it.

"Out of your own mouth", a man is bannable, for thinking something for 1 second, even if they don't commit anything.

And I didn't say 1 single thing which is inaccurate, incorrect, or out of context.

Bill Burgess

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 03:28 PM
And this merely proves how radical, extremist, drasticly out of balance you are as well as anyone who happens to agree with you.

You are one extreme person. You try to make this personal by continually diagnosing those who disagree with you with mental problems


Most of the rest of us judge others on what they actually, in fact do. As an example; for a long time, if a man stalked a woman, the police had to wait until a crime was committed. Even threatening letters were not enough to arrest someone.
Pretty poor example since as you probably know that is no longer the case in a lot of states. Its called stalking laws. So if anything you are out of touch with current views.


But in your world, "out of your own mouth", if Joe Jackson gave in to temptation for but a moment, and never did the crime, he is subject banning!
No that is the law, get to know it. It can be scary stuff if you don't it.


Frankly, ubi, you're a real scary guy. I fear your values, and pray my country never comes to such a Fascist police state, where people are damned by their thoughts.

Once again you go over the line but hey your a mod so I guess you are the responsible one in this conversation.


I don't know if you're thought through your values, or are just shooting off your mouth, in the heat of trying to win a conversation. But since your are holding Joe Jackson's feet to the fire, I am holding your feet (or words) to the fire.

Your values terrify me. When I was little, there used to be a saying. It went, "I don't agree with you, but I'll die for your right to say/think it."

But in your world, all of our civil rights are gone. A shadow world more in line with the KGB, or stasti, or Nazis.

"Out of your own mouth", a man is bannable, for thinking something for 1 second, even if they don't commit anything. Scary.

And I didn't say 1 single thing which is inaccurate, incorrect, or out of context.

I don't know what the hell happened to you. You used to be quite bright.

Bill Burgess


More of the same

leecemark
01-15-2006, 03:42 PM
--Jackson didn't just think about joining the fix. He accepted payment for it and asked for more. All accounts agree on that point and that is plenty enough to call him guilty. You say I am just repeating the same mantra. That is because there are only a few points which are known to be true. Those agreed upon points were enough to ban Jackson IMO.
--I'm not interested in his thoughts or motives. I don't even care if he actually did anything to lose games. Knowing about the plot (and it was direct from the conspirators, not the rumors that Comiskey and others may have heard) and profiting from it are enough to doom him (from a baseball standpoint) forever.
--As for the color line, reserve clause and associated issues you bring up, I find that as objectionable as you do. The thing is that those wrongs were carried out by baseball as an institution. It was not one man or group of men who instituted r sustained those sins. They evolved over time and were sustained as much by inertia as by direct action. Nobody violated baseball law to carry out those policies. They WERE baseball policy and faced no serious challenge until shortly before they fell. Men like Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson and Curt Flood and Marvin Miller deserve to be honored for overturning those policies, but no one man or group of men can be singled out for creating/sustaining them.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 03:43 PM
No, sorry, but no. You are the one who is saying things which no normal, reasonable person could agree with.

You are the one who believes that if a person agrees to something for even a second, it is reasonable to ban them for life from their profession!

That is not a premise a right-thinking person can think. You believe something so wrong, I call it radical, extremist.

Perhaps, I shouldn't say your beliefs define you. Perhaps all your other beliefs are alright.

As a matter of law, Joe Jackson did not commit a crime. It wasn't a crime against society or the government to throw a baseball game. So he wasn't involved with criminal activity.

I used stalking as an example of acting on behavior before a crime is committed. I support stalking laws. But Joe Jackson's behavior is miles from anything resembling stalking. Like I said, neither you nor anyone else can prove Jackson entertained joining the fixers were more than a moment. His actual performance shows he played to win.

He did throw out 5 runners at the plate, and had others deflected. According to his interview. I have not went back and checked on that.

I am not the one who came to this thread and used huge letters to advertise their views. I'm not the one who keeps accusing Jackson of lying. If you're seething within, it shows. I'm merely responding coolly to your rage.

leecemark
01-15-2006, 03:49 PM
--That Jackson lied under oath can't possibly be doubted. His testimony on various occasions was so contradictory that at least some of it had to be lies.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 04:04 PM
--That Jackson lied under oath can't possibly be doubted. His testimony on various occasions was so contradictory that at least some of it had to be lies.

We agree. He lied.

The anti-Jackson camp think the pro-Jackson sentences were the lies.

The Pro-Jackson camp think the money stuff were the lies, organized by Alfred Austrian to appease Judge Landis into believing he was hearing the straight scoop. Worked too well. Had a gun to his head. Still worked for Commy.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 04:04 PM
As a matter of law, Joe Jackson did not commit a crime. It wasn't a crime against society or the government to throw a baseball game. So he wasn't involved with criminal activity.


you can't have it both ways. You wanted us to treat his actions like a crime and debate this as if was a courtroom. Now that you don't like the laws you opt out of that "high standard" you wanted us all to follow. Remember that from the minor league thread.



I used stalking as an example of acting on behavior before a crime is committed. I support stalking laws. But Joe Jackson's behavior is miles from anything resembling stalking.

You are right it is different I didn't create the example you did, and in your example it supports my view not yours. And even though I deleted it you know full well that a case can be made that his world series performance was less then stellar.


I am not the one who came to this thread and used huge letters to advertise their views. I'm not the one who keeps accusing Jackson of lying. If you're seething within, it shows. I'm merely responding coolly to your rage.

He did lie. He can't be innocent and not have lied at some point. So even if he is innocent he did lie somewhere. And you can't be responding coolly to my rage for I have no rage, nor is cooly responding invoking the nazis and questioning the intelligence of a fellow poster.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 04:08 PM
We agree. He lied.




Wha?

You lambast me because I accused him of lying, yet you know full well that he did lie?

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 04:14 PM
Jackson didn't just think about joining the fix. This is completely unknowable to you or me. He accepted payment for it and asked for more. Whether he threw games is completely unknowable to you or me. All accounts agree on that point Oh really? and that is plenty enough to call him guilty. Who appointed you his judge, jury and executioner? You say I am just repeating the same mantra. That is because there are only a few points which are known to be true. What you choose to believe is true is at odds with the members of this site, according to this poll. Those agreed upon points were enough to ban Jackson IMO. And that is why you fail.

Did you find it interesting that Ban Johnson telegraphs Joe to congradulate him for beating Comisky in the second trial?

--I'm not interested in his thoughts or motives. I don't even care if he actually did anything to lose games. Knowing about the plot (and it was direct from the conspirators, not the rumors that Comiskey and others may have heard) and profiting from it are enough to doom him (from a baseball standpoint) forever. This shows just how extreme you are.
--As for the color line, reserve clause and associated issues you bring up, I find that as objectionable as you do. The thing is that those wrongs were carried out by baseball as an institution. It was not one man or group of men who instituted r sustained those sins. How so??? Are you kidding? Of course it was a small group of men!!! They evolved over time and were sustained as much by inertia as by direct action. Nobody violated baseball law to carry out those policies. They WERE baseball policy and faced no serious challenge until shortly before they fell. Men like Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson and Curt Flood and Marvin Miller deserve to be honored for overturning those policies, but no one man or group of men can be singled out for creating/sustaining them.

Why isn't baseball rendering restitution to former Negro League players? Why wasn't Jason Giambi punished? Why are steroid cheats given multiple chances? Where is your moral indignation at other moral sins?

And you are wrong again, as usual. It was a small group of men responsible for Baseball's rules.

leecemark
01-15-2006, 04:43 PM
--Bill, Those rules persisted for 70 years. The men responsible for creating them were long dead and ownership changed hands on every ball club many times over the course of this. Virtually nobody was pushing for change for most of that period. Many industries practiced segregation or discrimination of a long period of time. None of them are offering/have offered compensation to men denied jobs many years ago. Sure it would be a noble gesture if MLB offered pensions to surviving Negro Leaguers, but they are under no obligation to do so.
--I thought you were done debating with Ubi, Macker and I anyway. Clearly we must have mental problems since we haven't been swayed by your interpretation of the events surrounding the BLack Sox scandal.
--That a majority of the voters in this poll support Jackson's reinstatement does not change the facts. Does ANYONE dispute that Jackson got $5,000 of the gambler's money? Does ANYONE dispute that he knew where the money came from and what was going on? There are differences of opinion on exactly what he did beyond that. Many people are willing to excuse or forgive his taking the money. That is their privilege. I think it makes him guilty enough that he had to be banned. Reasonable people can disagree on this. Your insistence that your personal interpertation of events is the correct one, in spite of the fact that much of it is just your imagination filling in the blanks, is the unreasonable position here.

Bill Burgess
01-15-2006, 06:06 PM
I thought you were done debating with Ubi, Macker and I anyway. Clearly we must have mental problems since we haven't been swayed by your interpretation of the events surrounding the BLack Sox scandal.
--That a majority of the voters in this poll support Jackson's reinstatement does not change the facts. I think it makes him guilty enough that he had to be banned. Reasonable people can disagree on this. Your insistence that your personal interpretation of events is the correct one, in spite of the fact that much of it is just your imagination filling in the blanks, is the unreasonable position here.

I HAD abandoned the other thread. I moved this thread into position so Victory could post his petition here. But Ubi beat him to it and splattered his stuff over several posts.

I do not think anyone has mental problems for believing whatever they want concerning Joe Jackson. But I can believe that perfectly intelligent people can be as stubborn as a brick wall.

I will apologize to Ubi for over-reacting and attacking his positions as Nazi-like. That was going too far. But both of you justifying a banning for a moment of ill-considered temptation, whether or not he acted on it, does make me a little crazed and say things I shouldn't.

On Historical Articles, I posted a special report on Racial Relations. It was composed by baseball owners in 1946, and pretended to worry about the fate of the Negro Leagues, if they let blacks into the MLs.

Those owners were very intelligent, wealthy men. They had no mental problems, and crafted their positions very carefully. It too made me angry.

It is troubling when men in positions of responsibility abuse their trust. And I will forever be troubled that Judge Landis was elected to the Hall of Fame, after a career of serving as a stone wall of immorality to black ballplayers. Why he is still allowed to reside in the Hall makes the Hall compromised to the extreme. Especially considering the present obstacles to putting any more Negro L. players in today.

We have many examples of moral hypocrisy in today's game. But Joe Jackson seems to be so much more a magnet than any of the other serious moral travesties today.

You, Ubi, and others say, that you find certain other issues "objectionable", yet never bring them up, create threads, mention them, refer to them or anything else. But Jackson creates an attack frenzy. See the Big Picture? Makes you guys seem disinterested in any other moral issue. You went overboard in the Fever Hall of Fame about Jackson and barely whimpered about Rose. Makes one wonder.

Ubiquitous
01-15-2006, 06:19 PM
Actually Bill I am in agreement with you about MLB and their racial views. At least I think I am. What I mean by that is I think MLB's history in race relations is poor. It is one of the reasons I don't think Landis should be in the hall. Its why I don't respect Anson or Cobb as human beings becuase of their attitudes and actions towards blacks. And I have made those positions known in various threads throughout baseball fever. Having said that I don't beleive that because the hall made poor choices regarding them that they should then continue that error and put Joe in the hall. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Nor do I whimper about Rose. I do not think Rose should be in the hall of fame or back in baseball. If someone starts a discussion about that I will share that with them there.

leecemark
01-15-2006, 06:20 PM
--Ubi and I never raise the issue of Joe Jackson. We merely respond when someone someone else raises the issue. If someone were to start a thread glorifying segragrated baseball I would be there to dispute that too.
--Jackson's election to the the BBF Hall of Fame was a bigger flashpoint than Rose's because Jackson got elected first. I was opposed to Rose too, but once one baseball criminal had been voted in the second wasn't as hard to take. Further, the debate had gotten so bitter it threaten to wreck the whole project and we all agreed (partly due to threats of being banned ourselves) to vote or not vote for Charlie Hustle without further discussion. If somebody was to start a thread whitewashing Rose I'd be prepared to take up the oppostition to that as well.

Bill Burgess
01-16-2006, 11:53 AM
Perhaps instead of lobbing insults back and forth, it might be more productive to work together, in trying to reconstruct the time line.

It might not be perfect, but if all concerned really tried sincerely, better progress might be made, instead of the sad spectacle that we've all created here.

Is that an absurd inpossibility? Anyone want to go first?

We need to sequence the following events.

Going to Comiskey to beg out of the WS.

His first refusal of $10,000.

His second refusal of $20,000.

His final acquiescence of accepting $20,000, on a wooden bridge.

He received his brown envelope of 100's 50's. Apparently after game #4.

His attempt to see management at their office, and being denied entrance by Harry Grabiner.

Both hotel meetings, where the fixers discussed their plan.

I will forward this to my chum, Gene Carney, and see if he can assist us any. Good idea?

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess
01-16-2006, 11:54 AM
We can also assume that Comiskey didn't really know what was happening and how to deal with it if it actually was.
Everybody knew something was up because every gambler, hood, gangster, bookie & every other unsavory character was not only talking about it, but the betting odds had swung wildly in favor of Cincy in a mere 48 hours.

Everyone was madly trying to borrow money to get down on the Reds to make a killing. So that is how Comiskey, Gleason, and everyone else knew something was up, and it wasn't good.

So, you bet that Commy, Gleason, Ban Johnson, and even Landis had heard about it and were concerned. Even Christy Mathewson was up there in the booths, circling questionable plays. And when Schalk started barking at Cicotte for not throwing the curve, everybody in the stands was realizing that something was rotten in Denmark. And it wasn't the cheese. Plus the good seats were loaded with more gamblers than normal.

Bill Burgess
01-17-2006, 06:38 AM
For those who might be interested. Gene (2-Fingered) Carney's book, Bury he Black Sox, can now be pre-ordered from Amazon. It lists for $25. dollars, but are selling it for a discount at $17.75.

Has a nice photo on the dust jacket of the owners signing something, with Judge Landis in the middle, and a photo of Joe Jackson swinging in an insert.

The book hasn't been released as of yet.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess
01-17-2006, 06:45 AM
I asked my friend, Gene, if he could help us reconstruct the timeline. Here is what he wrote back to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My book is at the printer, might be in stores in another month. That will really save me a lot of 'splaining! And it's all documented, so you can consider the trustworthiness of the sources.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going to Comiskey to beg out of the WS. -- Only Jackson's (and Asinof's)
word for this ... I really pressed Asinfor for the source of his asking to
be bench before Game 1. OK, there's also a story in The Sporting News in
early 1961 out of Greenville that says Joe "begged to be benched."

His first refusal of $10,000, his second refusal of $20,000 -- from
surviving grand jury statement.

His final acquiescence of accepting $20,000, on a wooden bridge -- same,
from GJ ... not sure about "acquiescence" ... have to balance this
interpretation with the "played every game to win" lines.

He received his brown envelope of 100's 50's. Apparently after game #4. --
"Dirty" envelope, all accounts say, and that's important, if Jackson say the
money as tainted. Not clear in GJ testimony, I think Joe & Lefty both said
after Game 4, but also right before leaving for Cincy, which makes it after
Game 5. They later agreed it was later in the Series, or after Game 8. Who
knows?

His attempt to see management at their office, and being denied entrance by
Harry Grabiner. -- This is from the 1924 trial. Grabiner disputed it. Jury
believe Jackson over Harry by 11-1. Jackson had written letters in
off-season, too. See Gropman revised 2nd edition appendices -- great detail.

Both hotel meetings and their names, where the fixers discussed their
plan. -- I never tracked this but I think others have. Frankly, they could
have talked about it everywhere they went. Weaver in the meetings, but
dissenting. Jackson apparently NOT in the meetings.

Hope this helps, I'm in a hurry!

Gene
---------------------------------------------------
And another email, shortly afterwards.

Bill,

>>Could you assist us in reconstructing the timeline of events. <<

Didn't intend to dodge the Timeline thing ... here's my 2 cents on that:

Going to Comiskey to beg out of the WS. -- IF it happened, could've been
several weeks before Series (possibly after Gandil offered the bribes).
Asinof is most insistent that he asked to be benched right before Game 1 (he
had the Fix "confirmed" to him by Bill Burns the AM of Game 1).

His first refusal of $10,000. -- ?? Mid-Sept?

His second refusal of $20,000. His final acquiescence of accepting $20,000,
on a wooden bridge.
-- ?? Late Sept?

He received his brown envelope of 100's 50's. Apparently after game #4.
(Replied previously)

His attempt to see management at their office, and being denied entrance by
Harry Grabiner. -- This would be the AM of Oct 10.

Both hotel meetings and their names, where the fixers discussed their
plan. -- "Both" suggests that there were just 2 planning meetings
(presumably in September), but if there were 4 or 5 syndicates involved and
the players "sold it everywhere they went" (as Attell claimed), then there
were likely more. Are you in the Yahoo B-Sox group? That would be a good
place to ask this. Early on, I toyed with the idea of jotting down hotels,
but never did it. Tried hard to keep focus on big picture. And remember my
main interest was the cover-up, not the fixing. No footnotes, but 8MO might
be a useful source for that aspect.

Gene

Bill Burgess
02-03-2006, 10:14 AM
Anybody else? You may select MULTIPLE SELECTIONS!

Macker
02-03-2006, 11:03 AM
How do you select multiple options? I've voted already & don't see how I can vote for another choice? A line says I have already voted. Can you select multiple options only the first time you cast a vote(s)?

Bill Burgess
02-03-2006, 03:15 PM
How do you select multiple options? I've voted already & don't see how I can vote for another choice? A line says I have already voted. Can you select multiple options only the first time you cast a vote(s)?

Yes. Those who have voted, cannot vote again. I put in the warning, due to your warning to me, that some might not read this properly.

Those who are new, or not voted on this poll before, can and should vote for as many options as they feel are true and valid.

Macker: Tell me which options you would have voted for, and I will add those votes to the totals. If you want to.

Bill

Bill Burgess
02-04-2006, 11:43 AM
For anyone contemplating getting Gene Carney's book, here's an email he sent me this morning.


Bill,

I expect to have a copy of my book in hand any day now ... can't wait for
the reviews. Please tell your group I am a glutton for feedback and any
worthwhile reviews (pro or con) might wind up in NOTES, if they e-mail them
to me.

Sending you the cover separately. I'm told that ordering from Potomac is
quickest, but amazon and wal-mart seem to have lowest prices ... actually,
there are a TON of discount book web sites out there carrying the book, so
anyone who is penny-wise should shop around.

My local B & N told me they pre-ordered -- it's in the B & N system -- and
they think it will be in my local B & N next week ... so those who don't buy
on the internet (I rarely do myself) can ask at their Barnes & Noble and
probably get it there by the end of the month. I don't have any info on
Borders or B Dalton. Or whether it will be in Wal-Mart stores (that would
be nice). So when I get those questions, I just say, "Ask, and who knows?
Maybe ye shall receive!"

Gene

Dontworry
02-04-2006, 11:55 AM
Rob Neyer wrote a great article about 7-8 years ago about Shoeless Joe's performance in the WS. He did a very in-depth analysis. He pointed out that Jackson was a dead pull hitter, yet in key situations in games they lost, he was popping up to third, grounding out to the left side, etc. It was a very extensive article that was pretty convicting.

Infact, I think this is it.

http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2001/0730/1232950.html

GaryL
02-04-2006, 07:57 PM
Hey...I just read through the entire 6 pages of this thread and I want to tell you all how much I've enjoyed it! I really apprciate all the passion that you guys have brought to this highly emotional, highly charged topic.

Both sides are making great points. Just when one side has me convinced, I'll read the spirited reply - and I'm back thinking the other side is right! I think I changed my mind 10 times while reading through the thread. I've read three books on the subject, but I've learned more here just by reading you guys going back and forth against each other.

And nothin' wrong with a little name callin' here and there! So I say put an end to this "can't we all just get along" attitude on this last page - and resume the fight!

Bill Burgess
02-14-2006, 01:44 PM
The South Carolina Bar Association will hold its regional 2006 Mock
Trial competition on Saturday, February 25, 2006 (in Greenville,
Columbia, Florence and Conway) from 8:00am until 4:00pm. The winners of
the regionals will continue to the State competition in Lexington, SC,
on March 17 and 18.

The case to be argued is State of Illinois v. Joseph Jefferson Wofford
Jackson, Case No. 1921-CR-155.

Hundreds of high school students across the state have been preparing
to prosecute or defend Joe Jackson. Witnesses (portrayed by students)
who are scheduled to appear are Lefty Williams, Sleepy Burns, Charlie
Comiskey and Sport Sullivan. Witnesses for the Defense will be Joseph
Jackson, Kid Gleason, Katie Jackson and Ray Schalk. The judges, all
members of the SC Bar, won't render a verdict, only a score.

If you are interested in attending the Greenville mock trial on
Saturday, February 25, at the Greenville County Court House, or the
state competition in March, please let me know so that you can be added
to the registration list and ID prepared.


Arlene Marcley
Executive Assistant to the Mayor
CITY OF GREENVILLE
P. O. Box 2207
Greenville, SC 29602
864-467-4590

Ubiquitous
02-14-2006, 09:24 PM
We used to do mock trials in high school, usually though it was Lee Harvey Oswald. And usually they always came back with an not guilty verdict.

Appling
02-15-2006, 02:44 PM
mock - to treat with ridicule or contempt; deride

Of course the meaning here is as an adjective: not real; imitation -- as in:
Mock Chicken
Mock Turtle Soup
Mock Battle
Mock Trial

If Joe Jackson had OJ's defense team he would never have been "convicted". In fact, he WASN'T convicted by any court -- only by Commissioner Landis.

Bill Burgess
03-05-2006, 07:26 PM
Just got this email from Gene Carney.

Bill,
You may have heard this already ... my book is now shipping, from Potomac & Amazon ... is in my local B & N but I think to get it into a store, the customer may need to ask right now ... it's in the B & N SYSTEM, tho. Please pass this on to those who are always looking for more B-Sox to read!
Gene

Bill Burgess
03-19-2006, 04:10 PM
I'm curious as to if anyone has already gotten Gene Carney's book. Could I persuade anyone to furnish us with a detailed book report? Even if you haven't finished the book yet.

Bill

Bill Burgess
03-22-2006, 04:20 PM
Once more. Anyone read Gene's book?

BB

Macker
04-09-2006, 05:44 AM
How do these photos reflect on whether Jackson is guilty or innocent?

Bill Burgess
04-09-2006, 09:08 AM
How do these photos reflect on whether Jackson is guilty or innocent?
They don't. They not supposed to. But I think that the art does make the thread more interesting, and beautiful. Don't you, Bill?

Bill

Macker
04-09-2006, 09:34 AM
No, I don't. I keep getting email notifications that a new message has been posted in this thread, which is a discussion of whether Jackson was innocent. But I come to the thread & there is just a photo. Why not start a new thread called "Joe Jackson photos"?

Bill Burgess
04-09-2006, 09:54 AM
No, I don't. I keep getting email notifications that a new message has been posted in this thread, which is a discussion of whether Jackson was innocent. But I come to the thread & there is just a photo. Why not start a new thread called "Joe Jackson photos"?
Sigh. OK. I can see your point, and understand. It never occurred to me that a photo would represent such a 'waste of your time'. And I think a separate thread for 8 photos would be a wasted thread.

I did the same thing for the Christy Mathewson thread (2 photos), both Honus Wagner threads (many photos), Aaron Thread (1 photo), Hack Wilson Thread (2 photos), both Babe Ruth Threads (many photos). Takes quite a while, doing them all.

It's funny. You try different things to help make a site better, stronger. More interesting to the public, guests as well as registered members. But then someone says something, which you hadn't anticipated in a million yrs. I suppose it proves that you can't anticipate every valid viewpoint. I'm sorry to have inconvenienced you, Bill. That wasn't my purpose. Just trying to serve Fever to the best of my ability.

Bill

runningshoes
04-09-2006, 09:57 AM
OK. I can see your point, and understand. It never occurred to me that a photo would represent such a 'waste of your time'.

I did the same thing for the Christy Mathewson thread (2 photos), both Honus Wagner threads (many photos), Aaron Thread (1 photo), Hack Wilson Thread (2 photos), both Babe Ruth Threads (many photos). Takes quite a while, doing them all.

It's funny. You try different things to help make a site better, stronger. More interesting to the public, guests as well as registered members. But then someone says something, which you hadn't anticipated in a million yrs. I suppose it proves that you can't anticipate every valid viewpoint. I'm sorry to have inconvenience you, Bill. That wasn't my purpose. Just trying to serve Fever to the best of my ability.

Bill

It's all good Bill.

You can't please everyone so why bother trying?

Keep up the great work...My photo collection for my son is growing daily thanks to you.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-09-2006, 10:02 AM
No, I don't. I keep getting email notifications that a new message has been posted in this thread, which is a discussion of whether Jackson was innocent. But I come to the thread & there is just a photo. Why not start a new thread called "Joe Jackson photos"?

Macker, you get email notifications? Why not just log into the site, and if there is a new post in a thread, it will be in boldface, and at the top of the page? Worst case scenario, you get an email about this thread, come here, and instead of someone re-hashing the same old argument, you get to see a beautiful photo of one of baseball's greats. Is it really that bad?

Bill Burgess
04-09-2006, 10:03 AM
It's all good Bill.

You can't please everyone so why bother trying?

Keep up the great work...My photo collection for my son is growing daily thanks to you.

Sigh. Thanks. But I do feel sincerely bad to have a good member feel disappointed, due to my efforts. Didn't know that would be the result. Sometimes, even good intentions go awry. Sincerely sorry to Bill for the unintended wasting of his good time. He's a mod and has better things to do.

BTW - Bill. I & Randy have put in countless hours on our Historical Archival Photographs Project. Do you feel it enhances the site? Just curious. Sincere question.

Bill Burgess

Macker
04-09-2006, 04:04 PM
I think the photos would be great if they were in a Joe Jackson Photos thread. I don't see any sense in replying to discussion topics with photos. Unless, of course, you write, "I can tell by the look in his eyes that he's guilty."

There is nothing wrong with the photos being on the site. I just don't see the sense in putting them in this thread.

And stop calling me Bill.

Bill Burgess
04-09-2006, 04:31 PM
I think the photos would be great if they were in a Joe Jackson Photos thread. I don't see any sense in replying to discussion topics with photos. Unless, of course, you write, "I can tell by the look in his eyes that he's guilty."

There is nothing wrong with the photos being on the site. I just don't see the sense in putting them in this thread.

And stop calling me Bill.
Based on our past exchanges, & this present snide, unnecessary, irrelevant, insignificant snit, further communications between us are unproductive and unnecessary. I take back my apology, seeing as you do not know how to respond to graciousness. I will never communicate with you again, sir.

Brownie31
04-09-2006, 05:01 PM
Based on our past exchanges, & this present snide, unnecessary, irrelevant, insignificant snit, further communications between us are unproductive and unnecessary. I take back my apology, seeing as you do not know how to respond to graciousness. I will never communicate with you again, sir.

Mr. Burgess: As a relative newcomer to baseball-fever, I just want to say that I appreciate your wonderful photographs and your knowledgeable commentary. It is people like you who make this my favorite website. Brownie31

Macker
04-09-2006, 05:09 PM
But my name isn't Bill.

You wrote:
"BTW - Bill."
"Don't you, Bill?"
"I'm sorry to have inconvenienced you, Bill."

Bill Burgess
04-09-2006, 05:42 PM
Mr. Burgess: As a relative newcomer to baseball-fever, I just want to say that I appreciate your wonderful photographs and your knowledgeable commentary. It is people like you who make this my favorite website. Brownie31
Thank you, Brownie31. Much appreciate your kindness. If I can be of assistance to you, just let me know. It's my pleasure to help members.

Bill

1905 Giants
04-09-2006, 06:40 PM
As to Jackson, I voted that he tried to give the money back

As for the ban, I think that because he's dead and can't make any money off his status, its time to make him eligible and put him in the Hall.

Stats and testimony from various players (i.e. Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, and Ty Cobb) as to his greatness cement this opinion into my mind

enixon2@msn.com
04-09-2006, 07:08 PM
As a student of the Black Sox affair since 1988, I am still convinced of Joe Jackson's innocence in that 1919 World Series. Even Edd Roush of the Reds thought there was nothing crooked in that series, and, two of the umpires thought the same. But, of course, the series was crooked, unfortunately. I would suggest "Redlegs and Blacksox" by Susan Dellinger, as must reading for all serious students of the 1919 World Series, it was a real page turner.

yanks0714
04-10-2006, 05:08 PM
As a student of the Black Sox affair since 1988, I am still convinced of Joe Jackson's innocence in that 1919 World Series. Even Edd Roush of the Reds thought there was nothing crooked in that series, and, two of the umpires thought the same. But, of course, the series was crooked, unfortunately. I would suggest "Redlegs and Blacksox" by Susan Dellinger, as must reading for all serious students of the 1919 World Series, it was a real page turner.

That's strange. I'm finishing up ' The Black Prince of Baseball: Hal Chase and the Mythology of the Game' by Donald Dewey and Nockolas Acocella.

There is a quote in the book that Edd Roush believed the Series to be crooked. He also states that he feels the Reds would have won anyway even if the White Sox had played 'square'.

There is a lot of 'new' stuff in this book that I'd never read before or if I had I'd forgotten about. He cites newspaper quotes as reference.

He also characterizes the 1906 Series where the White Sox 'Hitless Wonders' beat a powerful Cubs team was fixed as well.

It's not an easy read book but for those who are interested in Chase and his life plus some very intriquing questions and references it is a must read.

enixon2@msn.com
04-10-2006, 08:07 PM
That's strange. I'm finishing up ' The Black Prince of Baseball: Hal Chase and the Mythology of the Game' by Donald Dewey and Nockolas Acocella.

There is a quote in the book that Edd Roush believed the Series to be crooked. He also states that he feels the Reds would have won anyway even if the White Sox had played 'square'.

There is a lot of 'new' stuff in this book that I'd never read before or if I had I'd forgotten about. He cites newspaper quotes as reference.

He also characterizes the 1906 Series where the White Sox 'Hitless Wonders' beat a powerful Cubs team was fixed as well.

It's not an easy read book but for those who are interested in Chase and his life plus some very intriquing questions and references it is a must read.


Well, I also thought Roush felt the series was crooked, but his remarks are in the book taken by his granddaughter, Susan Dellinger. Now, Roush had a feeling that Dutch Reuther, Reds pitcher, "may" have been crooked because of his poor pitching performance in that series...(he drank heavily the night before one of the series games). I actually did pick up the book about Hal Chase, but did not read all the way through. There are other books I want to read first like: "Burying the Black Sox", "After the Black Sox" and others.

enixon2@msn.com
04-10-2006, 08:14 PM
That's strange. I'm finishing up ' The Black Prince of Baseball: Hal Chase and the Mythology of the Game' by Donald Dewey and Nockolas Acocella.

There is a quote in the book that Edd Roush believed the Series to be crooked. He also states that he feels the Reds would have won anyway even if the White Sox had played 'square'.

There is a lot of 'new' stuff in this book that I'd never read before or if I had I'd forgotten about. He cites newspaper quotes as reference.

He also characterizes the 1906 Series where the White Sox 'Hitless Wonders' beat a powerful Cubs team was fixed as well.

It's not an easy read book but for those who are interested in Chase and his life plus some very intriquing questions and references it is a must read.


Well, I also thought Roush felt the series was crooked, but his remarks are in the book taken by his granddaughter, Susan Dellinger. Now, Roush had a feeling that Dutch Reuther, Reds pitcher, "may" have been crooked because of his poor pitching performance in that series...(he drank heavily the night before one of the series games). I actually did pick up the book about Hal Chase, but did not read all the way through. There are other books I want to read first like: "Burying the Black Sox", "After the Black Sox" and others.

TyrusRaymondCobb
04-10-2006, 08:21 PM
I have a (probably quite stupid) question here:

If Comiskey had paid the players what they were worth, would they have felt the need to take any money in the first place?

If the money had been decent in the first place, I don't think that any amount of money (maybe I'm exaggerating here!) would have induced the players to throw the Series. Therefore, it should be asked who the real villain of the piece was. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the real culprit of the piece, Mr Charles Comiskey".

Maybe the HOF should expel Comiskey ...

leecemark
04-10-2006, 08:35 PM
--I think I'm underpaid (don't we all:laugh ). Do you think it would be okay for me to steal from my employers or to defraud the people who patronize the business?

Bill Burgess
04-10-2006, 09:13 PM
I have a (probably quite stupid) question here:

If Comiskey had paid the players what they were worth, would they have felt the need to take any money in the first place?

If the money had been decent in the first place, I don't think that any amount of money (maybe I'm exaggerating here!) would have induced the players to throw the Series. Therefore, it should be asked who the real villain of the piece was. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the real culprit of the piece, Mr Charles Comiskey".

Maybe the HOF should expel Comiskey ...

Amen, brother. I agree. Expel Comiskey from the Hall. Been saying that for years.

Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess
04-10-2006, 09:16 PM
--I think I'm underpaid (don't we all:laugh ). Do you think it would be okay for me to steal from my employers or to defraud the people who patronize the business?
Mark,

That is such a TOTALLY, COMPLETELY false argument. And Tyrus didn't suggest what you did. Tyrus didn't suggest that it was alright to throw a series, like you did.

Tyrus merely asked the question, if Commie hadn't been such a scumbag, would the players have been tempted to do wrong. And I think the answer to that is no, they would not have.

You can disagree, but your comment didn't relate to what Tyrus asked.

The obvious response is, No, it wouldn't have been alright, and No, they would not have been tempted. Please stay on point.

Ubiquitous
04-10-2006, 09:39 PM
So Comiskey was supposed to pay a scrub like Chick Gandil or youngster like Swede over $20,000 a year to keep them honest? Eddie Cicotte should have gotten over $20,000 as well?

Again the AL was the highest paying league in the game, and the White Sox were one of the highest paying teams in the AL. How much more money was Comiskey supposed to pay these guys to induce them to be honest?

If you think your boss is a tight wad and he refuses you a raise would you steal from him? If you do and get caught you can blame him all you want for causing the theft but you'll be doing it alone in your cell while he goes about his business on the outside. Its a screwed up world we live in if the victim is the one we now blame for the crime.

The players threw the games because they were offered a ton of money and they didn't think they would get caught. Because nobody else had gotten caught and really punished up until then. This was a systematic break down of the game. The 1919 fix was not the first fix in baseball nor would I bet that it was the first fix by these particular players. Crime doesn't happen like that for the most part. People start small and build up to the big things. You don't go the straight and narrow and then poof go hog wild with a huge caper. It isn't noraml human tendency in virtually all aspects of our lifes to do that.

If you want to blame Comiskey for this don't blame him for being a cheapskate but because he was part of the establishment and they did nothing to curb the atmosphere of cheating in baseball. Players after 1919 were "poorly" paid but none of them were throwing games. OR I should say got caught for it.

Bill Burgess
04-10-2006, 10:09 PM
For some mysterious reason, the Black Sox often causes all of us to lose our civility and post too hot-headed. So far as I know, no one in the Jackson Innocence Camp has ever suggested that it was OK to throw a ballgame.

That hasn't been the topic of debate. But since we're now veering a little bit off the Jackson topic and into the Commie topic, so be it.

We are not suggesting that Commie should have had to pay his players to be honest, but because he (Commie) was a decent, honorable employer and team owner.

I challenge anyone to show the 1919 White Sox payroll, and the other AL payrolls.

I've seen the listed salaries of the White Sox, and they were sub-par, by AL standards. I know some dispute that, so I challenge anyone to show the actual listed salaries. We do know Jackson received $6K, 1914-19, and was given a $2K bonus for '20, when Harry Grabiner lied to Joe and told him they'd raise him to $8,000. as his new baseline salary. Also told him they'd struck the 10 day release clause, which was another lie by Grabiner, Commie's designated agent.

Anyone have the salary figures handy? In the meantime, I hold to my assertion that Charles Comiskey was the vilest abuser of the 'Reserve Clause'.

Bill

Bill Burgess
04-10-2006, 10:23 PM
For the 1918 season, here are the listed salaries for some of the White Sox.

Gandil --------- $4,000.
Swisberg ------- 2,500.
Schalk----------7,083.33
Lefty Willams----3,000.
Cicotte---------5,000. (after winning 28 games in 1917)
Felsch----------3,750.
Jackson--------6,000.
Collins--------15,000.

As a matter of comparison, consider what some others received in 1919.

Cobb----------20,000.
Speaker-------18,000
W.Johnson----16,000.
E. Collins------15,000
Ruth----------10,000

Ubiquitous
04-10-2006, 10:25 PM
As far as I know nobody here is getting hot-headed. I know I'm calm and rational and as far as I can tell civil. So lets remove the giant white elephant from the room right now. If you think this discussion is getting "emotional" then I suggest we drop it right now because I plan on continuing to disagree with your viewpoint, and if you think its uncivil now then you are only going to think it is getting much worse later on.


I've seen the listed salaries of the White Sox, and they were sub-par, by AL standards. I know some dispute that, so I challenge anyone to show the actual listed salaries. We do know Jackson received $6K, 1914-19, and was given a $2K bonus for '20, when Harry Grabiner lied to Joe and told him they'd raise him to $8,000. as his new baseline salary. Also told him they'd struck the 10 day release clause, which was another lie by Grabiner, Commie's designated agent

If you have seen them please post them. I have posted player salaries of the White Sox several times now. Probably even in this thread. How was Buck Weavers salary sub-par? What should his salary have been and what were other players making? What should have been Swedes or Chicks salary? What should they have been making?

On top of all that we still would have settle who was actually fixing the games. If you think Joe Jackson was not in on it then I don't really see why he is a point for Commy's cheapness causing the fix. AFterall who would throw a game because his teammate was underpaid? If you throw a game it is because you believe you are underpaid so if you think Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver are innocent then they really don't belong in your argument.

Ubiquitous
04-10-2006, 10:46 PM
Eddie Cicotte asked for 7,000 dollars a year for three years. So even if Comiskey paid him what Eddie thought he was worth he would still look underpaid in your eyes compared to the other pitchers through no fault of Comiskey's. Comiskey signed him at $5,000 a year for three years instead and then through in $3,000 as a bonus. So Eddie basically got $6,000 a year instead of the $7,000 he asked for.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-11-2006, 01:27 AM
What about the flat champagne, and Commie not following through on his bonus to Cicotte :confused:

leecemark
04-11-2006, 05:50 AM
--Yes, getting cheap champagne does make it alright to throw ballgames:confused: . Cicotte did not earn his bonus. Why do Jackson's defenders always try to move off into side issues? Demonize Commisky all you want. It doesn't justify what the Black Sox did.
--Unless somebody is willing to step out and say "yes I do think its okay to steal if your boss isn't treating you as well as you think he should" then Commisky is not the issue. I guess it would be easier for me to understand the sympathy for Jackson if his defenders owned up to being people of low character as well. Since I assume that the pro-Jacksons are mostly decent people it is very hard for me to understand anything but disgust for the Black Sox.

Bill Burgess
04-11-2006, 06:38 AM
Since post #173, the debate shifted somewhat from pro/anti Jackson, to pro/anti Comiskey.

Not the same debate really. For the record, NO JACKSON SUPPORTER EVER SAID THROWING GAMES IS OK! OK? Stop putting words in our mouths. We didn't say it, don't feel it, and don't appreciate anyone saying we think it.

Comiskey DID happen to underpay his players, except Collins/Schalk. And most people do believe that that is what set up the entie distasteful affair.

Truth: The underpayment of the White Sox, as a team, DID make the players subject to gamblers' unsavory enticements.

Truth: The players who threw games were WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! To throw a game is not only a crime against your owner, but the fans, too! We get it!

The debate on this thread was always whether or not Joe Jackson was one of the throwers. And that question was fraught with so much reasonable doubt, as to make a valid trial/conviction of him, highly unlikely.

We, on the Pro-Jackson side, believe he took the money, with the intention of carrying it to management, was denied the chance to return it, and was left holding the bag (envelope).

I have since come to the belief that perhaps there was a 50/50 % chance that he intended to keep the money all along. I am not as certain as I once was that he was a scapegoat who got railroaded. I'm not there yet, but I am now on the fence, could go either way.

I am still convinced that he did nothing on the field to under-perform.

But we're now fighting over Comiskey.

Bill Burgess

Sultan_1895-1948
04-11-2006, 07:29 AM
--Yes, getting cheap champagne does make it alright to throw ballgames:confused: .

Heck yeah it does. What kind of crap is that. It's champagne we're talking about :p

Seriously though Mark, there's no excuse for throwing games. My position is that is doesn't matter if they were underpaid, nothing calls for what they allegedly did. Completely wrong. At the same time, we are left here nearly 90 years later to speculate on how they felt toward Comiskey, and to what degree his treatment of them (not just salaries) played a part in them being more "apt" to listen to evil influences. Who's to say.

The point is, nothing should be excused no matter what, but if they were to the extreme side of feeling "slighted," then it had to have played a part. Much like if you're with a woman who takes care of you in every way, and you're content with, you're far less likely to have a wandering eye. If she's treating you bad, and not appreciating you, you're more likely to look elsewhere. Doesn't excuse the action, but her treatment is what initiates your desire to even consider taking the action. Not everything is black and white.

wamby
04-11-2006, 07:58 AM
For the 1918 season, here are the listed salaries for some of the White Sox.

Gandil --------- $4,000.
Swisberg ------- 2,500.
Schalk----------7,083.33
Lefty Willams----3,000.
Cicotte---------5,000. (after winning 28 games in 1917)
Felsch----------3,750.
Jackson--------6,000.
Collins--------15,000.

As a matter of comparison, consider what some others received in 1919.

Cobb----------20,000.
Speaker-------18,000
W.Johnson----16,000.
E. Collins------15,000
Ruth----------10,000

What was the average player salary in 1919? The five players tou show in the second chart were each the biggest name on their respective teams. On the top list, I don't think any of the players, except perhaps Jackson, deserved star money. Williams, Felsch and Risberg were all young players, none of whom had really impressive stats. Gandil was in his early 30s and was no star. Cicotte was 34 on opening day and had one really good year prior to 1919, which he followed up with a very poor won/lost record in 1918. Looking at his record, i doubt if he was able to cash in during the Federal League war.

What about Jackson? Did he cash in during the Federal League war? I know that Comiskey was really pissed that Jackson avoided the draft in 1917 & 1918 by working in a war plant and had vowed that Jackson would never play for him again. Was this Comiskey's way of getting back at him?

I don't think Comiskey was any better or any worse than the other magnates of the era. Connie Mack was extremely titght with a buck and there are stories that one of his teams threw a World Series also, but no one ever talks of removing him form the Hall of Fame.

runningshoes
04-11-2006, 08:13 AM
Connie Mack was extremely titght with a buck and there are stories that one of his teams threw a World Series also, but no one ever talks of removing him form the Hall of Fame.

If there's no evidence or admittance, it didn't happen....just ask the folks over in the Giants forum; they can confirm this.

runningshoes
04-11-2006, 08:16 AM
NO JACKSON SUPPORTER EVER SAID THROWING GAMES IS OK! OK? Stop putting words in our mouths. We didn't say it, don't feel it, and don't appreciate anyone saying we think it.

Their moral superiority dictates that we must believe it's ok to throw games.

How else can they reconcile our opinions in their own minds?

wamby
04-11-2006, 09:10 AM
If there's no evidence or admittance, it didn't happen....just ask the folks over in the Giants forum; they can confirm this.

It may have happened or it may not have happened. I don't know what Giants fans would have to say about it. The Series that I referred to was the 1914 Series against the Miracle Braves.

I am of the belief that during the dead ball era that gamblers affected the outcome of more than just the 1919 World Series. I don't think 1919 happened in a vacuum.

wamby
04-11-2006, 09:22 AM
I challenge anyone to show the 1919 White Sox payroll, and the other AL payrolls.

I've seen the listed salaries of the White Sox, and they were sub-par, by AL standards. I know some dispute that, so I challenge anyone to show the actual listed salaries. We do know Jackson received $6K, 1914-19, and was given a $2K bonus for '20, when Harry Grabiner lied to Joe and told him they'd raise him to $8,000. as his new baseline salary. Also told him they'd struck the 10 day release clause, which was another lie by Grabiner, Commie's designated agent.

Anyone have the salary figures handy? In the meantime, I hold to my assertion that Charles Comiskey was the vilest abuser of the 'Reserve Clause'.

Bill

How much do you think payrolls across the board may have been depressed because of the uncertainty over the 1919 season? The 1919 season was origianlly shut down because of the war. I don't think the magnates were expecting a mass return of the fans to the ballparks. Between fan apathy and the shortened season the magnates took a financial beating in 1918.

In 1917 the White Sox drew 684,521, in 1918 they drew 195.081. With that kind of drop off, it seems to me that every single member of the White Sox should been figuring on some serious belt-tightening. If the money's not coming in, I don't see how these players could have realistically expected raises.

If you look at the attendance figures, the White Sox got hit the hardest during the war years. Looking at attendance figures across the board, it is easy to imagine the magnates expecting the worst. I think the shortened 1919 season shows this also.

Ubiquitous
04-11-2006, 09:23 AM
I don't see how they are getting underpaid.

Joe Jackson signed a contract with the Cleveland Indians. SO its Comiskey's fault Joe had a bad contract? Buck Weaver was probably the highest paid third basemen in the game. Find another thirdbasemen that was getting paid more then he was. Cicotte wanted $7,000 and he got $6,000. So showing Walter Johnson or Alexander's salary is meaningless Cicotte wasn't asking for thier money. And again what kind of money was Swede, Chick, Happy, and Lefty supposed to get? It's Chick Gandil not Cap Anson. Who are the players that are similar to Swede that are getting so much more money that it would cause players to throw a series?

Ubiquitous
04-11-2006, 09:25 AM
Their moral superiority dictates that we must believe it's ok to throw games.

How else can they reconcile our opinions in their own minds?

Oh please, who is acting superior now? Its comments like these that add absolutely nothing to the conversation and turn it into something much more useless and personal.

Ubiquitous
04-11-2006, 09:33 AM
it is easy to imagine the magnates expecting the worst. I think the shortened 1919 season shows this also.


Salaries did go down a bit for several reasons. The war, shortened seasons, and the Federal League collapsing. With the FL gone the majors no longer had to outspend a competing league for talent. So the multiyear contracts stopped getting handed out and the big salaries. On top of all that the Majors had two shortened seasons 1918 and 1919. 1918 for the Majors was a huge flop and they worried that 1919 would be as well. Because of that they kept their costs way down.

But it is important to note that players like Joe Jackson, Eddie Cicotte, Eddie Collins, Ray Schalk, and Happy Felsch were playing on already existing multi-year contracts that they signed before the war and it ensuing economic downturn for baseball.

wamby
04-11-2006, 09:36 AM
Salaries did go down a bit for several reasons. The war, shortened seasons, and the Federal League collapsing. With the FL gone the majors no longer had to outspend a competing league for talent. So the multiyear contracts stopped getting handed out and the big salaries. On top of all that the Majors had two shortened seasons 1918 and 1919. 1918 for the Majors was a huge flop and they worried that 1919 would be as well. Because of that they kept their costs way down.

But it is important to note that players like Joe Jackson, Eddie Cicotte, Eddie Collins, Ray Schalk, and Happy Felsch were playing on already existing multi-year contracts that they signed before the war and it ensuing economic downturn for baseball.

Peole seem to forget or ignore that the perported low salaries of the Black Sox did not happen in a vacuum and that there were other forces at work beyond a supposedly miserly owner.

yanks0714
04-11-2006, 04:10 PM
Well, I also thought Roush felt the series was crooked, but his remarks are in the book taken by his granddaughter, Susan Dellinger. Now, Roush had a feeling that Dutch Reuther, Reds pitcher, "may" have been crooked because of his poor pitching performance in that series...(he drank heavily the night before one of the series games). I actually did pick up the book about Hal Chase, but did not read all the way through. There are other books I want to read first like: "Burying the Black Sox", "After the Black Sox" and others.

Interesting tidbit about Dutch Reuther that you mention. he was thought to possibly have been 'gotten to' by gamblers in the 1919 WS.

In fact, in the book there is 'evidence' that Reuther was involved in throwing some regular season games. He sure doesn't come off very good in the book.

Overall, while it is clear that Hal Chase threw games his reputation also got him entangled in things that he wasn't involved in at all or was on the fringes of such as the 1919 WS fix.
But, beyond throwing games he was not a good guy at all. But one thing I can say, is that I can now understand how Babe Ruth and others picked him for their all-time teams much better now. Chase was a good player when he put his mind to it. He was extremely popular as a player with fans as well.
Chase fixed games, cheated in poker, pool, whatever....he was always in need of money which is one reason he did as he did but I've come to believe he had a 'need' to cheat...a psychological need.

yanks0714
04-11-2006, 04:16 PM
I have a (probably quite stupid) question here:

If Comiskey had paid the players what they were worth, would they have felt the need to take any money in the first place?

If the money had been decent in the first place, I don't think that any amount of money (maybe I'm exaggerating here!) would have induced the players to throw the Series. Therefore, it should be asked who the real villain of the piece was. "Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the real culprit of the piece, Mr Charles Comiskey".

Maybe the HOF should expel Comiskey ...

I agree. Comiskey was dirty I sincerely believe. he paid his players with the xception of Eddie Collins a pittance compared to league salaries. He treated his players like chattel.
After the fix, Comiskey did everything he could to divert attention from himself. He allowed his feud with Ban Johnson to twist his logic. He was over and under on the dirty side of the fence.
Kick his butt out of the HOF I say. He tarnished his reputation in his later years and deseredly so.

yanks0714
04-11-2006, 04:26 PM
Heck yeah it does. What kind of crap is that. It's champagne we're talking about :p

Seriously though Mark, there's no excuse for throwing games. My position is that is doesn't matter if they were underpaid, nothing calls for what they allegedly did. Completely wrong. At the same time, we are left here nearly 90 years later to speculate on how they felt toward Comiskey, and to what degree his treatment of them (not just salaries) played a part in them being more "apt" to listen to evil influences. Who's to say.

The point is, nothing should be excused no matter what, but if they were to the extreme side of feeling "slighted," then it had to have played a part. Much like if you're with a woman who takes care of you in every way, and you're content with, you're far less likely to have a wandering eye. If she's treating you bad, and not appreciating you, you're more likely to look elsewhere. Doesn't excuse the action, but her treatment is what initiates your desire to even consider taking the action. Not everything is black and white.

One more thing on this....in that era, with the Reserve Clause, the player had very little leverage in regards his salary. Comiskey made the most of that dang clause. If they wanted to play ball they had to pretty much accept what Comiskey was offering them. Buck Weaver tried to hold out for raises and pretty much failed.
OTOH, if I feel my boss is not paying me enough, well, I can lewave and go work someone else doing the same thing at a better rate. Those players didn't have that oppotunity to do in their chosen livlihood.

KHenry14
04-11-2006, 04:27 PM
It may have happened or it may not have happened. I don't know what Giants fans would have to say about it. The Series that I referred to was the 1914 Series against the Miracle Braves.

I am of the belief that during the dead ball era that gamblers affected the outcome of more than just the 1919 World Series. I don't think 1919 happened in a vacuum.

Wamby, Runningshoes is talking about Barry here, not some old WS.

KH14<--going back to putting his head in the sand :rolleyes:

Bill Burgess
04-11-2006, 06:06 PM
Some have brought up the subject that if Comiskey trades for Joe Jackson and gets him, he must honor that multi-year contract. Such hogwash.

Allow me to give you an example. Very often, John McGraw was on a 3 year contract. His owner liked to sign him to 3 yr. deals. But then, the owner would call John into his office after only a yr. or two, tear up his contract in front of John, and give him a much better one, with more money. The owner can waiver a contract and voluntarily give the player a better one any time he wanted to.

Some have suggested that if Joe had received $6,000. from his Indians owner, then Comiskey was somehow, mysteriously 'bound' by that former document. Again. Such hogwash. The owner has the right, freedom and ability to improve on a players contract anytime he feels it would be the right thing to do.

That Comiskey would NEVER have considered such an ennobling act says volumes about his lack of good character. Ever since 1920, many players have spoken about it, and sports writers have reported it, that Charles Comiskey's negotiating style was the very worse.

It has been reported in many books that when Mr. Comiskey called a player into his office to 'discuss' the next season's contract, instead of referring to the player's former season, he'd open up with, "So, Eddie (Walsh)? What the going rate in the mines this season?" Or, "So John? What are they paying in the mill these days?" Or docks, or factory, or farm, or whatever.

He thought absolutely nothing of using intimidation of good players. That is why I call him a scumbag, a vile jungle animal, waddling around on his hind legs, in his 3 piece suits. It's not only I, but many others who have absolutely no respect for this piece of garbage. He'd lay out a lavish spread for the sports writers, to curry favor with those who could harm his interests, but then offer hard-working ballplayers a fraction of their comparable worth.

And Mark. You often ask if you would be justified in stealing from your employer, if he treats you badly. But that is not an equitable comparison. The Reserve Clause alters the comparison.

Let's say you train from the age of 13 to 20 to prepare you for your career as a ballplayer. You're a highly trained professional in your field. And once you're started in your career, and 5 yrs. into it, you have a dispute with your owner. If it's Comiskey, you're making about 1/3 of what you'd make with any of the other 15 owners.

But you can't shop your services to any of the others because of the RC. So what do you do? You stuff it and suck it up. You work for 1/3 your value until you retire. What else can you do? If you request a trade, you risk incurring his wrath, and if he doesn't want you pitching against him, he tells you, "No, John, I'm sorry. I don't want you against me. But maybe, I can send you to my farm team in the minors, and they'll pay you half of money I'm giving you. What do you want to do, John? Do you want to sign this contract for $6,000. now?

It seems to me that you guys have no understanding whatsoever of just how limited your options were, if you played baseball before free agency ended the player slavery. Even Walter Johnson, as honest as they came, once wrote an article and called it 'Player Slavery".

Even Claire Ruth, writing in her 1959 autobiography, wrote this about Babe. "Ed (Barrow), tough as a hickory nut, wise in the knowledge that baseball law (Reserve Clause) made Ruth helpless in all salary fights, was always set against big salaries for Babe."

It's all fine and well to be cavalier and say, "They could have found another line of work to do." Again, hogwash. After so many years invested to become proficient in one's field, it would have made no sense to walk away and start at the beginning of another field.

Hitting, fielding, pitching is as specialized as ballet dancing, track running or brain surgery. Takes years to hone the little nuances which raises one's game above the average.

That is why it was finally reconsidered legally to usher in free agency. To allow one employer to so restrict a worker is not a tenable situation. It never was. It was always a cruel abuse of power, and it wasn't until recent times, that it has become obvious just how much of a living standard was stolen from the players by the very few owners.

The owners had well-paid lawyers, and political connections, and used them to the fullest. By 1st establishing a political shield from the anti-trust laws, they gave themselves an exception to the normal business practices. They came to belief that the artificially low payrolls, allowed them by the RC, were 'normal'. They were not normal, not market payroll percents. And since 1975, owners have never gone without a meal. The Ted Turners, Steinbrenners never seem to be down to their last billion. So all their belly aching about dire times without the RC were the boiler plate pulp fiction of millionaires who enjoy staying millionaires, by not sharing the booty with those who drew the masses through the gates.

Bill Burgess

leecemark
04-11-2006, 06:24 PM
--Commisky could have torn up the contract, but why should he? Jackson signed it at a time when his leverage was actually higher (due to the Federal League) than it was after Commisky traded for him. Salaries were going down, not up in the late teens after the FL folded.
--Jackson may have been making 1/3 the salary of the other top stars in the league, but that was because he was a bad negotiator, not because Commisky wasn't willing to pay the going rate for talent. The White Sox were amoung the highest paid teams in the league and Eddie Collins one of the highest paid individuals.

Bill Burgess
04-11-2006, 06:53 PM
--Commisky could have torn up the contract, but why should he? Jackson signed it at a time when his leverage was actually higher (due to the Federal League) than it was after Commisky traded for him. Salaries were going down, not up in the late teens after the FL folded.

The owners were trying to recover from the FL competition, and the shortened '18-19 seasons, but why should the worker get screwed.

Why should Comiskey have offered a better contract? Gee, Mark, if I have to tell you, you won't understand. You sound like a would-be employer, never identify with the worker.

--Jackson may have been making 1/3 the salary of the other top stars in the league, but that was because he was a bad negotiator, not because Commisky wasn't willing to pay the going rate for talent. The White Sox were amoung the highest paid teams in the league and Eddie Collins one of the highest paid individuals.

Oh yeah? Were they really? Prove it. I don't believe you. Just because Jackson didn't jump to the Feds, he got offered a bad contract. Jackson shouldn't have had to be a sharp negotiator if Comiskey had a smidgeon of honor or morals.

What's wrong with you, Mark? Because a star like Jackson wasn't a sharp negotiator, you sound like it's was OK to cheat him. It wouldn't have been cheating if there had been no reserve clause. That prevented Joe from telling Commie to shove his contract up his hemoroids.

Collins only got the better offer because he could have sought good employment outside the game because of his college education.

You sound as cut-throat as Commie. I wonder why that is.

Bill Burgess

leecemark
04-11-2006, 06:59 PM
--Jackson signed that deal when the FL was an option so he could have told his employer to shove it and moved on. However, that employer wasn't Commisky. As has been stated several times already, Jackson signed that deal with the Indians and it came with him to Chicago. As for proving it, you are the one slandering Commisky. Try backing up your muidslinging with some evidence.

Bill Burgess
04-11-2006, 07:31 PM
As for proving it, you are the one slandering Commisky.

You bet your life I am. Feels good. Someone should call a villain a scoundrel.

Try backing up your muidslinging with some evidence.

Already have. Jackson got 6, Collins got 15. That equals a reptile walking on hind legs. To those with heart, no further proof is required. To those who don't, nothing would be enough.

Have it yet?

wamby
04-11-2006, 07:37 PM
Oh yeah? Were they really? Prove it. I don't believe you. Just because Jackson didn't jump to the Feds, he got offered a bad contract. Jackson shouldn't have had to be a sharp negotiator if Comiskey had a smidgeon of honor or morals.

What's wrong with you, Mark? Because a star like Jackson wasn't a sharp negotiator, you sound like it's was OK to cheat him. It wouldn't have been cheating if there had been no reserve clause. That prevented Joe from telling Commie to shove his contract up his hemoroids.

Collins only got the better offer because he could have sought good employment outside the game because of his college education.

You sound as cut-throat as Commie. I wonder why that is.

Bill Burgess

Maybe there shouldn't have been a reserve clause, but there was one. Maybe Jackson should have gotten a better shake at the negotiating table, but in this era most American workers had to take what they were offered without much recourse. The fact is that Jackson must have been a horrible negotiator not to make some money during the Federal League war.

Commie may have been a cheap-ass keeping salaries down but he is hardly unique. This went back to days of Al Apalding, through to guys like Comiskey and Connie mack, to guys who ran on a shoestring like Emil Fuchs, to GM types like Branch Rickey and George Weiss and more modern owners like Charlie Finley. Guys like Comiskey were in the game to make money, not spread the wealth around. In the post-WWI era, I think that spreading the wealth would have looked to the public at large as red-tinged or Bolshiviki in the parlance of the day. I also doubt if the man in the street having learned Jackson's salary would have considered him underpaid.

I'm looking at Jackson's stats and going into 1919 he only had one really great season after leaving Cleveland. In 1917 he had a decent year and he only played in 17 games in 1917. I don't think he rated super-star money going into 1919. He had great years in 1919 and 1920, but going into 1919 he could easily have been seen as being in decline.

leecemark
04-11-2006, 07:43 PM
--Jackson signed a bad contract with another team. That proves Jackson made a bad deal. It doesn't prove anything about Commisky. Were the White Sox as a team underpaid?
--Lets say the highest paid guy today is making 20 milliion dollars (actually its more, but anyway). The White Sox highest paid player is making 15 million. They trade for a star from another team (of close to the same ability as thier pre-existing star) on a multi-year deal at 6 million. Do you think they immediately offer to renegotiate that deal? Not a chance and it doesn't make that owner some kind of demon. That is basically the situation that Jackson/Commisky were in, with the much smaller economy of baseball at the time.

Bill Burgess
04-11-2006, 08:00 PM
Maybe there shouldn't have been a reserve clause, (Maybe?!) but there was one. Maybe Jackson should have gotten a better shake at the negotiating table, but in this era most American workers had to take what they were offered without much recourse. The fact is that Jackson must have been a horrible negotiator not to make some money during the Federal League war.

Commie may have been a cheap-ass keeping salaries down but he is hardly unique. (Maybe he wasn't, but does it burnish his image to compare him to the worst? Why not compare him to the best owners?) This went back to days of Al Apalding, through to guys like Comiskey and Connie mack, to guys who ran on a shoestring like Emil Fuchs, to GM types like Branch Rickey and George Weiss and more modern owners like Charlie Finley. Guys like Comiskey were in the game to make money, not spread the wealth around. In the post-WWI era, I think that spreading the wealth would have looked to the public at large as red-tinged or Bolshiviki in the parlance of the day. I also doubt if the man in the street having learned Jackson's salary would have considered him underpaid. I understand perfectly well that it is in the interest of the worker to seek a rising living standard. And in the interest of the employer to suppress that desire to the best of their abilities. I GET IT! But those who suppressed it the best, the hardest, the most brutally, get called bad names because they deserve it.

Normally, there is a balance. Most are not the best employers, nor the worst. Charles Comiskey cannot make that claim. He was the worst, by far, of his time period and one of the worst in any time period. You are perfectly entitled to defend/excuse/rationalize his bad behavior if you choose to, but we are also entitled to see his hideously ugly negotiating postures for EXACTLY what they were, and feel appropriately repulsed by his grotesque attitudes towards his players. Truth will out in the end, and now Commie must swallow the poison of horrible PR he so richly went out of his way to harvest. I have absolutely no respect for him as an owner or person. He earned my contempt.

I don't often go so far over the top, but once in a very great while, some things are required to be expressed in the clearest terms available. I'm not aiming at you guys, only Charles Albert Comiskey. Note the spelling Mark.

wamby
04-11-2006, 08:05 PM
I don't often go so far over the top, but once in a very great while, some things are required to be expressed in the clearest terms available. I'm not aiming at you guys, only Charles Albert Comiskey. Note the spelling Mark.

Sorry, but I just don't see how Comiskey was any better or any worse than any other owner (or business man) of that period. In a perfect world, maybe Jackson should have made $9000, but in that same perfect world Jackson wouldn't have taken gamblers money either.

If you're looking for villains in this story, I blame the players who dumped games and then tried to rationalize it with claims about a penurious owner.

Bill Burgess
04-11-2006, 09:28 PM
Sorry, but I just don't see how Comiskey was any better or any worse than any other owner (or business man) of that period. In a perfect world, maybe Jackson should have made $9000, but in that same perfect world Jackson wouldn't have taken gamblers money either.

You see no wrong in Comiskey? We'll agree to disagree.

If you're looking for villains in this story, I blame the players who dumped games and then tried to rationalize it with claims about a penurious owner.

Why not try both? It would make your logic so much simpler & more accurate.

If I chose to, I could dismiss the worst examples of human behavior as mere human nature. Tobacco executive are merely businessmen seeking to make a profit. They sell death because they can. It's legal. I choose a higher/better choice.

wamby
04-11-2006, 10:06 PM
If I chose to, I could dismiss the worst examples of human behavior as mere human nature. Tobacco executive are merely businessmen seeking to make a profit. They sell death because they can. It's legal. I choose a higher/better choice.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

I still blame the players here. They took agreed to take money from gamblers. They played to lose. I believe Jackson played to lose in the thrown games.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-11-2006, 10:46 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

I still blame the players here. They took agreed to take money from gamblers. They played to lose. I believe Jackson played to lose in the thrown games.

It might be better to look beyond the end result. Nobody is excusing anything they allegedly did, by any means.

What impacts decisions we make? What leads us to act out of character? In the end, we are responsible for our own actions, and responsible for how we let certain things influence our final response, but more must be considered to view the whole story.

What if you're wife is in a bad mood and she's gnagging you about something stupid. Who knows, maybe you were watching sportscenter too much, or you didn't take out the garbage. You might be a little frustrated that she's making a big deal out of these things.

So let's say you later leave to go to the store. A guy cuts you off and gets over into the next lane. You pull up to him and look his way, and he's flipping you off. Now, you have at least two roads you can go down. Let's say you take the worst possible road, and things end up bad. In the end, it's all on you, but to not realize that earlier events might have influenced your final decision, would be naive. That's how I look at this. I don't competely blame Comiskey, but enough little things build up, and out of frustration and bitterness; bad things can come. We can't pretend it might not have influenced their alleged decision is all I'm saying.

leecemark
04-12-2006, 05:45 AM
--Everybody has some reason or excuse for their bad behavior. I don't really care what made somebody decide to be a scumbag. People are responsible for their own actions. That is a concept our country has sadly drifted away from in recent years.

wamby
04-12-2006, 06:05 AM
My feeling is that the following factors led to the World Series of 1919. There were three (or possibly four) serious malcontents, of the Hal Chase variety in the White Sox, Chick Gandil, Swede Risberg, Fred McMullan and possibly Buck Weaver. Two players who seriously got carried away by greed, Ed Cicotte and Lefty Williams. And two rather naive guys who got talked into it, Joe Jackson and Happy Felsch, although these two may also ave fallen into the greed category. I'm not sure where to put Weaver, but suspect that he was a strong crony of Gandil and Risberg.

In 1918, when the Chicago Cubs played the Boston Red Sox in the World Series, White Sox secretary Harry Grabiner was convinced that the that Series was fixed by the Cubs. My guess is that if Grabiner thought that, more than a few people inside baseball did too. Ban Johnson wanted an investigation but had no money for it.

If these rumors got back to the White Sox (from other players, newsmen etc.) they may have thought that since Cubs got away with it than they could too. There was a lot of controversy surrounding the 1918 World Series and with the war situation, any suspicions may have been brushed under the rug. The players may seen this and thought 'why not?'.

Bill Burgess
04-12-2006, 06:55 AM
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

I still blame the players here. They took / agreed to take money from gamblers. They played to lose. I believe Jackson played to lose in the thrown games.I blame whoever threw games too. That is understood. I am not apologizing for anyone.

But I also strongly feel you are cutting Charles A. far too much slack. He was much worse than the other owners. Many players have confirmed his negotiating style, his intimidation BS, and the like. The fact that he paid good players less than their comparable peers is a matter of history that no one on this thread can falsify. Scoff if you choose, but Comiskey was what he was. The worse owner of his day, and certainly has a strong competing chance to be the worst ever. You forget how he treated Dickie Kerr, I'll bet.

Why do you throw cover to such a man, Wamby? What do you see in the individual that so many others couldn't? I don't get it. Fair is fair. Would you choose to work for such a one, if you had the choice to work for a person who had your best interests at heart? I just don't see your defense of him. Call me crazy.

Bill

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 09:12 AM
Was Lefty Willians underpaid? If so what should he have been paid? Was Chick, was Lefty?

FOr the 1920 season how much did Joe Jackson ask for? It wasn't anything close to premier salarry right? He wasn't asking for Eddie Collins or Ty Cobb money.

Again Eddie Ciccotte in his contract negotiations asked for $7,000. Not 15,000 not 12,000 nor anything like that. The funny thing is if Eddie had gotten the $7,000 you guys would be saying he was underpaid and it was Comiskey's fault. Eddie set his price range, the salary of Walter Johnson or Ty Cobb is meaningless after that.

Why should Comiskey do the "noble" thing and tear up Joe's contract? In a lot of ways JOe was the Albert Belle of Cleveland long before Belle got their. Now you might see that and see red but I'm not saying its an exact comparison. Joe had a stormy relationship with Cleveland, he was moody and had some issues. So when should Comiskey have torn up the contract? During the 1918 shortened season when Joe fled to civilian work instead of serving his country? In 1917 when he had one of the worst years of his career?


Again people want to say these guys were vastly underpaid that Comiskey was a cheapskate but they don't know what they were getting paid or what others were getting paid. I'll say it again Buck Weaver was the highest paid thirdbasemen in the game. There are those who actually looked and they cannot find someone higher. Ray Schalk was the highest paid catcher, Collins the highest paid second-basemen. What other positional players on the Sox deserved those high rewards? Did Swede? Did Chick? And again Joe Jackson agreed to his salary several years before. Cicotte asked for 7 he got 6. What should Lefty Williams had gotten? Comiskey the cheapskate had 3 of the highest paid positional players on his team yet people want to say this team was vastly underpaid. I don't see it I don't see where people were vastly underpaid. Eddie wasn't vastly underpaid.

Its hard for me to see where Joe Jackson would have gotten the big salary in Chicago regardless of Comiskey. If Comiskey was handing out 1 year contracts after each season why would he give Joe Jackson a big contract for 1919? His 1917 season was not "elite", baseball suffered through the war in 1918 and Jackson only played 17 games, nor was Comiskey happy about the way Joe served during the war, the owners were fearful of another bust season in 1919 thus the shortened season. So again why would Joe in 1919 get a big contract? Why would he get a big contract in 1918?

wamby
04-12-2006, 09:41 AM
But I also strongly feel you are cutting Charles A. far too much slack. He was much worse than the other owners. Many players have confirmed his negotiating style, his intimidation BS, and the like. The fact that he paid good players less than their comparable peers is a matter of history that no one on this thread can falsify. Scoff if you choose, but Comiskey was what he was. The worse owner of his day, and certainly has a strong competing chance to be the worst ever. You forget how he treated Dickie Kerr, I'll bet.

Why do you throw cover to such a man, Wamby? What do you see in the individual that so many others couldn't? I don't get it. Fair is fair. Would you choose to work for such a one, if you had the choice to work for a person who had your best interests at heart? I just don't see your defense of him. Call me crazy.

Bill

As I've said before, I don't see Comiskey as any worse than other magnates of the time. Maybe it's because I'm not a Jackson apologist, that I don't feel the need to demonize him.

You'll have to refresh my memory about Dickie Kerr. I know Kerr ran afoul of Landis by playing games against ex-Black Sox players while barnstorming. I don't recall about Kerr and Comiskey though.

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 10:01 AM
Kerr had a contract dispute with Comiskey, left to go play in the minor leagues. Landis bans him baiscally to keep Comiskey on his side. Contrary to popular opinion Landis was not an absolute dictator. He needed the support of the owners for him to rule effectively. Especially during the early twenties when Landis and Ban were still fighting over control of baseball. Landis at this time was basically siding with the owners in contract squabnles. Heinie Groh at near the same time was holding out in a contract dispute with the Reds. Landis kicked him out and would only reinstate him if he played for the Reds.

wamby
04-12-2006, 10:10 AM
Kerr had a contract dispute with Comiskey, left to go play in the minor leagues. Landis bans him baiscally to keep Comiskey on his side. Contrary to popular opinion Landis was not an absolute dictator. He needed the support of the owners for him to rule effectively. Especially during the early twenties when Landis and Ban were still fighting over control of baseball. Landis at this time was basically siding with the owners in contract squabnles. Heinie Groh at near the same time was holding out in a contract dispute with the Reds. Landis kicked him out and would only reinstate him if he played for the Reds.

I thought it was something like that. Comiskey embroiled in a contract dispute would be hardly unique. I don't understand why is the only owner vilified during a take it or leave it era.

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 10:52 AM
Comiskey was not unique in that respect, Herrman of the Reds did it as well in the example above, and did it as well against Ray Fisher. Then there are players that got blacklisted when they went to play in the Mexico League in the mid century. Comiskey is not unusual in his handling of ballplayers.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-12-2006, 11:17 AM
--Everybody has some reason or excuse for their bad behavior. I don't really care what made somebody decide to be a scumbag. People are responsible for their own actions. That is a concept our country has sadly drifted away from in recent years.

I completely agree, in fact, it's probably the highest degree of agreement that we've ever had. Not everything is cut and dry though. These are baseball players we're talking about, not serial killers or child molesters. They deserve for us to consider what might have influenced their decision, not necessarily to excuse it. Nobody is excusing it.

Bill Burgess
04-12-2006, 02:36 PM
Was Lefty Williams underpaid? If so what should he have been paid? Was Chick, was Lefty?

For the 1920 season how much did Joe Jackson ask for? It wasn't anything close to premier salary right? He wasn't asking for Eddie Collins or Ty Cobb
money.

Again Eddie Ciccotte in his contract negotiations asked for $7,000. Not 15,000 not 12,000 nor anything like that. The funny thing is if Eddie had gotten the $7,000 you guys would be saying he was underpaid and it was Comiskey's fault. Eddie set his price range, the salary of Walter Johnson or Ty Cobb is meaningless after that.

Why should Comiskey do the "noble" thing and tear up Joe's contract? In a lot of ways Joe was the Albert Belle of Cleveland long before Belle got their. Now you might see that and see red but I'm not saying its an exact comparison. Joe had a stormy relationship with Cleveland, he was moody and had some issues. So when should Comiskey have torn up the contract? During the 1918 shortened season when Joe fled to civilian work instead of serving his country? In 1917 when he had one of the worst years of his career?


Again people want to say these guys were vastly underpaid that Comiskey was a cheapskate but they don't know what they were getting paid or what others were getting paid. I'll say it again Buck Weaver was the highest paid third basemen in the game. There are those who actually looked and they cannot find someone higher. Ray Schalk was the highest paid catcher, Collins the highest paid second-basemen. What other positional players on the Sox deserved those high rewards? Did Swede? Did Chick? And again Joe Jackson agreed to his salary several years before. Cicotte asked for 7 he got 6. What should Lefty Williams had gotten? Comiskey the cheapskate had 3 of the highest paid positional players on his team yet people want to say this team was vastly underpaid. I don't see it I don't see where people were vastly underpaid. Eddie wasn't vastly underpaid.

Its hard for me to see where Joe Jackson would have gotten the big salary in Chicago regardless of Comiskey. If Comiskey was handing out 1 year contracts after each season why would he give Joe Jackson a big contract for 1919? His 1917 season was not "elite", baseball suffered through the war in 1918 and Jackson only played 17 games, nor was Comiskey happy about the way Joe served during the war, the owners were fearful of another bust season in 1919 thus the shortened season. So again why would Joe in 1919 get a big contract? Why would he get a big contract in 1918?

Ubi,

I'm not sure as to your state of mind here, but if you aren't angry, you are not making too much sense. You are asking such inane questions, which even a moment of thought would be self-explanatory. I will give you some examples.

You ask what Joe Jackson asked for in salary for 1920. Before the 1920 seasons, when Harry Grabiner visited Joe to discuss the next season's contract, Joe asked for a 3 yr. contract for $10K per yr. What a totally reasonable request.

Now you seem to posit your question strangely. You seem to come from the most odd, peculiar position possible. Your position seems to be that if someone didn't ask for a certain amount, it was because you weren't worth it, or it's your own fault for not asking for more, asking for what you're worth.

How strange of you to even pose your questions so inanely. But I'll work with you and try to bring some semblance of logic to your inquiries. Let's do Jackson, for 1920.

He asked for a 3 yr. contract for $10K/per. How in heck can you fault him for not asking for his true worth of $15K/per.?????? Does it occur to your mind that Joe had sat in that office the year before and asked for more money? And gotten blown off like a child, due to the reserve clause??????

All the ChiSox players, had sat in the Lion's Den each season before and gotten intimidated, and threatened. They had asked for good raises, been treated dismissively, like children, and MADE to accept whatever was proffered.

You seem either to have no inkling of the situation, or don't care, or perhaps you identify with the owners' position of power.

The owner was in the position of being able to completely dictate terms. The man sitting across from you has no position to bargain from. If he threatens to not accept ANY part of the contract, his only option is to walk away from his profession completely. How many highly specialized professionals can afford to walk away from their fields, and start all over again at the bottom of the ladder in another field??? That is simply not a rational, logical, practical option for adults. And certainly not for those responsible for others, such as wives/children.

But you seem oblivious to the plight of the ballplayers in that unenviable position. To all those who post callously, as if the player had ANY leverage, ANY position to speak of, think again.

First of all, when you walk into the office to 'talk contract', you will feel tension just walking in, and know the conversation will be somewhat one-sided. Few players were ever in a position to bargain effectively. Cobb/Ruth did, because their owners knew that they brought the fans out. And their absence would dry up the revenue stream. Walter Johnson a little bit.

But even players like DiMag/Koufax had major salary hassles, and ultimately were cheated out of a vast amount of income, because the cursed reserve clause gave the worker no ability to shop their services around.

Back to Jackson. He asked for a 3 yr. contract at $10/per., was offered $8K, take it or leave it. He 'took' it, not because he valued himself at $8K, but because, as he said in his trial, that's all he could get! And even at that, he wasn't even offered 8. The contract was misrepresented. The contract called for another $6K for 1920, with a $2K bonus. He was never told ANYTHING about a bonus. Clear fraud on the part of Harold Grabiner, probably on orders from Commie the Crook.

And why would that be any different from the previous years? Whose to say Jackson was satisfied with his salary? Who's to say he didn't ask for his appropriate raises? Who's to say Joe didn't realize his value, ask for it, insist on it, and was made to settle for whatever Commie the Crook chose to pay?

So, when someone implies that a ChiSox player was cheerfully accepting their salaries, and was satisfied that their value was being properly compensated, I accuse you of unbelievable naivet&#233;.

When you ask what Lefty Williams, or Gandil or somebody deserved, I'd need to know what they made to answer that. You continue repeating that Cicotte only asked for 7K and got 6K, as if that was OK with Eddie. His acceptance does NOT connotate that the 6K was OK with him, only that he wasn't in a position to quit baseball. None of them were. Hence, the smug arrogance of owners, knowing they were dealing with helpless slaves.

That is why I am so pleased that today's owners are being made to create millionaires of journeymen! The pendelum has finally swung, after 100 years of player slavery. Now its the owners turn to grind their teeth! No one is overpaid today. Let the owners 'just say no'.

Did it ever occur to you that he asked for only 7 because past negotiations has taught him that it would have been pointless to ask for more? For a man who won 28 games to ask for so little shows that he knew his boss quite well. He was asking for modest improvement, and was STILL disrespected, by not even getting the 7K!!!

Really Ubi, I'm trying to not sound disrespectful, but you are treating these ballplayers as if they were completely ignorant, and you are disrespecting their positions of utter helplessness. Do you truly, in your heart, believe that Eddie Cicotte was in a position to turn down Commie the Crook's offer of 7K? That he should have quit baseball and went to work in the mines for $8./day? Is that what you're suggesting here? Would that represent a reasonable option to you? Because that was his only option. Take the $6K or quit his profession. That is not a free choice. That is a coercive, dictated ultimatum. There really weren't any negotiations in baseball. There were only dictated terms, ultimatums. No one had a choice.

But I strongly suspect that some here not only know that, they are pleased by it. They identify with management, and actually enjoy the players' helplessness. And I suspect that is what's going on here. Management bias.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-12-2006, 03:12 PM
Another entry for you into the imaginary "Fever HOF posts thread" Bill, nice piece. That's all I was trying to say to Wamby earlier, is that we need to look past the final outcome and consider what might have influenced these guys to make such a horrible decision. Not to excuse that decision, but to understand exactly what went down. Since when does one study a historical event and not peel back the layers?

wamby
04-12-2006, 08:07 PM
Ubi,

You ask what Joe Jackson asked for in salary for 1920. Before the 1920 seasons, when Harry Grabiner visited Joe to discuss the next season's contract, Joe asked for a 3 yr. contract for $10K per yr. What a totally reasonable request.



Going into 1920, I don't think Jackson had any real case to ask for $10K. he had two great years (out of five) with the White Sox. Combine this with Comiskey's knowledge of Jackson's role in the fix, and I don't think he had a case for asking for superstar money. The best thing he probably could have done for himself would have been to hold out and try to force a trade.

Cicotte was a player who going into 1919 had one great season and was almost 35 years old and had a poor season in 1918. My guess is that he peobably figured he wouldn't have been able to get anymore money no matter where he was.

I can't figure out your antipathy towards Comiskey when he seems to be pretty typical for an owner of that era. You are sounding like a pie in the sky optimist about how things should have been. Maybe things should have been different, but they weren't. Like nealy every other worker/employee of that era, the owners held all the cards. If the players didn't like it, they should have left the game. Or make a serious effort to unionize. The fact remains that many players liked thew reserve clause becaue they felt that protected their jobs.There are players on record going into the 1960s who were in favor of keeping the reserve clause.

After the debacle of the 1918 season, I think the White Sox players would have been crazy to be expecting any kind of substantial raises. The White Sox drew 1/3rd of what they drew in 1917. With no revenue coming in, where do you get money to give big raises? This was also an era in which poor performance on the field would cost you at contract time. The White Sox dropped from first place in 1917 to sixth in 1918.

I refuse to look at Comiskey's performance as owner from a 2006 perspective and be smugly satisfied that by today's standards he was an ogre or something. I'm more interested in how he stacks up with his contemporaries. I don't see much difference in how he handled negotiations with othe magnates of the era.

I think in the player's cases, this is almost purely a case of greed and little else. I think even if guys like Gandil and Jackson were making $15.000, they still would have wanted more. There are some people that I feel sorry for them because of the era they lived, but professional athletes do not fit in that category. Most of them were making more money than avrage working stiffs for a job that only lasted half a year.

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 09:09 PM
So, when someone implies that a ChiSox player was cheerfully accepting their salaries, and was satisfied that their value was being properly compensated, I accuse you of unbelievable naiveté.


So tell me who said it. This issue you are creating. Nobody has said that.

Bill Burgess
04-12-2006, 09:15 PM
Going into 1920, I don't think Jackson had any real case to ask for $10K. he had two great years (out of five) with the White Sox. Combine this with Comiskey's knowledge of Jackson's role in the fix, and I don't think he had a case for asking for superstar money. The best thing he probably could have done for himself would have been to hold out and try to force a trade.

Yes, he had a strong case. 1911-13 (fantastic). Originally established Jackson as 2nd to Cobb as the greatest player of the game. 1914 - merely good. 1915 - injured in an auto crash - traded as a result. 1916 - excellent 1917 - poor season. 1918 - opted to work in a Philly factory, in response to Wilson's "Work or Fight" dictum. And Comiskey did NOT resent Jackson for opting to work, as opposed to enlist and go fight. Unfair damnation. 1919 - great season, and 1920 was great as well.

Commie did not believe Jackson underperformed. He even chose to lose the 1924 Milwaukee trial when he admitted that under oath. And for the record, in 1915 Collins was given a 5 yr. contract at $15/per. and had wretched yrs. Joe didn't even ask for superstar money. He asked for a very moderated figure, which his 1919 season fully justified, and his reputation as a true superstar, made complete sense.

Cicotte was a player who going into 1919 had one great season and was almost 35 years old and had a poor season in 1918. My guess is that he peobably figured he wouldn't have been able to get anymore money no matter where he was.

I can't figure out your antipathy towards Comiskey when he seems to be pretty typical for an owner of that era. You are sounding like a pie in the sky optimist about how things should have been. Maybe things should have been different, but they weren't. Like nealy every other worker/employee of that era, the owners held all the cards. If the players didn't like it, they should have left the game. Or make a serious effort to unionize. The fact remains that many players liked thew reserve clause becaue they felt that protected their jobs.There are players on record going into the 1960s who were in favor of keeping the reserve clause.

My antipathy was shared by the ChiSox players, except Collins/Schalk. And almost everyone else since. I am not Pollyanna. Not even Shirley Temple. I have been a political Libertarian since 1982, and love market economics. But I am a socialist in my options. When given a choice, I share, by instinct. But you seem unaware of owners who were better than Commie. Mack was the best owner. Yes, he was tight-fisted, but for reasons opposite Commie. Commie was plain greedy. Mack had a Philly fan base which refused to turn out & support the team, even when they won pennants. Mack was also up against a Penn. government which didn't repeal the anti-Sunday baseball 'blue laws' until Nov., 1933. So Mack was tight by necessity, Commie by greed.

Should have left the game? Are you serious? Not practical for adults with families. Just a cruel suggestion. Good owner? I'll give an example. Mack again. Mack the tight. In 1927, Cobb joined the Philly team under Connie. Connie promised Ty $20,000. on top of his salary, if the A's won the pennant.

Well, the A's did NOT win. Lost the pennant to the 1927 Yanks, by 19 games. But Mack was so pleased with Ty's great work, he gave Ty the $20K bonus ANYWAY!! That is a good owner, and proves that Mack was not tight in his soul. Would that Commie the Crook has been so fair-minded and given Cicotte the $10K bonus in 1919, if he won 30 games. Cicotte won 29, and that was what triggered Eddie to take the $10K from the gamblers.

After the debacle of the 1918 season, I think the White Sox players would have been crazy to be expecting any kind of substantial raises. The White Sox drew 1/3rd of what they drew in 1917. With no revenue coming in, where do you get money to give big raises? This was also an era in which poor performance on the field would cost you at contract time. The White Sox dropped from first place in 1917 to sixth in 1918.

It probably would have cost Commie less that $20K more, to compensate his team properly. Don't think it would have broken him. He WAS rich.

I refuse to look at Comiskey's performance as owner from a 2006 perspective and be smugly satisfied that by today's standards he was an ogre or something. I'm more interested in how he stacks up with his contemporaries. I don't see much difference in how he handled negotiations with othe magnates of the era.

No need to look from our eyes. He was a scumbag from a 1919 perspective. I told you his negotiating style, but you won't touch it because you can't cope with that ugly style. So you gloss over it, skate past it, blow by it. You have already read what set Commie apart. You simply don't want to deal with it.

I think in the player's cases, this is almost purely a case of greed and little else. I think even if guys like Gandil and Jackson were making $15.000, they still would have wanted more. There are some people that I feel sorry for them because of the era they lived, but professional athletes do not fit in that category. Most of them were making more money than avrage working stiffs for a job that only lasted half a year.

You are stuck with the players faults and won't admit to owner's greed. I agree that the players should have unionized and forced free agency. Free agency would have given them the tools to deal properly with scum like Comiskey.
I cannot see why you defend someone who didn't deserve it. If other employers acted badly, was that really an excuse for everyone to act that way? You seem to write that maybe it was.

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 09:21 PM
This debate is pointless. You believe that all players back then were vastly underpaid or if that is too extreme just underpaid and had no rights. Therefore any conversation about the pay structure of the Sox is going to meet a brickwall because no answer besides yes they were underpaid will suffice. I could say Joe Schmo of the Indians got $5,000 but it won't matter because Joe Schmo was underpaid as well. It doesn't matter if Eddie asked for $7,000 because its the systems fault that he only asked for $7,000.

And please again stop projecting your feelings on to my posts. You don't have to make every debate in which we disagree personal. You disagree with me thats fine. but you don't have to say my viewpoint is inane, or I have unbelievable naiveté. You could have made your point could have disagreed without bringing into question my state of mind. I disagree with your view, you disagree with my view. We are coming from two different places. We both see the issue as so clear cut and so obvious that doesn't mean the other person is a fool for not agreeing with the others "obvious" view. I disagree with your view but nothing in my posts are directed to you personally or about your character. Yet when you disagree with me you question my motives and at time even question my sanity. Look at the post of mine you quoted, is their anything in there even remotely directed toward you personally in a negative way? Do I say anyone who doesn't realize that the Sox were well compensated are fools or that you are crazy for not seeing what I think is obvious? No I didn't so why turn it personal?

Bill Burgess
04-12-2006, 09:55 PM
Was Lefty Williams underpaid? If so what should he have been paid? Was Chick, was Lefty?

For the 1920 season how much did Joe Jackson ask for? It wasn't anything close to premier salary right? He wasn't asking for Eddie Collins or Ty Cobb money.

Again Eddie Cicotte in his contract negotiations asked for $7,000. Not 15,000 not 12,000 nor anything like that. The funny thing is if Eddie had gotten the $7,000 you guys would be saying he was underpaid and it was Comiskey's fault. Eddie set his price range, the salary of Walter Johnson or Ty Cobb is meaningless after that.

Why should Comiskey do the "noble" thing and tear up Joe's contract? In a lot of ways Joe was the Albert Belle of Cleveland long before Belle got their. Now you might see that and see red but I'm not saying its an exact comparison. Joe had a stormy relationship with Cleveland, he was moody and had some issues. So when should Comiskey have torn up the contract? During the 1918 shortened season when Joe fled to civilian work instead of serving his country? In 1917 when he had one of the worst years of his career?

Eddie wasn't vastly underpaid.

Okay, Ubi. I have not attacked you personally. I have critiqued your views on a specific issue. You are not your state of mind. They are independent.

But since you asked where I am coming from, it is from the above.


"For the 1920 season how much did Joe Jackson ask for? It wasn't anything close to premier salary right? He wasn't asking for Eddie Collins or Ty Cobb money."
You wonder, it wasn't anything close to premier salary right? And you are right. It wasn't. And I am merely amazed that you can ask such a question! Why didn't he ask for more? Could it have been - perhaps - based on previous contract 'talks'? I think it could, Ubi.

If I am amazed at how you could ask such silly questions, please forgive me my incredulity. But isn't it just so plain that all such 'talks', are born out of the previous ones? Is the process not accumulative? Do these people not have history in the negotiating office?

And you seem to not be aware of these basics. You continued, "Eddie set his price range". That is what made me go ga-ga. I apologize if I went too far, but Eddie did NOT set his price range.

Perhaps these discussions have run their course. Perhaps it has died a natural death. Our basic disagreement is that you seem to think that in the pre-free agency days of baseball, that meaningful negotiations actually took place.

I assert with the authority of history that they never happened, for 99% of the players. Maybe a superstar here or there had a modicum of influence, like Ruth, Cobb, Wagner. But for the overwhelming masses of players who ever played in the MLs, during the 'Reserve Clause' Era, there was no such thing as meaningful negotiations. They didn't occur, didn't happen, and were more smoke than meaningful.

The player went in, the owner made his offer which he had thought over ahead of time, and if the player didn't like it, it didn't matter. How could one bargain with meaning, if he didn't have any other recourse but to quit his profession, which had taken years to build?

Again, I'm sorry if you feel as if I insulted you, Ubi. You're a good guy, but I just can't fathom how you can believe real negotiations were possible in the circumstances as existed in baseball until the 70's.

Bill Burgess

leecemark
04-12-2006, 10:08 PM
--They didn't have the leverage they do now, but players did negotiate and some more successfully than others. Do you really believe most players just accepted the owners first offer? Holdouts were quite common and the threat of one could be just as effective as actually getting to that point.

wamby
04-12-2006, 10:09 PM
When I said that I thought Comiskey wasn't much different than other owners of his era, I didn't think I had to comment on his negotiating style. My comment about his style is basically: so what? I'd be willing to bet that nearly every pro ballplayer had the same experience. Just like about any other worker in the US at the time.

I read a recent book about the 1920 season in which it clearly said that Comiskey thought Jackson was a WWI slacker. The research of the book seems pretty good, so I tend to believe this claim. I think the public perception of Jackson in 1918 was that way also, when many of the games big stars went to France, Jackson played ball for a shipyard team.

I don't think Jackson's stats up to 1919, especially with the White Sox, merited pay on par with players like Collins or Cobb, It would shock me to find out that, in 1919, my four immigrant great-grandfathers made more than $1,500 apiece. With that in mind, I find it very difficult to feel sorry for an athlete making $6,000 in the same year.

The White Sox players didn't like their boss? That's utterly shocking to me. How many owners got a good word from their players? I can think of about three. Connie Mack, who in my estimation was about as cheap as Comiskey, Tom Yawkey and Bill Veeck.

If Eddie Cicotte wanted his 30 game bonus, he should have won 30 games. He should not have expected to receive it for not winning 30 games. In his place, I would not have expected any bonus, Connie Mack and Ty Cobb notwithstanding. I don't know that Mack would have given that kind of bonus to a lesser star and there is no way that a player like Cicotte was anywhere near the level of Cobb.

leecemark
04-12-2006, 10:23 PM
--Jackson had a long history of less than sterling behavior. He jumped the A's several times, skipping the first game at Shibe Park to catch a burlesque show, and was very unpopular with his teammates. Connie Mack gave up on straightening him out and traded him to Cleveland, where he became a.superstar but not known for his dedication
--Comiskey did publically criticize Jackson as a draft dodger. Joe was classified 1-A for the draft, but took a job at a shipyard to get an exemption and spent 1918 playing in the Bethleham Steel League. He was widely criticized as a slacker and Comiskey was quoted as saying "there is no room on my club for players who wish to evade the army draft by entering the employ of shipbuilders". Of course, he backed off on that after the war.

Bill Burgess
04-12-2006, 10:31 PM
When I said that I thought Comiskey wasn't much different than other owners of his era, I didn't think I had to comment on his negotiating style. My comment about his style is basically: so what? I'd be willing to bet that nearly every pro ballplayer had the same experience. Just like about any other worker in the US at the time.

I read a recent book about the 1920 season in which it clearly said that Comiskey thought Jackson was a WWI slacker. The research of the book seems pretty good, so I tend to believe this claim. I think the public perception of Jackson in 1918 was that way also, when many of the games big stars went to France, Jackson played ball for a shipyard team.

If what you say is true, I think that is very unfair to Jackson. I am not informed on this particular topic, but I would think that many more players opted to work than to fight. And I do not think it fair to judge them as 'slackers. I know of VERY few ballplayers who enlisted to fight.

Cobb, Sisler, Mathewson (retired), Branch Rickey, Alexander. I would imagine that about 5 other name ballplayers enlisted. Probably more no-name players. So I think slacker is way too strong. I would like to see the references, and research.

I don't think Jackson's stats up to 1919, especially with the White Sox, merited pay on par with players like Collins or Cobb, It would shock me to find out that, in 1919, my four immigrant great-grandfathers made more than $1,500 apiece. With that in mind, I find it very difficult to feel sorry for an athlete making $6,000 in the same year.

I feel Jackson should have made $15K, 1915-20, on a par with Speaker/Collins, but not Cobb. If you notice the record book, Speaker/Collins slumped terribly from 1915-19. Cobb was a constant. Spoke did well, 1916.

And I don't care for the clich&#233;d argument that ballplayers shouldn't complain because they were playing a game, half a year. In their field, they should have made their money based on productivity. Maybe they weren't digging ditches, but they WERE enriching their owners, making them very wealthy. The owners weren't digging ditches either. And spending money isn't exactly lifting barbells. Even if they were re-investing the profits into stadium maintenance, that spending was normally after their private living expenses. nobody was putting off buying the best suits to maintain their ballparks. Rich folks never compromise on their standards of living.

Detroit owner Frank Navin would routinely drop 10K on a horse race, but seldom to pay his players raises.

The White Sox players didn't like their boss? That's utterly shocking to me. How many owners got a good word from their players? I can think of about three. Connie Mack, who in my estimation was about as cheap as Comiskey, Tom Yawkey and Bill Veeck.

Several owners got good reviews. Mack always, McGraw - almost always, and Comiskey's son, his successor, got good reviews. There were others, but I can't think of them. Ruppert got good reviews, but not for salaries.

If Eddie Cicotte wanted his 30 game bonus, he should have won 30 games. He should not have expected to receive it for not winning 30 games. In his place, I would not have expected any bonus, Connie Mack and Ty Cobb notwithstanding. I don't know that Mack would have given that kind of bonus to a lesser star and there is no way that a player like Cicotte was anywhere near the level of Cobb.

We'll agree to disagree about the rest. One of the reasons Cobb got the dough, is that he'd shown the A's hitters how to improve their hitting immensely.

Bill Burgess
04-12-2006, 10:41 PM
Comiskey did publicly criticize Jackson as a draft dodger. Joe was classified 1-A for the draft, but took a job at a shipyard to get an exemption and spent 1918 playing in the Bethlehem Steel League. He was widely criticized as a slacker and Comiskey was quoted as saying "there is no room on my club for players who wish to evade the army draft by entering the employ of shipbuilders". Of course, he backed off on that after the war.
Joe was completely within his rights to do what he did, and plenty others did so also. Do you also knock Joe DiMaggio for playing ball during WWII instead of going off to fight like Williams? Didn't Feller also enlist and play ball stateside?

Why is it a dishonorable thing if Joe does something, but fine and dandy if others do that. Babe Ruth took a deferment as a husband, just to get out of going off to war, and nobody cries. Ruth could have went to war, but didn't. I don't hear Harry Frazee throwing him to the wolves for that.

I just think you don't like Jackson, Mark, but I could be mistaken.

Bill

Bill Burgess
04-12-2006, 10:45 PM
--They didn't have the leverage they do now, but players did negotiate and some more successfully than others. Do you really believe most players just accepted the owners first offer? Holdouts were quite common and the threat of one could be just as effective as actually getting to that point.
The history of holding out is not that effective. Guys like Frank Baker, Johnny Kling, Edd Roush, and others held out for entire seasons.

Usually, the holdout had to settle for the original amounts. Cobb used it effectively, but how many Cobbs were there? Few.

Yes, it was a tactic, simply not that effective. Speaker also held out in 1916, and found out in the papers he was traded.

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 11:01 PM
But again this is why it is pointless to debate. In your view they were all vastly underpaid and serfs to the system. So even if the White Sox were the highest paid they were still vastly underpaid to you. So I don't see why we should single out the white sox and comiskey, nor do I see it as a valid reason/cause for throwing world series games. If they were all vastly underpaid why wasn't everybody throwing games? If in fact only a small group of players were actively cheating then blaming pay is treating the cough instead of the disease. The pay simply becomes an excuse to do what one wants to do anyway. It would be one thing if everybody was cheating. For instance take a look at say the Soviet Union where corruption was rampant. Practically everybody in order to survive was breaking some law. These lawbreakers were an example of a system that was broke they were a symptom to the disease.

My view is this. Did they have rights in MLB? The simple answer no they did not have a whole lot of rights or leverage in major league baseball. Were they underpaid? Not even close. The two are separate issues that get cloudy and problematic because we end up fusing the two together. It becomes one of those if the first part is true then the second part is true but their really is no facts that the second part is true.

What actually is underpaid? What is their real value? How much money should an owner make? How much should an employee make? Saying someone is underpaid sounds so simple buts its actually a rather complicated notion. One that isn't answered by simply saying Employee A got $8,000 therefore he is underpaid. We naturally assume that since these people had no "rights" that they were obviously underpaid. But again what does that mean? Underpaid in the modern sense? If thats the case we are viewing the past in a distorted manner, one that isn't applicable to the problems of yesteryear. Companies and yes even baseball back then was ruled by free market principles, whereas today baseball and a lot American companies and employees operate in a more rigid less free system. Now baseball is unique in that these problems came about right at a time when the US government started meddling in the corporate before wisely getting out of it for a decade or so. The government prevented the free market from correcting the economic problems of baseball, and its ruling basically ended the free market system or any chance of it developing in baseball for over 50 years. The Federal League was doing exactly what was predicted in a free market system. They were exploiting an inequity in the established product which forced competing companies to reduce the inequity in order to survive in that environment. The American League in 1901 did the exact same thing and it improved the quality of baseball tremendously. But in 1901 government interference in the corporate world was still in its infancy, the government still respected the bonds of the constitution. But anyway I'm getting way off topic.

Where was I? Oh yes. Looking at player salaries and player negotiations for the most part they didn't get the "shaft". Owners wanted to own them but they were not adverse to paying them. They believe they were benevolent caretakers to a bunch uneducated hicks. That may not have been the case but just because they gave them no rights doesn't mean they didn't pay them. If baseball players truly had no rights then baseball owners could simply pay them the minimum pay. They could if you want to play baseball you will do it for $750 a year and if you don't like it tough there is nothing you can do. You play for me at my salary or you don't play at all. Baseball owners didn't do that because in reality they knew they could not do that. And it had nothing to with right and wrong or nobility but free market principles. Baseball owners had to offer more money then competing leagues which there were numerous choices, and by paying their product paltry sums they left themselves open to their product being taken away from them by competing leagues. Again this is how the AL became a major league and the dominant league in the first half of the 20th century. NL leagues were rowdy non-fan friendly affairs with players that were being paid less then what they truly could have obtained. The AL swooped in played a "clean" game and paid the product more money. The players left the NL in droves and the AL was a financial success despite the increased costs. Now then the FL should never have really bothered going to the government to fight an antitrust suit. It was silly to want the government to basically create a system in which inferior products were allow an equal space at the table. The FL and AL/NL should have been allowed to duke it out with the winner being the one who produced the best product. The FL didn't want that they simply wanted to be able to capture a market share without having to pay for it. The players were the product and they could have simply paid the players more money if they wanted them. Its what the AL did its what the Majors did when the FL came onto the scene. And if these pay hikes were too much if they created an imbalance then they would have gotten corrected naturally. Meaning if the pay rises to such a point that no matter what a business cannot function then there will be a correction. Sometimes its a pay cut sometimes its an innovation. For instances after WWI revenue for baseball exploded as the game moved away from spitballs and old style of baseball to the era of power. This infusion of revenue on its own sent salaries in baseball up-wards despite the fact that players had no rights. Because again if owners do not pay they leave themselves vulnerable to incursions into their market share.

Now let me end this with one final point about underpaid. Again the view of underpaid is a philosophical point. In social utopia or I should say in a world where there is no such thing as supply and demand then everybody could get paid the max. Meaning I would pay a guy $150,000 and my business will still be healthy and my customers will pay the higher price of product without a problem, not because I have to pay him that but because its the most. In that society in that world one free of the economic repercussions of rising costs and competing interests anything less then the max would be a gross injustice. But in a world in which one competes with others for market share and one must find the delicate balance between costs and sale point paying the max for no other reason then it is the max is wrong and leaves one vulnerable to a collapse of ones business. In other words in the real world one should not have to pay another any cent more then one has to. It may no be socialistic paradise but it is reality and it happens in all sectors of business even ones that do not have restrictions like baseball. People in everyday life get salaries based on supply and demand and competing companies. In the short term or even for a few individuals it might be cold and unpleasant but in terms of the whole it makes for a healthy and productive system. I have a feeling I could ramble on for hours so I'm just going to stop this post right here.

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 11:11 PM
Comiskey was very patriotic and the players skipping out of the war upset him gravely or at least that was what he projected publicly. Joe Jackson was attacked in the press for his shipyard duty as well as many others. I believe Comiskey even made a statement or two in which he said these players should have gotten thrown out of baseball. Though don't take my word for that last one I vaguely remember reading something like that I think it was in the Fultz book. And any rate Comiskey decides switched view once the 1919 season was approaching and the players were coming back. He had no problem accepting them back.



Secondly these ballplayers were not making their owners wealthy. The owners for the most part were already wealthy and these clubs were playthings to them or tools of power. There were a few who as of 1919 who were running there ballclub as their main source of income but they were not becoming wealthy by any real stretch of the imagination. Baseball was a small very local business that just didn't have a lot revenue streams. Radio was in its infancy, no TV, virtually no merchandise and limited concessions. An owner basically had the gate, the concession, and advertising space on his field for revenue, and at 50 cents a ticket or whatever it was and 360,000 people coming to games (have no idea how doubleheaders are counted) there just wasn't a whole lot of money in it yet.

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 11:12 PM
Apparently I should have read what Mark posted because that is basically what I have found about the Comiskey/Jackson shipyard subject.

Ubiquitous
04-12-2006, 11:22 PM
Joe was completely within his rights to do what he did, and plenty others did so also. Do you also knock Joe DiMaggio for playing ball during WWII instead of going off to fight like Williams? Didn't Feller also enlist and play ball stateside?

Why is it a dishonorable thing if Joe does something, but fine and dandy if others do that. Babe Ruth took a deferment as a husband, just to get out of going off to war, and nobody cries. Ruth could have went to war, but didn't. I don't hear Harry Frazee throwing him to the wolves for that.

I just think you don't like Jackson, Mark, but I could be mistaken.

Bill

I find it odd that on one side you implore the owners to do what is morally responsible and deride them when they simply do what is within their right and yet defend a player when hides from what is morally right yet within his right to hide from.

Yes Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, Joe Jackson and many others did have to fight. It was in their right to use the advantage that was given to them through the laws or through the advantages of position. But that does not mean it is morally right or ethically acceptable. Rich citizens during the civil war could get out of fighting by paying for a substitute. Yes it is within their right but that does not mean they should be free of scorn. Yes its perfectly within Bush and Quayles rights to be in the national guard instead of fighting but again that doesn't mean they are free from the fallout of that choice.

There were american citizens who fought for their country freely their were american citizens who fought for their country because they could not get out of it. Joe Jackson and others used their position as an elite group to enjoy priviliges they would not normally recieve. Yes it was within their right but that doesn't make it right.

As for Ted Williams yes I recognize his service to his country and respect that but I also recognize that one he did not want too, two had no intention of fighting in WWII nor did he, and three did not want to go to Korea. But I can overlook that with the knowledge that despite all that Ted put his life on the line voluntarily or not for his country during the Korean War. That to me trumps the other stuff he did.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-13-2006, 01:25 AM
If Eddie Cicotte wanted his 30 game bonus, he should have won 30 games. He should not have expected to receive it for not winning 30 games. In his place, I would not have expected any bonus,.

When the owner gives the manager orders to keep Cicotte from starting from Sep. 5th to Sep. 19, because he's closing in on 30, what then?

He lost a bunch of close games, including his last game of the season which he lost 9-10. Pitching his guts out all year, and the owner shows no appreciation whatsoever. What a world class prick.

wamby
04-13-2006, 05:08 AM
When the owner gives the manager orders to keep Cicotte from starting from Sep. 5th to Sep. 19, because he's closing in on 30, what then?

He lost a bunch of close games, including his last game of the season which he lost 9-10. Pitching his guts out all year, and the owner shows no appreciation whatsoever. What a world class prick.

Ubiquitous has pointed out in the past that Cicotte lost his last three starts in 1919. He had the opportunity to win thirty and did not do it. Chicago won the pennant by 3.5 ganes. I don't think Cicotte would have been benched during the last month of thre season. It's not like the White Sox cruised in by 15 games.

Also, was there an actual offer of a bonus? Would a world class prick even made the offer? I've read that some contemporary writers thought that holding out Cicotte to rest for the World Series was a good move because of Red Faber's injuries. I've also read that Cicotte didn't mention the binus as a reason for taking the gamblers money. Maybe the bonus is an urban legelnd. If it came from Asinof there is probably no way to verify its truthfulness. For a different view see Touching Base by Reiss.

wamby
04-13-2006, 05:18 AM
Joe was completely within his rights to do what he did, and plenty others did so also. Do you also knock Joe DiMaggio for playing ball during WWII instead of going off to fight like Williams? Didn't Feller also enlist and play ball stateside?

Why is it a dishonorable thing if Joe does something, but fine and dandy if others do that. Babe Ruth took a deferment as a husband, just to get out of going off to war, and nobody cries. Ruth could have went to war, but didn't. I don't hear Harry Frazee throwing him to the wolves for that.

I just think you don't like Jackson, Mark, but I could be mistaken.

Bill

DiMaggio, Williams and to a point Feller are all misleading examples in regards to WWII. Feller played a lot of ball during the war. Feller did put in a lot time at sea, but he also played a lot of ball.
DiMaggio had physical problems threoughout the war, being hospitalized on more than one occasion. He probably wasn't physically qualified to go into combat because of his ulcers. If he had been Joe DiMaggio fisherman, I wouldn't be surprised if he been 4-F.
Ted Williams never saw combat in WWII. He had been near or at the top of his class in flight school and received orders as an instructor pilot. This wasn't a combat posting but statistically was nearly as dangerous. Williams received orders to take part in Operation Olympic, but Hirosima and Nagasaki hastened the end of the war.
Williams went on to a distinguished combat record in Korea.

I am not criticizing what Jackson did. I'm talking about the public perception of it during a very hyper-patriotic and nationalstic era. Babe Ruth took some heat in 1918 for jumping the Red Sox to take a shipyard job and then jumping right back to the Red Sox.

wamby
04-13-2006, 06:04 AM
Here are a couple sources for Jackson and the war.

Blackball, the Black Sox and the Babe by Robert Cottrell. Quotes the Sporting News and Baseball Magazine about Comiskey's attitudes about ballplayers who chose to work rather than fight, particualrly Jackson and Felsch. On a side note, this book also contains contemporary accounts that questions some of Jackson's on-field performance during the 1919 World Series, notably his play in the field.

1918 by Allan Wood. Goes into detail about Comiskey's and the public perception of Jackson during the war. Wood seems to feel that Jackson was an easy target for people to prove their patriotism by criticisizing Jackson. I agree with Wood on this. Wood quotes The Sporting News that published an editorial highly critical of Jackson.

The Year the Red Sox Won the World Series By Ty Waterman and Mel Springer. Quotes Ban Johnson saying that baseball players working in shipyards to evadse military service "should be yanked into the Army by the coat collar...The American League has lost more than 70 players in the draft and through enlistment, and expect to lose more, but does not approve of players trying to evade military service" (p. 76). This annoucement came three days after it was announced that Jackson would leave the White Sox for the Hollingsworth Shipybuilding Company in Wilmington, Delaware. The authors of this book believe that Johnson's diatribe was focused on Joe Jackson. Based on the timing, I agree with them.

I'm sure Frommer and Gropman talk about this also, but I haven't read their books in a while.

Bill Burgess
04-13-2006, 06:51 AM
The Year the Red Sox Won the World Series By Ty Waterman and Mel Springer. Quotes Ban Johnson saying that baseball players working in shipyards to evade military service "should be yanked into the Army by the coat collar...The American League has lost more than 70 players in the draft and through enlistment, and expect to lose more, but does not approve of players trying to evade military service" (p. 76). This announcement came three days after it was announced that Jackson would leave the White Sox for the Hollingsworth Shipbuilding Company in Wilmington, Delaware. The authors of this book believe that Johnson's diatribe was focused on Joe Jackson. Based on the timing, I agree with them.

Just when I thought my opinion of Ban Johnson couldn't possibly sink lower . . .

Bill

Bill Burgess
04-13-2006, 06:53 AM
Ubi,

I'm not avoiding you. I have to go to work now, but we'll chat this afternoon. You have jumped topic SO FAR out there. You've quite enlarged the scope of the issue, but I'll do what I can to reel you back into the boat.

Bill

Sultan_1895-1948
04-13-2006, 06:59 AM
Babe Ruth took some heat in 1918 for jumping the Red Sox to take a shipyard job and then jumping right back to the Red Sox.

Actually Ruth only threatened to leave for the Chester Shipyards baseball team, but never jumped. There was one day in between him saying it, and him returning in the Boston clubhouse, but of course the papers were all over it. On the day between, it was July 3rd I believe, he pretty much told reporters that all they have to do is call, and he's there, as far as the war goes.
But yeah, him jumping wasn't about avoiding anything, it was because Barrow was being a complete boob, and was working him to death. Babe had signed up right along with several other players, even though he knew he was exempt because of marraige. He entertained the troops a couple times and signed up with a reserve unit in Boston to do his part once the season was over. Pretty sure actors were exempt from the war too, because they were entertainers, but that's irrelevant. Maybe you're on to something, and Babe got married in '14 because of the war.

wamby
04-13-2006, 07:06 AM
Actually Ruth only threatened to leave for the Chester Shipyards baseball team, but never jumped. There was one day in between him saying it, and him returning in the Boston clubhouse, but of course the papers were all over it. On the day between, it was July 3rd I believe, he pretty much told reporters that all they have to do is call, and he's there, as far as the war goes.
But yeah, him jumping wasn't about avoiding anything, it was because Barrow was being a complete boob, and was working him to death. Babe had signed up right along with several other players, even though he knew he was exempt because of marraige. He signed up with a reserve unit in Boston to do his part once the season was over. He also entertained the troops a couple times. Pretty sure actors were exempt from the war too, because they were entertainers. Maybe you're on to something, and Babe got married in '14 because of the war.

I don't think Babe got married because of the war. The US didn't enter the war until 1917.
I think his jumping was more about not wanting to pitch than anything else. With the depleted rosters of 1918 though, I think it was pretty rash of him to jump the team even if it was for only a day and a half.

wamby
04-13-2006, 07:08 AM
Just when I thought my opinion of Ban Johnson couldn't possibly sink lower . . .

Bill

Johnson's comment was dumb, but I think it was pretty typical of that particular time period. Nationalism really reared its ugly head during the WWI era.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-13-2006, 08:42 AM
I don't think Babe got married because of the war. The US didn't enter the war until 1917.
I think his jumping was more about not wanting to pitch than anything else. With the depleted rosters of 1918 though, I think it was pretty rash of him to jump the team even if it was for only a day and a half.

Rash?

What's Rash is having a player who has 11 homers before the year is half over. In the previous 15 years before that, only a few other guys had hit that many in a FULL season, and they all ended their years with 12. Barrow wanted him to continue to pitch in his regular turn, which was far too much to ask. He basically had a whip crackin' on his back. Just ridiculous. There was bickering for awhile, and then during a game Babe swung at the first pitch, when Barrow had wanted him to take a strike. Barrow basically called him a bum for doing that, and Babe lashed back, then Barrow fined him 500 bucks, and then he said to hell with this. Barrow was a jerk, plain and simple He was rash.

csh19792001
04-13-2006, 09:04 AM
DiMaggio, Williams and to a point Feller are all misleading examples in regards to WWII. Feller played a lot of ball during the war. Feller did put in a lot time at sea, but he also played a lot of ball.


I just lost my post on Feller's war participation that had taken a half hour to compose... so suffice it to say...

Feller enlisted in the Navy 2 days after Pearl Harbor, at a time when only a handful of players had enlisted, and at a time when the Allies weren't exactly cleaning up in both theaters. He earned 8 battle stars, and missed almost four entire years in his 20's to the war. He wasn't actually wounded in combat as Spahn was, but he did see action, and lots more than most ballplayers saw. Have you ever read about (or hear Feller himself speak about) his role in the Marianas Turkey Shoot? For people (not you, Wamby) to insinuate that Feller languished in the Navy playing exhibition games (as so many players did) is misleading.

Say what you want about Feller's gauche, uber conservative comments over the past decade, the guy had valor and intestinal fortitude that the prima donnas of the ensuing generations could never fathom.

Ubiquitous
04-13-2006, 09:31 AM
Ubiquitous has pointed out in the past that Cicotte lost his last three starts in 1919. He had the opportunity to win thirty and did not do it. Chicago won the pennant by 3.5 ganes. I don't think Cicotte would have been benched during the last month of thre season. It's not like the White Sox cruised in by 15 games.

Also, was there an actual offer of a bonus? Would a world class prick even made the offer? I've read that some contemporary writers thought that holding out Cicotte to rest for the World Series was a good move because of Red Faber's injuries. I've also read that Cicotte didn't mention the binus as a reason for taking the gamblers money. Maybe the bonus is an urban legelnd. If it came from Asinof there is probably no way to verify its truthfulness. For a different view see Touching Base by Reiss.


A couple things for me. One where is the actual proof that a bonus existed? I've read accounts that the bonus trouble came in 1917 not 1919. Two, when did the bonus talk come up? I've yet to have seen come up during the trial or afterwards, so where was the first instance of it occuring? Three: What is the fix timeline? Again I have read reports that the players were already planning the fix well before September which would mean Cicotte's bonus wasn't even in the consideration yet.

Ubiquitous
04-13-2006, 09:47 AM
The bonus is one of those things that people talk a lot about but have very little to proof to bac it up. Its all rumors and maybe's. I would love to find a primary sources that actually shows concrete proof that A)the bonus existed and B)Comiskey purposefully made sure that he did not get it.

Eight men out had the bonus denial for 1917. I don't know his source. Carney believes the bonus claims are dubious.

Also something to mention Carney cites research himself that shows that the White Sox had the highest payroll in all of baseball. Carney also believes that Comiskey was probably not exceptionally tight.


As for Cicotte and 1919 and the 2 week layoff. It appears that during that 2 week layoff Cicotte was hurt and suffering a sore arm. That is what the newspapers and Cicotte himself said at the time in those newspaper. Cleveland Plan Dealer, Tribune, Sporting News, New York Times.


Also of note is that Carney does show us a primary source, a transaction Card for Cicotte that details the history of his contracts and bonuses. In that card there is no mention of a 10,000 dollar.

Like I said above Carney finds the bonus claim dubious at best.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-13-2006, 10:17 AM
The bonus is one of those things that people talk a lot about but have very little to proof to bac it up. Its all rumors and maybe's. I would love to find a primary sources that actually shows concrete proof that A)the bonus existed and B)Comiskey purposefully made sure that he did not get it.

Eight men out had the bonus denial for 1917. I don't know his source. Carney believes the bonus claims are dubious.

Also something to mention Carney cites research himself that shows that the White Sox had the highest payroll in all of baseball. Carney also believes that Comiskey was probably not exceptionally tight.


As for Cicotte and 1919 and the 2 week layoff. It appears that during that 2 week layoff Cicotte was hurt and suffering a sore arm. That is what the newspapers and Cicotte himself said at the time in those newspaper. Cleveland Plan Dealer, Tribune, Sporting News, New York Times.


Also of note is that Carney does show us a primary source, a transaction Card for Cicotte that details the history of his contracts and bonuses. In that card there is no mention of a 10,000 dollar.

Like I said above Carney finds the bonus claim dubious at best.

If that layoff was from an injury, then I stand corrected. That was always what I heard. Good research, or good research on Carney's research.

wamby
04-13-2006, 03:29 PM
I just lost my post on Feller's war participation that had taken a half hour to compose... so suffice it to say...

Feller enlisted in the Navy 2 days after Pearl Harbor, at a time when only a handful of players had enlisted, and at a time when the Allies weren't exactly cleaning up in both theaters. He earned 8 battle stars, and missed almost four entire years in his 20's to the war. He wasn't actually wounded in combat as Spahn was, but he did see action, and lots more than most ballplayers saw. Have you ever read about (or hear Feller himself speak about) his role in the Marianas Turkey Shoot? For people (not you, Wamby) to insinuate that Feller languished in the Navy playing exhibition games (as so many players did) is misleading.

Say what you want about Feller's gauche, uber conservative comments over the past decade, the guy had valor and intestinal fortitude that the prima donnas of the ensuing generations could never fathom.

Persoanlly, i am very impressed with Feller's service. He actually used his personal prestige to be assigned to a combat role. He did get a lot of ball playing in, but he spent a lot of time in harm's way.

Feller is not one of my favorite guys, but I was impressed when he said of his military service: 'I was no hero, be clear about that. The heroes didn't come back'. (I'm paraphrasing here).

wamby
04-13-2006, 03:33 PM
Rash?

What's Rash is having a player who has 11 homers before the year is half over. In the previous 15 years before that, only a few other guys had hit that many in a FULL season, and they all ended their years with 12. Barrow wanted him to continue to pitch in his regular turn, which was far too much to ask. He basically had a whip crackin' on his back. Just ridiculous. There was bickering for awhile, and then during a game Babe swung at the first pitch, when Barrow had wanted him to take a strike. Barrow basically called him a bum for doing that, and Babe lashed back, then Barrow fined him 500 bucks, and then he said to hell with this. Barrow was a jerk, plain and simple He was rash.

I'll have to look and see what the Red Sox pitching situation in 1918. If they were left short-handed by the war I can see Barrow's point. If they I could see Ruth's point.

I would bet that a lot of players would agree with you about Barrow.

ADDENDUM: I've been looking at some materials regarding the 1918 Red Sox. Right now I think barrow is more in the right than Ruth is. The Red Sox had already lost Ernie Shore to the Navy and shortly before Ruth's blow-up with Barrow, Dutch Leonard left the team to join the military. According to Barrow this left the team with only one left handed starter (Ruth). The Red Sox were in first place at this point but were struggling. The Boston media was reporting that the Red Sox pitching was in bad shape. I see conflicting reports about Ruth's teammate reactions to his leaving the team. It looks like few (if any) of his teammates supported his stand to stop pitching, but they mobbed him (Barrow included) when he returned. There was speculation that he may have received a bonus to keep him on the mound. If the Red Sox hadn't been fighting for first place then Ruth may have had a point, but to stay in the thick of it, I think he better served the team on the mound.

Ruth must have been slumping in the HR department if he had 11 at mid-season. Every source I have here has hom at 11 for the season.

wamby
04-13-2006, 03:34 PM
The bonus is one of those things that people talk a lot about but have very little to proof to bac it up. Its all rumors and maybe's. I would love to find a primary sources that actually shows concrete proof that A)the bonus existed and B)Comiskey purposefully made sure that he did not get it.

Eight men out had the bonus denial for 1917. I don't know his source. Carney believes the bonus claims are dubious.

Also something to mention Carney cites research himself that shows that the White Sox had the highest payroll in all of baseball. Carney also believes that Comiskey was probably not exceptionally tight.


As for Cicotte and 1919 and the 2 week layoff. It appears that during that 2 week layoff Cicotte was hurt and suffering a sore arm. That is what the newspapers and Cicotte himself said at the time in those newspaper. Cleveland Plan Dealer, Tribune, Sporting News, New York Times.


Also of note is that Carney does show us a primary source, a transaction Card for Cicotte that details the history of his contracts and bonuses. In that card there is no mention of a 10,000 dollar.

Like I said above Carney finds the bonus claim dubious at best.

How is Carney's book? I want to pick it up soon.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-13-2006, 04:17 PM
I'll have to look and see what the Red Sox pitching situation in 1918. If they were left short-handed by the war I can see Barrow's point. If they I could see Ruth's point.

I would bet that a lot of players would agree with you about Barrow.

They were only short one pitcher, Dutch Leonard. Barrow wanted Babe to fill in, but Babe had just become used to playing the outfield. The grind of pitching and and playing the field was just too much.

Barrow kept haggling him, and Babe resisted, leading to him leaving the team for a day. After he came back, him and Barrow worked things out. Barrow agreed to take back the fine, and Babe took the mound for the first time in over a month, winning 4-3 in ten innings. He was back to being a pitcher.

The turning point came in a July 6th game where Babe was on the bench and the current left fielder came up with the Sox down 4-2 in the sixth inning with two men on base. Seems Barrow suddenly understood Babe's value at the plate. He sent him in to pinch hit, and Babe tripled in both runner, and scored himself with the winning run, when a throw got away. That was that. The next day, Babe was in left field hitting cleanup and that's where he stayed.

During '19 he filled in on the mound as a starter and relieved also. He was about helping the team, I think the initial problem was how Barrow approached the situation. Pretty much expecting it, rather than appreciating it.

wamby
04-13-2006, 04:24 PM
During '19 he filled in on the mound as a starter and relieved also. He was about helping the team, I think the initial problem was how Barrow approached the situation. Pretty much expecting it, rather than appreciating it.

My feeling is that at this point in his career, that Ruth wasn't that great of a team guy. I think he was later on. I think his blow-up with Barrow may have kicked his ass in the right direction. Ruth was a young guy at this time and he doesn't strike as being mature at this point in his career.

In my addendum I mentioned the loss of Ernie Shore. I think that if Shore had been there, we would not be having this discussion.

leecemark
04-13-2006, 04:30 PM
--Ruth never learned to put the team ahead of himself. He fueded with Miller Huggins, getting suspended several times and later did his best to undermine Joe McCarthy (not to mention a childish fued with his most talented co-star, Lou Gehrig).

Sultan_1895-1948
04-13-2006, 04:48 PM
--Ruth never learned to put the team ahead of himself. He fueded with Miller Huggins, getting suspended several times and later did his best to undermine Joe McCarthy (not to mention a childish fued with his most talented co-star, Lou Gehrig).

So the blame for these "feuds" go on Ruth? If someone gets suspended, it doesn't always mean they were in the wrong. Remember who was in charge, and remember what kind of a man Huggins was.

The "feud" between him and Gehrig was childish for sure, but Babe tried to patch it up a few times even though it wasn't his fault. Lou should have stepped forward and made things right imo. It was his mom who caused it.

Babe taught Gehrig a lot about hitting and about how to handle being a famous ballplayer. He filled in on the mound, threw parties for the team using his own money, playing through injuries and sickness, playing in all exhibition games, and often had the fans' best interest ahead of his own, giving them a show. One time he won money at the racetrack, and put all of his winnings in a hat in the middle of the clubhouse, and let the lesser paid players on the team have at it. Like all great ballplayers, of course he had an ego, but at the same time he was generous beyond belief with his time and money.

The McCarthy thing is inexcusable on the surface, it wasn't McCarthy's fault at all. We might be well off to understand how his bitterness could have led to his actions though.

As far as Huggins, he loved Babe when things were going good, and when they were going bad, he was his scapegoat. Fining him 5 grand for showing up a half hour late? It made for a nice example to the rest of the team, that's for sure.

Much like when Barrow showed him some trust and respect by allowing him to leave a note when he arrived to the hotel, him and Huggins didn't have further issues after '25. Huggins didn't like Babe's night life (especially when the team was losing), and when Babe realized he was willing to take baseball away from him, he didn't challenge the little flea's authority again.

Bill Burgess
04-13-2006, 06:59 PM
ADDENDUM: I've been looking at some materials regarding the 1918 Red Sox. Right now I think barrow is more in the right than Ruth is. The Red Sox had already lost Ernie Shore to the Navy and shortly before Ruth's blow-up with Barrow, Dutch Leonard left the team to join the military. According to Barrow this left the team with only one left handed starter (Ruth). The Red Sox were in first place at this point but were struggling. The Boston media was reporting that the Red Sox pitching was in bad shape. I see conflicting reports about Ruth's teammate reactions to his leaving the team. It looks like few (if any) of his teammates supported his stand to stop pitching, but they mobbed him (Barrow included) when he returned. There was speculation that he may have received a bonus to keep him on the mound. If the Red Sox hadn't been fighting for first place then Ruth may have had a point, but to stay in the thick of it, I think he better served the team on the mound.

Boston manager Ed Barrow wanted Babe to take his regular turn on the mound when it was his turn. Babe stopped wanting to do that. He didn't want to pitch anymore. He had come to see himself as an OF.

On July 3, 1918, he jumped the team and joined up with the Chester Ship Building Co. He thought about joining the Delaware River Ship Building League. He did return to the Red Sox, on July 4th, of course, but the answer to the question, is that Babe just found it too demanding to pitch every 4th day, after playing the OF. He might have been able to do it physically, but psychologically, it was too taxing, so he balked, and resisted.

Had absolutely nothing to do with the war, and everything to do with manager Ed Barrow. Simple as that.

Bill

wamby
04-13-2006, 07:05 PM
.

Had absolutely nothing to do with the war, and everything to do with manager ed Barrow. Simple as that.

Bill

I disagree to the extent that a major reason this happened was because Barrow was juggling a war depleted roster. The incident occured shortly after another of the team's pitcher's left of to aid in the war effort.

Bill Burgess
04-13-2006, 08:06 PM
I disagree to the extent that a major reason this happened was because Barrow was juggling a war depleted roster. The incident occured shortly after another of the team's pitcher's left of to aid in the war effort.
Well, OK, if you want to be indirect.

Bill

wamby
04-13-2006, 08:18 PM
Well, OK, if you want to be indirect.

Bill

I don't think there is anything indirect about the fact that this was a wartime season and two members of the Red Sox rotation were no longer with the team and this left Ruth as the teams only lefthanded starter.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-13-2006, 08:23 PM
I don't think there is anything indirect about the fact that this was a wartime season and two members of the Red Sox rotation were no longer with the team and this left Ruth as the teams only lefthanded starter.

He was also there getting the only Red Sox hit on occasions, and was there to hit a game winning home of the Big Train down the stretch. It was too large a workload mentally and physically. That's not too hard to understand. He was abusing Babe's abilities; he wasn't superman.

It is indirect Wamby, because the point is that he didn't threaten to leave the team because he was avoiding anything about the war. He threatened to leave to make a point to Barrow. Fining him 500 bucks for swinging at a first pitch and calling him a bum for it? That's a bit extreme don't ya think. Once they talked and Barrow agreed to to remove the fine, and handle things in a more appreciative way, Babe did take the mound. Until Barrow pulled his head out, and realized where Babe's true everyday value was. In the batters box.

wamby
04-13-2006, 08:46 PM
He was also there getting the only Red Sox hit on occasions, and was there to hit a game winning home of the Big Train down the stretch. It was too large a workload mentally and physically. That's not too hard to understand. He was abusing Babe's abilities; he wasn't superman.

It is indirect Wamby, because the point is that he didn't threaten to leave the team because he was avoiding anything about the war. He threatened to leave to make a point to Barrow. Fining him 500 bucks for swinging at a first pitch and calling him a bum for it? That's a bit extreme don't ya think. Once they talked and Barrow agreed to to remove the fine, and handle things in a more appreciative way, Babe did take the mound. Until Barrow pulled his head out, and realized where Babe's true everyday value was. In the batters box.

With the value of hindsight it is easy to see that Ruth's best value to his team would be as an everyday player. In 1918, Barrow was taking a big risk by moving one of his better pitchers to become an everyday player. What if Ruth had gotten hurt and couldn't pitch anymore? The way things stood in 1918 I think that Barrow and Ruth's teammates believed that Ruth's greatest value to the team was on the mound.

I've never said that Ruth left the team to join the war effort. Dutch Leonard did but Ruth did not. I've read that Ruth wasn't obliged to work or fight until after the World Series. Ruth did threaten to join a shipyard team when he jumped the team, but ultimately went to hang out at his fathers bar instead.

Sultan_1895-1948
04-13-2006, 09:14 PM
With the value of hindsight it is easy to see that Ruth's best value to his team would be as an everyday player. In 1918, Barrow was taking a big risk by moving one of his better pitchers to become an everyday player. What if Ruth had gotten hurt and couldn't pitch anymore? The way things stood in 1918 I think that Barrow and Ruth's teammates believed that Ruth's greatest value to the team was on the mound.


Good point. Hindsight is a lovely thing isn't it. Still, there were signs o plenty that Babe's hitting was coming on. The conflict was in Barrow wanting to squeeze as much juice from both sides as possible.



I've never said that Ruth left the team to join the war effort. Dutch Leonard did but Ruth did not. I've read that Ruth wasn't obliged to work or fight until after the World Series. Ruth did threaten to join a shipyard team when he jumped the team, but ultimately went to hang out at his fathers bar instead.

Yes, he was exempt, but still signed up with everyone else.


Ruth must have been slumping in the HR department if he had 11 at mid-season. Every source I have here has hom at 11 for the season.



Yeah, he had 11 at mid season and finished with 11. Hard not to draw attention to yourself when you're hitting so many homers in such a short period of time. Although he hit several triples, more than half his hits were for extra bases; pitchers were workin' him very carefully even back then. They just couldn't figure him out. The idea was floatin' around that you could get him out on the low outside pitch. Cicotte tried this one day, and Babe hit three doubles to left field. Next day, another pitcher tried the dame, maybe they thought it was a fluke? Another double and a triple to left.

-- See, July 8th. Should have led the league that year.

1918

May 4 - In Ruth’s fifth pitching start of the year, he hit his first homer of the year. It cleared the Polo Grounds roof in right field.

May 6 - Exactly three years to the day after his first Major League homerun, and in the same ballpark as that first homerun, Ruth hit his second in two games. (The May 4th game was on a Saturday, and there was no baseball played in New York on Sundays.)

This game marked the first time in Babe’s career, that he appeared in a Major League game at a position other than pitcher, and in a spot other than ninth in the order. He batted sixth and played first base.

May 7 - In Washington, Babe plays first base again but this time bats cleanup. For the third straight game he hit a homerun. This dinger was a majestic poke over the right field wall that went into a “war” garden where it scared a dog into barking. It was the first homerun anyone had hit in Washington that season.

The next day he hit a double. The day after that he pitched to a ten inning 4 – 3 loss, but had a perfect day at the dish. He had a single, three doubles, and a triple. His batting average after this game was .484.

May 10 - Babe plays outfield for the first time. Leads to his famous quote, “Gee, it’s lonesome in the outfield. It’s hard to keep awake with nothing to do.”

May 20 - Ruth came down with a bad cold. He had severe swelling of the larynx and was having trouble breathing and speaking. Rumors had him dying. He stayed in the hospital for a week, received flowers from Carrigan and Hoblitzell. He pinch hit on May 30th.

June 2 - His first game back in the lineup, Babe pitched to a 4 – 3 loss, but hits a home run.

June 3 - Ruth plays centerfield in place of an injured Amos Strunk, and hits another dinger.

June 4 - Played centerfield again and hit another homer.

June 5 - Played centerfield again and hit another homer. His fourth in his first four games back from illness.

June 15 - The Bambino hits his 8th homer of the year and has 5 RBI.

June 25 - Babe hits his ninth home run of the year and was referred to in print for the first time as the “Home Run King.”

June 28 - Babe’s tenth clout of the year is the only hit the Sox have in a 1 – 3 loss in Washington.

June 30 - Hits number eleven off Walter Johnson. It comes with one man on in the tenth inning, and gives the Sox a 3 – 1 win. It’s the longest drive ever hit in Washington.

July 8 - He hits one two-thirds up into the bleachers with a man on first, in the 10th inning another game winner for the Bosox. However, he is credited with only a triple, different rules back then. Since the runner on first needed only 3 bases to score the "winning" run Ruth gets only 3 bases, a triple. Later that week he has one game with three doubles and two triples and one double in the very next game.

1918 Notes - Five of Ruth’s first 11 Major League homers were hit in the Polo Grounds. Ruppert was becoming increasingly aware of Babe’s popularity among New Yorkers and offered to buy him from Barrow. Barrow just shook his head and laughed.

The 1918 season saw Ruth’s and Barrow’s relationship become frayed. Barrow wanted him in the lineup because of the Sox’s offensive struggles, and because he had 50k of his own money invested in the team. He realized that the crowds were much bigger on days Ruth pitched, and they were coming out to see him hit.

After awhile, it took a toll on Ruth. He complained of being tired, but Barrow didn’t care much. He insisted that Ruth take his turn on the mound, claiming that if Babe got to bed on time, he wouldn’t be so tired. Any human, regardless of nightlife, would be worn out with that workload.

In 1918, he tied the A’s Tilly Walker for the home run title with 11, batted .300, and pitched the Red Sox to two wins against the Cubs in the World Series while setting a postseason consecutive scoreless innings record that would stand for 42 years.

He pitched his final game in the World Series with a badly bruised knuckle on the middle finger of his pitching hand. The finger became red and swollen, after horsing around on the train. Even though he tried to hide the injury from Barrow, he found out saying, “You damn fool. You know you’re supposed to pitch tomorrow, and you go fooling around like this.”

For only the second time that year, Ruth wasn’t able to complete a game but he did good enough to win, even picking a runner off at a key point. His scoreless streak came to an end in the eighth inning, leading 2 – 0, he gave up a walk and a single. An infield out brought in a Cub run, and another hit tied the score 2 – 2.

Bill Burgess
04-14-2006, 06:50 AM
Ubi,

I've been thinking about the topics you raised, and I just don't want to go there, at least not in this thread.

This was a Jackson thread, but now it's hijacked into a Babe Thread. You brought up valid points, but they are so expanded from our original Jackson theme, as to jump subject completely.

I think I'll start a brand new thread, and we can address the Reserve Clause, free agency, whether or not players could bargain effectively, etc.

But not here, not now. Let's keep separate subjects independent. Makes it easier to follow, I think.

And guys, how about veering back to Jackson someday?

Bill

leecemark
04-14-2006, 07:03 AM
--What is the point? Everything we've already said in this thread is just repeating points we've all made a dozen times before.

Bill Burgess
04-14-2006, 07:04 AM
--What is the point? Everything we've already said in this thread is just repeating points we've all made a dozen times before.
There's a point, and much is left to say. You'll see.

Bill

Ubiquitous
04-14-2006, 10:03 AM
No apathy would be their friend. In order for change one side must want it and the other side must be willing to comply or not care whether or not there is a change. If the majority didn't care one way or the other then a minority would be able to hold sway. It is how extreme political candidates get voted into office. A well motivated minority and an apathetic majority.

GaryL
04-14-2006, 11:42 AM
How is Carney's book? I want to pick it up soon.

I've ordered the book and should receive it any day now. Will have a review ready soon.

I'd like to say it one more time: Many thanks to all the regular posters in this thread for the heart-felt passion you have brought to this highly emotional, controversial topic... it's been enlightening, entertaining, and informative. A lot of your own personal time has been devoted to preparing many of these in-depth posts. Those of us who have made it all the way though from the beginning have truly been rewarded.

I'm sure I'm speaking for many Baseball Fever readers when I say your efforts are deeply appreciated!

MURPH8283
04-19-2006, 10:14 PM
Nice thread, I found myself swayed a few times by both sides. But at the end of the day, I would have to vote for maintenance of the status quo regarding SJJ. Didn't Joe have his time on the eligible list? And yet was never elected.

Nor should he be, it would be unreal, too Walt Disney. He serves as a reminder to all that consequences for actions are a part of life.

GaryL
04-21-2006, 06:09 PM
I recently finished reading Gene Carney's great new book: Burying the Black Sox and I'd highly, highly recommend it to all of you interested in this subject, regardless of which side of the fence you are on.

I wrote a review of the book and posted it on Amazon, and I thought I'd also post it here:

It is hard to put into words the service that author Gene Carney - with the publication of his wonderful new book: Burying the Black Sox - has performed for all of us amateur baseball historians who are eternally intrigued by the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Mr. Carney’s great achievement is that he steps into the sordid world of lies, conspiracies, gamblers, and cover-ups that pervade this sad but fascinating chapter in baseball history, and successfully attempts to make sense of it all. What emerges is a book that is both a joy to read and incredibly informative. The wealth of new information that the author uncovers and explores is simply dumbfounding. It’s a book that is extremely well written and edited, with just the right dose of stylistic flair and humor. It is never boring and, quite frankly, I couldn’t put it down. It’s also one of the few books I’ve ever read that I was disappointed when it ended: I just wished that it could go on for about another 200 pages.

It also succeeds in capturing both the essential elements of the 1919 World Series scandal and the cultural flavor of post World War I America. We see remarkable, uncanny similarities to our present time: Like steroids in today’s game, we sense that gambling had a “death grip” on the National Pastime by 1919, a problem that had been festering for at least a decade. And, like today’s baseball hierarchy trying to deal with the problem of steroids, many of baseball’s ruling elite buried their collective heads in the sand, hoped it would just go away, and orchestrated a cover-up. It took a Grand Jury to get their attention. The thought of dealing with the problem in an open and forthright manner never seemed to occur to them. Like Watergate, the cover-up didn’t hold, and in many ways, was worse than the crime. But with a help of a cooperative media, ever in defense of the baseball establishment, the cover-up in some senses lives on even today.

Most of us are familiar with the overall picture of the Black Sox scandal, but we get lost in the morass of details. Here’s where Burying the Black Sox is a real help. How many of us confuse and conflate the 1920 Grand Jury “confessions” with the 1921 trial with the 1924 civil suit? The cast of characters includes a highly jumbled mix of crooked and clean ball players, their families, baseball “magnates,” Fixers, reporters, commissioners, lawyers and judges.

And what about all the gamblers? Who could possibly keep them all straight? Arnold Rothstein, Abe Attell, Sleepy Bill Burns, Sport Sullivan, Billy Maharg, the St. Louis group, the Chicago group, the New York group, the Des Moines group, the Montreal group. Mr. Carney has earned a permanent and everlasting niche in Baseball history just for sorting out this mess! He details the incredibly tangled web of gamblers and Fixers in a spoof of the old Abbott and Costello “Who’s on First?” routine. It’s worth the price of the book itself.

And then there are the eternal questions: Who initiated the Fix? Why did the ballplayers do it? Was it Comiskey’s fault because he was “cheap”? Which games were fixed? How do we know for sure they were fixed? Was it called off before the first game, as some contend? Who got money? Where did the money come from? Did the players “earn” it? What about Weaver and Shoeless Joe? Were they innocent victims?

With his characteristic and pervasive attention to detail, these are all questions that Mr. Carney addresses and, though he doesn’t quite answer them definitely (that’s not his stated goal), he at least makes an extremely credible effort to “sort everything out.” You are left with a far-better understanding of the issues, personalities, and motives than ever before.

To Mr. Carney’s credit, he enters into the fray with no biases. He states in the Preface that his goal is to simply present the facts of the case as clearly and accurately as possible and then let his readers make up their own minds. He succeeds in this goal. Even with a topic as emotionally charged as Shoeless Joe Jackson’s guilt or innocence, he dispassionately presents all the evidence pro and con. One gets the feeling that this is the way history books should treat Shoeless Joe, but, unfortunately, very rarely do.

A highlight of the book is the prominence Mr. Carney gives to the often overlooked 1924 civil trial brought by Joe Jackson against Charles Comiskey for breach of his 1920 contract. Characterized by Mr. Carney as “The Trial Nobody Watched,” it’s hard to believe that an event so pivotal to the drama of the 1919 Black Sox scandal has gone largely unexamined. At this trial, Mr. Carney states, “For the first time, there would be new light shed on what Comiskey knew and when he knew it and on exactly what he did or did not do about it. Here for the first time, Jackson’s play in the World Series would be scrutinized and whether or not he had willingly lent his name to the conspiracy.”

In many ways, this trial pitted Jackson’s word versus Comiskey’s, with a verdict to be rendered by a jury who had access to all available evidence. They could look into the eyes of the defendants and plaintiff, listen to cross-examination, observe body language and intonation, and decide for themselves whose version was closest to the truth. Mr. Carney believes it’s highly significant that - where ten votes were needed for Jackson to win his case – he got eleven. “Eleven of twelve jurors believed Jackson had played every game to win. And that he had not received the $5000 from Williams until the Series was over. And that he had not been in on the conspiracy. And that he deserved his back pay.”

We also learn from reporter Frank G. Menke of some of the incredible admissions made by Comiskey at this trial: “His $10,000 reward for information was a bluff, as it was made after he knew the Series was crooked, who was in on the Fix, and ‘practically all of the details.’ He admitted at the trial that he knew the identity of the crooked players two days after the Series but made no attempt to get signed statements, and permitted them to play in 1920. He admitted that Jackson played all games to win.” Menke’s conclusion was that Cominsky had engineered a cover-up of the Fix, and that it nearly succeeded.

So Shoeless Joe was innocent, right? Unfortunately for Jackson, the jury verdict was overturned by Judge Gregory, who could not overlook the contradictions with his 1920 statement to the Cook County Grand Jury (a statement wrongly characterized in the media at the time as a “confession”). It’s obvious that Mr. Carney finds this jury verdict highly significant, but he stops well short of exonerating Joe Jackson.

Another interesting chapter is devoted to the bizarre sequence of events that led to the unraveling of the Fix through the Grand Jury mechanism. We learn who helped the investigation along and who hindered it. Many will be surprised to learn that one of the pivotal events in this chain was a completely meaningless game in August, 1920 between the Phillies and, of all teams, the Cubs. In addition, we learn that the origin of gambling in baseball certainly did not start with the 1919 Black Sox, as many would have us believe.

Along the way we are treated to many of the often overlooked but juicy details of the case. A small sampling would include:

A description of the origin and the interesting details of the life-and-death power struggle between Comiskey and Ban Johnson and how it led directly to the formation of the Grand Jury, and the possible real motives behind Johnson’s desire to convene it.

The courageous role played by whistle blower Hugh Fullerton, who, in amazing parallels to the Watergate scandal, assumes the role of Woodward and Bernstein. We learn how his diligence almost single-handedly broke through the cover-up, how his efforts were nearly thwarted, and the steep price he paid to career and person, including attempted murder, for challenging baseball’s ruling authorities.

The previously unheralded role played by the gambling publication, “Collyer’s Eye,” its reporter Frank O. Klein, and how they tried to blow the whistle on the fix and the cover-up in the months immediately after the Series.

A detailed discussion of Judge Landis and his famous ruling that resulted in “eight men out,” and succeeded in cleaning up baseball’s tarnished image. But in the words of Mr. Carney: “By failing to give consideration to the different degrees of participation in the fix, and by pretending that banning eight players solved the whole problem, [did] baseball officialdom perpetuate a cover-up?”

An interesting section on the “Woodland Bards”: a select group of Comiskey cronies that consisted of friends, fellow owners, former ballplayers, reporters, politicians, entertainers, gamblers, and drinking buddies and the role they played in the drama.

How the media distorted Jackson’s original Grand Jury statement, characterizing it as a “confession” instead of a “contradictory account of a confused witness,” neglecting to reveal that he repeatedly stated that he played all games to win.

After years of reading about the 1919 World Series, all the events in this sordid affair are finally starting to fall into place and to make sense to me, thanks largely to Mr. Carney and Burying the Black Sox. It would be hard to call this book the “definitive” version of the Black Sox scandal, only because, as Mr. Carney states, it raises as many new questions as it answers. But I think we can safely assume that Gene Carney is today’s foremost authority on the 1919 World Series; and he is to be commended for the diligence and thoroughness that he devotes to this highly emotional, highly controversial subject. It’s also safe to say that Burying the Black Sox is a “must-read” for anyone interested in discussing intelligently this sad chapter in baseball’s long and storied history.

Bill Burgess
04-21-2006, 08:11 PM
Thank you, Gary. I think it's safe to assume that you have rendered for us the definitive book review of Gene Carney's 'Burying the Black Sox'.

This is why I tried to bring him into our discussions here. His book easily tops my list of next-to-buy books, followed by the Tim Gay book on Tris Speaker. Good reading to y'all.

Bill Burgess

NiftyNabber
04-22-2006, 06:29 AM
Gotta get that book!! I've read "Shoeless Joe And Ragtime Baseball" by Harvey Frommer. I've also researched many web-sites on the subject. It's not hard to know which sites deal with facts, and which deal with fable.

I'm amused at how the "country bumpkin" has come into play in this story. True he couldn't read and write, but he wasn't retarded!! He did learn to read and write. Many feel because he wasn't a genius he was some poor ignorant country bumpkin, overwhelmed by the big buildings and bright lights of the city. To some extent this may have been true, in the early years of his career. By the time of the scandal, he had plenty of time to see the ways of the world.

I feel in short, Joe was in for the fix, that's why he was given money. He wouldn't have been given money if he wasn't due money, there was an understanding. But Joe wasn't paid as much he was told he would get. Now he figures He's the one being cheated. He can't go to the cops, so he goes to Commy. Commy rejects Joe. So Joe's only recourse is to double-cross the double-crossers. So he plays to win, but more likely, to get even. In his mind, he did no wrong, cause they wronged him first, and he tried to double- cross them. He didn't see that his crime was the initial agreement to cheat at all!

The more I find on this subject, the more I feel for Buck! Why are there so many willing to candy coat Joe's actions to give Joe a break, but Buck's crime was only by association.

yanks0714
04-22-2006, 08:38 AM
nice review - i have the book but haven't worked my way to it though - the meaningless cubs game was in august 1920

Help me understand this. Is this "meaningless" game the one where Lee Magee later testified to in court?

I just got done reading the Hal Chase book, 'The Black Prince of Baseball' and a reference was made to a thrown regular season game between the Cubs and somebody (Cards, Phillies, Reds???) with Lee Magee at center stage.

BTW, the Chase book is interesting and broaches into the 1919 Black Sox scandal quite a bit with information that I hadn't heard of before. If you support Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver, you may be re-thinking quite a bit after reading this book. It has me re-considering both of them.

yanks0714
04-22-2006, 08:47 AM
Gotta get that book!! I've read "Shoeless Joe And Ragtime Baseball" by Harvey Frommer. I've also researched many web-sites on the subject. It's not hard to know which sites deal with facts, and which deal with fable.

I'm amused at how the "country bumpkin" has come into play in this story. True he couldn't read and write, but he wasn't retarded!! He did learn to read and write. Many feel because he wasn't a genius he was some poor ignorant country bumpkin, overwhelmed by the big buildings and bright lights of the city. To some extent this may have been true, in the early years of his career. By the time of the scandal, he had plenty of time to see the ways of the world.

I feel in short, Joe was in for the fix, that's why he was given money. He wouldn't have been given money if he wasn't due money, there was an understanding. But Joe wasn't paid as much he was told he would get. Now he figures He's the one being cheated. He can't go to the cops, so he goes to Commy. Commy rejects Joe. So Joe's only recourse is to double-cross the double-crossers. So he plays to win, but more likely, to get even. In his mind, he did no wrong, cause they wronged him first, and he tried to double- cross them. He didn't see that his crime was the initial agreement to cheat at all!

The more I find on this subject, the more I feel for Buck! Why are there so many willing to candy coat Joe's actions to give Joe a break, but Buck's crime was only by association.

I'm not so sure anymore. Read 'The Black Prince of Baseball' by Dewey and Acocella. It has supported quotes in the book that Jackson and Weaver were involved in the fixing of regular season games BEFORE the 1919 WS.
Weaver doesn't come across as a choir boy at all in the book. There is also some very damning evidence agaisnt Joe Jackson in the book.
I need to get Carney's book and read it. Based on what I just read in the Chases book along with Carney's research and 'make up your own mind' writing, I may well end up on the anti-Jackson/Weaver side of the fence.

GaryL
04-22-2006, 11:59 AM
nice review - i have the book but haven't worked my way to it though - the meaningless cubs game was in august 1920

Oops! You're right - it was 1920, not 1919. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm going to edit the post pronto!

Bill Burgess
04-23-2006, 07:13 PM
Got this interesting email from Gene Carney this evening. Passing it on, in case anyone here might want to join.
---------------------------

Bill,
Just posted this for the B-Sox Yahoos ... if any of the Feverites are interested, this might be a good time to sample the Yahoo group, even if just for a few weeks or months.Gene

link to Yahoo at www.baseball1.com/carney easy to join


----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Carney
To: 1919 B-Sox
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: Revisiting that 1920 grand jury statement


In discussing the treatment of Shoeless Joe Jackson in my book over the past month, the statement he made to the Cook County grand jury on September 28, 1920, emerges as one document about which there is not much real agreement. Arguments about Jackson's role in the Fix often come down to how that statement is interpreted. Most books and articles characterize it as contradictory, confusing, and at best, ambiguous.

I've exchanged e-mail with several group members, including our founder and head umpire, Rod Nelson, and Road has given me a green light to try something out with this Yahoo group, 120+ and growing. And that is, to go thru Jackson's statement, section by section, and let everybody share their comments.

I will post the sections, but I am going to ask right now for help with that, in case I am away from my computer or the thing breaks down. I'd like to have at least one back-up ready to carry on.

It might be interesting if we had some scorekeepers, too ... using the boxing model, we will count each section as a "round" and award the rounds as we go along to Jackson, or to Baseball. (Well, he was banished by MLB, and it is MLB who could reinstate him.) I think some sections will be easy to award to Jackson (Q:"Did you bat to win?" A: "Yes" Q: "And run the bases to win?" A: "Yes, sir") and some to Baseball (Q: "Where did you put the $5,000, did you put it in the bank or keep it on your person?" A: "I put it in my pocket.") ... and some will have to be scored "an even round" -- no clear winner.

Here are some ground rules, and let's hear any objections or suggestions before we start.

1) We will use the transcript contributed by the law firm of Mayer, Brown and Platt to the Chicago Historical Society on October 19, 1988. The copy I have is typewritten, with corrections made in what looks like pencil, handwritten. It runs 27 pages. The cover page has Jackson starting to testify at 1:00 PM, with Hartley Replogle, the Asst State's Atty doing most of the questioning. If anyone has a copy of the transcript that disagrees with the one I'll be posting, please bring that to our attention.

2) Let's keep the discussion civil. I think there is plenty of expertise in this group, but I don't want a rule about documenting everything -- that would stifle discussion. But be prepared to give sources, if you have them. PLEASE feel free to bring into the discussion, everything you know from everything you have read or heard. Including Eight Men Out. Or one of the Jackson biographies. I really wish we were doing this with the Milwaukee Trial transcripts (maybe someday!) -- but I will share what I have from that source as we go along, too. (In fact, I might just post all my Jackson notes from the 1924 trial, so others can reference them.)

3) My initial suggestion is to post a section, and wait a week before posting the next one. That way, this thread will not dominate the whole group's discussion. And those interested will not need to check daily, to be sure they haven't missed anything. Let's play it by ear -- tell me if the sections seem too long or too short; too frequent or infrequent.

One thing to keep in mind is how this statement was reported in the press, the next day and down thru history. Many reported it as a confession -- and in some ways it was (EG, Jackson confessed to accepting $5,000). But Jackson himself bristled at the reports that said he confessed to throwing games. Let's see if there is any real basis for "leaking" that.

I don't think I need to do too much stage-setting for this group. It is September 28, 1920. The morning paper has a wire story out of Philadelphia, where Billy Maharg has told reporter James Isaminger that Sox players indeed accepted bribe money last October to tilt the Series to the Reds. Rube Benton has suggested that the grand jury ask Eddie Cicotte about that. The names of the eight players, whose names have been "bunched together" in nasty rumors since October 1919, have been published. (Eight WS checks had been withheld after the Series; when players complained, Comiskey's arch enemy, Ban Johnson, had those eight names.) On the morning of September 28, Eddie Cicotte voluntarily went to his team and confirmed that the Fix had been in, and he then went to the grand jury and did the same.

Both Cicotte and Jackson had met with the team's lawyer, Alfred Austrian, before going to the courthouse. All we know for certain is that they were both apparently advised to sign a waiver of immunity -- meaning whatever they told the grand jury, could be used against them in the future, if there was to be a prosecution. (In the cover letter to the transcript, Frank D. Mayer, Jr, notes: "As is true today, an employer's lawyer was not required by the rules of legal ethics to provide a Miranda-type warning to an employee suspected of dishonesty.") While we can all speculate about the advice Austrian gave Cicotte and Jackson (and Claude Williams, the next day), let's keep in mind that it is speculation. Asked in the 1924 trial if he had notes from his session with Jackson before they went to the grand jury, Austrian replied that he had not made a single note. Darn.

Without intending to prejudice anyone, I also want to point out that Jackson later said he was about half drunk when he went before Judge McDonald and the GJ. Let's see if there are signs of that in any of his statements. (Jackson was invited to return the the GJ the next morning, but he went out, apparently had some more drinks, and no-showed the next day.) I really wish we have video, or audio tapes!

Finally, let's keep in mind that ten months later, Cicotte, Jackson and Williams were in court again, on trial with five teammates, on charges of conspiracy to defraud. Advised by a team of lawyers, hired to salvage their careers (?), they each repudiated the statements they had made in 1920. They made no similar statements in 1921, and were acquitted. The fact that Jackson repudiated what he told the GJ in 1920 does not change what he said, or make it any less true or false. "In vino veritas," some think -- maybe he was under the influence of that good old truth serum, "hooch" (his word).

I think in our discussion, we do not need to stay on Jackson. He will talk about Lefty Williams and Cicotte and Chick Gandil, and most or all of the others who were later indicted. He will NOT talk much about Kid Gleason or Charles Comiskey. And I was reminded recently, discussing the statement with Bob F., how maddening it is at times to watch the way the questioning went. Judge McDonald and Hartley Replogle met with Jackson before he testified; by their accounts (and Jackson's later), they urged him to tell what he knew, so baseball could be cleansed of the gambling menance. The GJ was looking for names, and were not pleased when so few were confirmed or added.

I could be dead wrong, but I wonder if Eddie Cicotte and Joe Jackson woke up the morning before they testified, clinging to a shred of hope that by volunteering their stories -- they would not be subpoenaed until the pennant race was decided, and there were still three games left in the season -- by stepping forward, they might somehow be heroes -- doing their small part to cut the ties to gambling that were strangling baseball -- maybe even putting some crooks in jail. From everything I've read, Cicotte had a keen conscience and it had bothered him for a year. Jackson also told the press that he had gotten a load off his chest that day. By confirming the worst -- that the fix was in -- Joe said it was so -- they ended baseball's innocence, its days as America's clean, unfixable sport, were over.

OK, any questions? Suggestions? Anything I've forgot, to put this all in context? I'll wait a bit, then post the first section. AGAIN, I'd appreciate having a back up to help with that (weekly) task. Let's number the sections ("Rounds"), so we can keep track. If anyone misses a post (summertime! vacations!), this group has an archive where all posts can be looked up. Thanx, Rod, for encouraging this project. I have no idea where it might take us. But that's how it is, on the B-Sox trail.

Gene

redbuck
04-23-2006, 08:07 PM
Jackson is not innocent because he accepted the money.

The question is whether the Black Sox actually attempted to lose the Series, not whether they are innocent or guilty as charged.

According to my research, there is little or no statistical evidence to support the idea that 6 of the 8 players bet on baseball.

Jackson and Buck Weaver actually performed better in the Series than during the regular season. This isn't to say that they would have performed better during the series (as probability might lead to over as short as 8 games) but intentionally poor play prevented them from doing that.

Only Chick Gandil and Claude Williams performed outside a 95% confidence interval, meaning there is reason to believe, but not proof, that they tried to perform badly or just were affected by an unknown variable.

Visit sportparks.org (http://sportparks.org)for the full study.

enixon2@msn.com
04-23-2006, 09:18 PM
Help me understand this. Is this "meaningless" game the one where Lee Magee later testified to in court?

I just got done reading the Hal Chase book, 'The Black Prince of Baseball' and a reference was made to a thrown regular season game between the Cubs and somebody (Cards, Phillies, Reds???) with Lee Magee at center stage.

BTW, the Chase book is interesting and broaches into the 1919 Black Sox scandal quite a bit with information that I hadn't heard of before. If you support Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver, you may be re-thinking quite a bit after reading this book. It has me re-considering both of them.


From what I have read about Hal Chase being such a crook, why would I believe anything he says about Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver?? After all, Fred Lieb said he had a "corkscrew" brain. As well as being a crook, he was probably a liar as well.

wamby
04-28-2006, 11:06 AM
From Baseball's Pivotal Era by William Marshall, p. 243.

Branch Rickey on the reserve clause, April 13, 1949:

...Rickey charged the reserve clause was opposed by persons of "avowed Communist tendencies who deeply resent the continuance of our national pastime." Maintaining that the reserve clasue had worked out "splendidly," Rickey continued, "As far as I know, players favor the clause unanimously."

My comments: There was player support for the reserve clause, but I doubt if it was unanimous. Robert Murphy's attempt to unionize the Pirates had failed and it's hard to say if there was any substantial player support for the Mexican League jumpers. The players of the era seemed to be more concernded with establishing a pension plan than with reversing the reserve clause.

Also, ten years before this speech, avowed Communists were one of the few groups that actively called on baseball to integrate. This fact was later conviently forgotten by both Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson.

Bill Burgess
04-28-2006, 01:27 PM
Looking back, it is doubtful that a paper document was necessary to have a 'reserved system', even if the standardized contract lacked a 'reserve clause'.

If courts had ordered the baseball owners to delete that clause from their player contracts, all the owners would have done is abide by a 'gentleman's agreement', and not hire each other's players.

After all, isn't that how the color ban was enforced. There was no paperwork, only a 'silent, tacit consensus agreement' to not hire black baseball players.

Paperwork has never been necessary for people to do the wrong things. Bad things happen, or good things don't happen, in the absence of a loving heart. In that vacuum, any manner of bad things can happen when one is not treating their neighbor as they would like to be treated. An amoral heart needs no paperwork to act badly.

wamby
04-28-2006, 07:01 PM
If courts had ordered the baseball owners to delete that clause from their player contracts, all the owners would have done is abide by a 'gentleman's agreement', and not hire each other's players.

.

The owners did exactly that at the end of the 1918 season. Reserve clause aside, they made a gentlemens agreement to release all players when the season ended on Labor Day, costing each player about a months salary and they agreed not sign any of the other owners players, even though technically, this left virtually every player as a free agent.

Ubiquitous
04-28-2006, 08:38 PM
I doubt a gentlemens agreement would last. All it would take is one owner to buck the system and it would all come crashing down. Collusion failed long before the courts ruled on it because the owners couldn't maintain the solidarity necessary to keep it going. All it would take is a Yawkey with loads of money and a desire for his team to get good in a hurry to destroy the gentlemens agreement. Rebellious owners is one of the primary reasons they wrote down the reserve clause in the first place.

Look back on history especially in the Ban Johnson teens years and see all of the transaction squabbles that were going on. This player in the minors is mine, no he's mine, so on and so on.

Bill Burgess
04-28-2006, 08:44 PM
I doubt a gentlemens agreement would last. All it would take is one owner to buck the system and it would all come crashing down. Collusion failed long before the courts ruled on it because the owners couldn't maintain the solidarity necessary to keep it going. All it would take is a Yawkey with loads of money and a desire for his team to get good in a hurry to destroy the gentlemens agreement. Rebellious owners is one of the primary reasons they wrote down the reserve clause in the first place.

Look back on history especially in the Ban Johnson teens years and see all of the transaction squabbles that were going on. This player in the minors is mine, no he's mine, so on and so on.

Quite right, Ubi. It is not clear what might have happened. After all, in the age of free agency, collusion to keep player salaries down has failed, due to the independence of certain owners.

But, OTOH, collsuion did, in fact, work quite well, even in the absence of paperwork, in the maintenance of the invisible Color Ban. So, knowing the what-ifs of history are quite academic to guess.

Ubiquitous
04-28-2006, 08:46 PM
Race relations is quite a different thing. Jim Crow, Law enforced segregation, animosity, and so forth is certainly different then getting together to keep players from jumping. Its an entirely different motivation.

Bill Burgess
04-28-2006, 11:53 PM
Race relations is quite a different thing. Jim Crow, Law enforced segregation, animosity, and so forth is certainly different then getting together to keep players from jumping. Its an entirely different motivation.

How true. Keeping the races separate is different than other financial considerations. And yet, getting 16 team owners to sacrifice team success for racial segregation, worked from 1885-1945, until one man decided to put team success ahead of racial segregation. That's all it took. One brave man. And look at how long it took. It amazes me, even today.

leecemark
04-29-2006, 06:20 AM
--Put into the context of American society of those years it is not surprising at all. Segregation was the norm. The battle over integration was still being fought (in more important arenas than baseball) 20-30 years after Robinson broke the MLB color line. And it isn't as if bigotry and discrimination have been 100% overcome even today.

wamby
04-29-2006, 07:21 AM
I'm sure most of the owners thought that integration was inevitable, but like most civil rights issues it would happene 'soon'. It will be soon, we're not just ready yet.

I think Branch Rickey had three things in mind with integrating the Dodgers:
1) Make a social statement
2) Tap into a new source of talent
3) Tap into a new source of consumer dollars

Rickey always said reason number one was why he did it, but I suspect that reason number two was really his main motivation.

In a social context, I don't the integration of baseball is something that took a long time. Robinson's signing in late 1945 took place nearly ten years before Brown v Board of Education and twenty years before the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.

In a fairly roundabout way you can thank Adolf Hitler for the signing of Jackie Robinson. The Ardennes Offensive in December, 1944 became the first time since the Civil War that balck units did any major fighting on the front lines. I think thisa was a real tipping point. When America entered the war, it was widely doubted that the black man could perform in combat. They could and I think this started a change of thinking in a lot whit veterans of the war.

I've read that there was a survey in the late 30s of NL players which that the majority would accept a black teammate. Maybe a visionary owner could have integrated a NL team in around 1938. If this were the case the player might not have been able to play with team in St Louis or Cincinnati. I don't know the effect it would have had on the box office though. Or on spring training.

Bill Burgess
04-29-2006, 07:24 AM
It has long been my belief, that it was significant that Branch Rickey waited until Judge Landis was dead, and Happy Chandler was Commissioner, before he made his bold move.

I wonder what would have happened, if the first Commissioner had been of a different mind concerning integration, since 1920. In other words, if Branch Rickey had made his move in 1920, would he have still succeeded, or would the other owners have found ways of blocking him/Commissioner off.

Could the Jackie Robinson moment have occurred in 1921, if one brave man, with the same strong Commissioner's support, have made history much earlier? An unknowable question, to be sure, but a tantalizing one, nonetheless.

I have also long believed that American society are like a herd of sheep, in dire need of an enlightened shepherd. What if the shepherd had arrived ahead of schedule, sooner on the curve than actually happened.

Or do you really think that the Jackie Robinson moment occurred as early as society would have tolerated? True, American society, compared to today, was quite racist, but it still allowed the Jackie Robinson breakthrough to happen.

I grant you it was Rickey/Chandler, but it also had a strong supporter in Ford Frick, NL Pres. It was Frick, I believe, to read the racist players their 'Miranda Right's' riot act, in no uncertain terms, when some threatened to boycott games in which Robinson appeared. Frick let them know they'd be expelled, en masse, immediately, no appeal. It worked like a charm. Would it have worked in 1920, is my question today.

Bill Burgess

wamby
04-29-2006, 07:27 AM
It has long been my belief, that it was significant that Branch Rickey waited until Judge Landis was dead, and Happy Chandler was Commissioner, before he made his bold move.

I wonder what would have happened, if the first Commissioner had been of a different mind concerning integration, since 1920. In other words, if Branch Rickey had made his move in 1920, would he have still succeeded, or would the other owners have found ways of blocking him/Commissioner off.

Could the Jackie Robinson moment have occurred in 1921, if one brave man, with the same strong Commissioner's support, have made history much earlier? An unknowable question, to be sure, but a tantalizing one, nonetheless.

I have also long believed that American society are like a herd of sheep, in dire need of an enlightened shepherd. What if the shepherd had arrived ahead of schedule, sooner on the curve than actually happened.

Or do you really think that the Jackie Robinson moment occurred as early as society would have tolerated?

Bill Burgess

With the state of race relations in post-WWI America, I think integration in 1921 would have been a fast failure, possibly with a violent conclusion. I have no trouble imanging a black major leaguer getting lynched while at spring training in a southern locale.

I think the Jackie Robinson moment actually occured more quickly than society would have tolerated it. I don't think civil rights were really supported my mainstream America until the early 60s.

I think that Branch Rickey may have relished a fight with Landis on this issue, as payback for how Landis tried to decimate the farm systems.

leecemark
04-29-2006, 07:29 AM
--It is certainly possible that some bold and progressive individual could have broken the color barrier earlier. There was no societal pressure to do so though. Quite the opposite.

wamby
04-29-2006, 07:49 AM
the obvious question is - if this is true why didn't he do it?

There is no way that St Louis could have been the site to begin integrating baseball and by the time Rickey arrived in Brookly, the US was in WWII. If he had tried integrating during the war, I think it would have been perceived as a cheap stunt (like it probably would have been if Bill Veeck tried it first in Cleveland) and/or a temporary war-time measure. By the time the war was over, Landis was dead.

yanks0714
04-29-2006, 07:50 AM
From what I have read about Hal Chase being such a crook, why would I believe anything he says about Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver?? After all, Fred Lieb said he had a "corkscrew" brain. As well as being a crook, he was probably a liar as well.

Very few, if any, quotes in the book are attributed to Chase on either Jackson or Weaver.
The author of the book branches out, away from, Chase, to look into the fixing of the 1919 WS. He provides quite a different viewpoint, complete with documented quotes from other sources than Chase himself , on Jackson and Weaver being 'dirty' before the '19 WS.
The author did not attempt to cleanse Chases's reputation, in fact, he does not block out any of Chases's many failings in baseball nor his personal life. This book made me rethink my position of Jackson and Weaver quite a bit....still is. Much of the writing is straight forward with no axe to grind. The quotes are quite clear and concise.
I need to read Gene Carney's book, coupled with what I've read in the Chase book to try to make a clear cut determination of Jackson and Weaver.

wamby
04-29-2006, 07:52 AM
Very few, if any, quotes in the book are attributed to Chase on either Jackson or Weaver.
The author of the book branches out, away from, Chase, to look into the fixing of the 1919 WS. He provides quite a different viewpoint, complete with documented quotes from other sources than Chase himself , on Jackson and Weaver being 'dirty' before the '19 WS.
The author did not attempt to cleanse Chases's reputation, in fact, he does not block out any of Chases's many failings in baseball nor his personal life. This book made me rethink my position of Jackson and Weaver quite a bit....still is. Much of the writing is straight forward with no axe to grind. The quotes are quite clear and concise.
I need to read Gene Carney's book, coupled with what I've read in the Chase book to try to make a clear cut determination of Jackson and Weaver.

Which Chase book are you referring to?

Bill Burgess
04-29-2006, 08:03 AM
It is far from my intention to canonize St. Branch. I fully remember his staunch stance saying all the players were unanimous in support of the reserve clause! So, I do not paint him in pastels.

I am simply wondering if the racial breakthrough might have succeeded, if a few strong individuals had made a 'bold move' much earlier.

If we all agree that Landis was an obstacle, and we nullify that one factor, what other factors were so intransigent as to block the progress at an earlier moment on the social progress curve? Did black soldiers in WWII help the cause? Because if they did, why didn't black soldiers have a similar impact in WWI? I don't have the answers. That's why I'm throwing it open for discussion.

Bill Burgess
04-29-2006, 08:08 AM
I just realized I'm getting too far afield on the wrong thread. I hate when that happens.

I wonder if Gene Carney's 'Burying The Black Sox", will influence anyone's mind with respect to Joe Jackson's Innocence?

So far, no one from the anti-Jackson camp have weighed in as to whether Gene has persuaded anyone to evolve their positions.

Bill

leecemark
04-29-2006, 09:30 AM
--Evolve implies an improvement. What you are hoping for is a change, but not an improvement. I haven't read the book, but from what has been posted of Gene's work I think it can as easily support either side of the issue. In any case, it confirms enough of Jackson's actions to support his banishment IMO.

Bill Burgess
04-29-2006, 10:53 AM
Wish you'd define your terms a bit more finely, Mark. I haven't read Gene's book either, but it appears from what Gary wrote in his fine book review, that Gene makes a big distinction on Jackson that you don't (can't/won't).

Gene sounds adamant that Joe took the envelope from Lefty Williams, so he's guilty of accepting tainted money. But Gene is equally adamant that Joe:

A. Never confessed to throwing a game, or intended for his GJ testimony to be interpreted that way.

B. underwent a public process to determine whether his peers considered him guilty or not of throwing a game. And the 2nd trial clearly showed that when EVERYTHING was laid out on the table, 11 out of 12 strangers did not believe Jackson threw a game in the World Series, which was the premise under consideration. The way the trial was structured, before the jury could award Jackson his back pay settlement, they had to first determine if he had actually thrown a game. And the trial focused on that very narrow question, with all the chips laid on the table. But sides went all in.

Gene also gives strong credibility to the fact that Comiskey was willing to lose the 2nd trial by admitting that he (Comiskey) never believed that Jackson was in on the fix, even though he accepted an envelope of tainted money.

Carney also gives strong credibility to those jury members, because they could hear voice inflections, read body language, look into someone's eyes, hear the original GJ testimony, listen to L. Williams, Comiskey, Grabiner, Austrian, Mrs. Katie Jackson, etc.

So, Mark, the big difference remains between you and the majority opinion. You believe that if Jackson accepted money, he threw games. And you are comfortable to ban someone who didn't throw games, but accepted bad money.

So far, those who disagree with you BIG TIME are: Carney, me, Comiskey, 11 members of the jury of the 2nd trial, and most Fever members.

Maybe there is a loophole for you, Mark. What would you think about this alternative option? Reinstate Jackson to baseball, because he didn't throw a game, but keep the Hall of Fame ban, due to his accepting dirty money?

See? Aren't I accommodating, trying to find you an escape clause from your tiny minority dissent rowboat?

Bill

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 11:20 AM
I've read it and it didn't change my opinion.

Carney presents a lot of information. Describes the situation and who was saying what very well. He gives you some of his opinions but for the most part he tries to just tell the story and let oneself decide what the evidence means. Reading the book you will definitely see that saying Joe Jackson is innocent is not clear cut (nor is saying Joe Jackson guilty) and their is no "aha!" moment in the book where you would say "see there right there that proves it Joe is innocent". Heck reading the book one could also argue that Cicotte was innocent or any or all of the eight players were innocent of throwing the ballgames.






We look back on the case and we see a lot in hindsight but by doing that we sometimes lose our understanding of why some things were said and why other things were not. We add theories and reasons why people did things that they themselves never presented. We see that Comiskey said he thought Joe played to win and we look at that as clear cut evidence that he did not in fact throw games. We don't think that Comiskey might have ulterior motives for saying that, namely to protect is own knowledge of the fixing and his attempts to cover it up. Which is what Carney's book is really about. Hence the name of his book. If Comiskey admits in the second trial that he thought Joe was crooked during the series he would then have to answer a whole series of uncomfortable questions. Ones that can land him in more hot-water then simply losing a salary squabble with Joe Jackson.

We look back and see that 11 jurists sided with JOe and Gene even mentions that we cannot hear or see what they heard but he and many assume that as a positive for Joe. That what the jurists saw and heard was real and honest and that they voted real and honestly. Why should we assume that is true? Why does what they heard and saw have to be the correct and actuall version of what really happened? In the modern day we have been able to gain access to court proceedings and does anyone here honestly believe that the truth and justice is actually taking place in courtrooms? It's not happening, court is an opinion swaying forum. The point of court is not to set the truth free or correct injustices but to convince someone to your side of the story. This can be achieved many ways and quite a few of them have nothing to do with the truth and honesty. 11 jurists could have sat in that courtroom and indeed did hear the truth and voted correctly. OR they could have heard misinformation or had pre-formed biases or a host of other things going on. In otherwords like I have said from the beginning 11 jurists saying guilty or not guilty is not a bullet in the coffin. If those 11 jurists came back saying that Joe indeed threw the series therefore he is not entitled to backpay many of you guys would be arguing that the jury verdict means nothing. The jury verdict only means something if it happens to side with your view otherwise it doesn't mean a thing.

Bill Burgess
04-29-2006, 12:07 PM
I'm sure I'll have more to say after I've read Gene's book. But I read your comments very carefully. Guess Carney didn't influence you on Jackson, Ubi. But I must respectfully disagree with you on a point or two.

What you said about the 2nd jury verdict doesn't impress me. Sure, I know as well as anyone that juries can blow it. Look at the first OJ case, or both the Robert Blakely/Michael Jackson cases. But there were logical reasons why those juries came back not guilty.

1st OJ - His lawyers out-lawyers the state's attorneys Clark/Darden. Then Mark Furmen muddied the waters, and there was just too much reasonable doubt. Cochrane ran over Judge Ito, jury was heavily black and wanted give a popular sports idol too much presumption of innocence.

Blakely was guilty but the state couldn't prove it. M. Jackson couldn't be proven.

But for you to assume that the Joe Jackson jury blew it just matches your own preconceived assumptions. Some have assumed that they were White Sox fans, but that likelihood isn't strong. Not for all 11.

If anything, the Jackson side had a strong presumption of guilt to overcome. The papers had all represented the GJ testimony as a 'confession', which enraged Jackson. The media led the public to believe that Jackson was a fixer, and Jackson had to overcome that.

Also, hearing the GJ testimony read by professional lawyers was a heavy burden to overcome. But Jackson had a trump card. And that was his inherent honesty. The very fact that he admitted upfront, that he had accepted the gambler's money, gave him HUGE credibility in the eyes of the jury. If he admitted that, why would he lie about throwing games. Neither one was illegal.

If one puts themselves in the minds of the jury, taking money offered, without strings, and then doing the right thing and playing honest, might seem like a totally logical, rational thing to do. Why not take so much money, if there were no strings attached that could be enforced?

Of course, it would have been better to not touch the envelope and just leave the room. But I do not see it as heavily immoral or unethical to take that money, so long as you still played all out to win. As far as I'm concerned, whoever gave Joe the money was ridiculous. I think Williams wanted his friend to have a lot of money, whether he threw or not.

But my point is that to cast aspersions on that particular jury, has no basis that I can see. Did their verdict prove anything? No. But did it mean anything? Yes. It meant a lot.

That jury had more to base their verdict on than Fever members ever will. They heard all the incriminating stuff, and overcame the strong anti-Jackson bias the media had created in the public mind. You can think perhaps one, two or three jurists lost their way, but all 11? That's a stretch. A very big stretch.

To assume that I'd ignore their verdict if it disagreed with my beliefs is not something you can say. You do not know how my mind functions. If I don't, how could YOU?

And to say that Comiskey only admitted he felt Jackson played to win due to larger issues, is also leaning hard the wrong way. The logical thing for Comiskey to say was that he originally believed that Jackson played to win, but at some point later on, he changed his mind, sometime after he signed him to play for 1920. For him to voluntarily lose his case means a lot to us unbiased fans.

But if Gene couldn't persuade you, Ubi, I know that I can't begin to make a dent in your beliefs.

Bill

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 12:23 PM
Theres a lot of things COmiskey could have done and a lot of things that Joe could have done. Neither did which is why it got to the point it did and is still a quagmire today.

Personally I don't think Carney in his book was trying to persuade people one way or the other on Joe's innocence. Carney sides with the view that 11 people thought Joe was innocent. Well okey-dokey, Ban Johnson thought Joe was guilty, Landis thought he was guilty, many people who looked into it and reported on it thought he was guilty. So they don't count? For some reason they didn't know what was going on? They didn't look into it? Those 11 jurists were not the only ones to know what happened, even if they did fully know what happened. Something I severly doubt. SOme of that testimony during the 1924 trial I think was lies.


Secondly Comiskey wasn't and didn't voluntarily lose his case. His side of the case was never that he fired him because of throwing the world series. From the beginning of the trial it wasn't, to make it about the world series would drag Comiskey into a mudhole that would get him dirty. They were arguing that they dismissed him and were allowed to do so because of the standard clause in the contract. Joe's side was saying he thought the clause was out and they correctly turned the issue into something else. They turned into a court proceeding about the guilt and innocence of the throwing the world series. Just like OJ's lawyers turned it into a trial of the LAPD, or when a rapists puts the victim on trial by questioning their character. In reality this court case was a standard contract dispute that got turned into a trial that had nothing to do with contracts.



Unless I missed it Carney's book (and maybe it doesn't exist anymore) never documents what Joe's defense was of the missing grand jury testimony. I have yet to read what Joe had to say about his conflicting testimony in both court proceedings. He presents an entirely different timeline in the second trial and we never here what he has to say about why it is different then the first timeline. Nor do we hear what the other side did with the information. We merely here that Comiskey's side presented the info and then ended up winning the trial. Thats it.

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 12:30 PM
To assume that I'd ignore their verdict if it disagreed with my beliefs is not something you can say. You do not know how my mind functions. If I don't, how could YOU?


okay fair enough, so let's flip it around and do a what if.

You're flipping through a book and you come across an entry about Joe Jackson and a civil trial in 1924. You've never come across anything about a 1924 civil trial about Joe Jackson and Comiskey. At the end of the entry it says and the jury verdict was 11-1 to in favor of COmiskey and the questions the jury had to answer in order to come to a decision was: "Do you believe that JOe Jackson threw the World SEries?", and 11 jurists said yes to the question.

Now then what would be your opinion now? What would you think of the 11 jurists? Would you change your opinion, would you now believe that Joe Jackson did indeed throw the world series because 11 jurists said so?

Bill Burgess
04-29-2006, 01:41 PM
Now then what would be your opinion now? What would you think of the 11 jurists? Would you change your opinion, would you now believe that Joe Jackson did indeed throw the world series because 11 jurists said so?
Even though it is hard to go back and imagine what I would think, I believe that would influence me. It was that trial which had a lot to do with my originally believing in Jackson's innocence.

I never heard that they were tampered with, bribed, were fans, or anything else which would have prejudiced them one way or another. And I do believe that they were read the original GJ testimony of Jackson's. So, after hearing that, Jackson had to overcome that contradictory, conflicting mess.

Why would I think that those 11 people would cut Jackson a break, like the OJ jury did for Simpson? Jackson had been mauled in the press, and alleged to have 'confessed'. Why would strangers off the street owe him anything? If anything, they should have been disgusted with him and leaning against him.

You still claim it was a standard contract dispute. Was it? Really? Wasn't the contract violated when Comiskey suspended him, on suspicion of game throwing? So wouldn't Comiskey have to substantiate his suspending of Jackson, and prove he was justified? Contracts can be terminated under certain, good reasons, and Comiskey had to meet his burden that his suspension of Jackson was based on something real. Otherwise he had to abide by the 3 yr. contract and pay off the 2 unpaid yrs.

So, I agree with you that the trial was based on a contract dispute over unpaid back pay. But the terms led logically to the disputed 1919 WS, and I really can't see how that elephant in the living room could be ignored. How can you?

Bill

wamby
04-29-2006, 06:20 PM
It is far from my intention to canonize St. Branch. I fully remember his staunch stance saying all the players were unanimous in support of the reserve clause! So, I do not paint him in pastels.

I am simply wondering if the racial breakthrough might have succeeded, if a few strong individuals had made a 'bold move' much earlier.

If we all agree that Landis was an obstacle, and we nullify that one factor, what other factors were so intransigent as to block the progress at an earlier moment on the social progress curve? Did black soldiers in WWII help the cause? Because if they did, why didn't black soldiers have a similar impact in WWI? I don't have the answers. That's why I'm throwing it open for discussion.

I don't think that black soldiers in WWI had much of an impact on the public's consciousness for two reasons: first, the war was too short (for the American forces at least) and not enough blacks saw combat.

I also think the racial climate was much worse in 1919 than in 1946. In 1919, there were cases of black soldiers (in uniform) being lynched. I haven't read anything like that happening after World War II.

I don't think there would have been the slightest chance of baseball integration working in the 1919 era.

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 08:20 PM
I think there might be a slight misunderstanding on how courts work. The jurists could be absolutely correct in their ruling and still get it wrong. The jury only hears and sees what the two sides present to them. They do not have the plethora of information that we have. They don't get to see the history or background of everything and everything else that we get to see whenever we want.

Now then if Frank says I did not steal from John and John says Frank did not steal from me then the jury is going to come back with a not guilty verdict for Frank. That does not mean that Frank did not steal from John. John could be unaware that Frank stole from him, he could be lying to prevent revealing something that he is involved in or he simply could be covering for Frank. But the point is the jury can only rule on what they have been told. They cannot take a timeout and go and investigate themselves or come back in 20 years and make a ruling.

In this case you have Joe Jackson saying he did not throw games and we have Comiskey saying Joe did not throw games. Now of course the jury is going to come back with the view that Joe did not throw games. That doesn't mean Joe did not throw games. It simply means that 11 people based on what they were told decided Joe did not throw games.

We looking back can find and see flaws in Joes and Comiskey's statement that make some of their statements dubious. At the time the jurists did not have that luxury.

I'm away from my stuff but Comiskey wasn't really trying to say he fired Joe because he threw games. He fired Joe because he had the legal right to do so. JOe countered that he was tricked and that he did not believe the clause was in the contract. If that was true then COmiskey would need a valid reason to fire him. If the case was merely about throwing games then why was it in court? Why was Comiskey fighting the case? He was on the stand and said Joe did not fix games. If he believed that and this case was about Joe throwing games then why did it reach the courts? Comiskey and his lawyers are not stupid, if they are in complete agreement with Joe on his side then they wouldn't fight it in court. No Comiskey didn't want to pay Joe his money because he believed he didn't have to. He believed he had the legal right to not pay him, Joe disagreed hence the lawsuit. Joe's side turned it into the world series when they said they were promised the clause would not be in the contract. SO the valid reason for firing became an issue.

If Joe had said yep I agreed on the clause then it would be a pretty open and shut case. Comiskey excorsized his legal right in voiding the contract. Poof all done. But of course Joe did not say that.

Bill Burgess
04-29-2006, 08:50 PM
Ubi,

I can see and understand your ponts, even if I disagree. I can see as well as you that both Joe/Commie has powerful motive to lie. I can see that it was in Comiskey's greater interest to say he thought Joe played to win. Saved him even more damaging/embarrassing questions. Why would he hire a crooked team for 1920? If his crooked players got expelled, his team investment was devastated.

So, of course, I can see the angle as well as the next person. But that really doesn't assist the anti-Jackson camp to prove their beliefs either. There is a saying in medicine. If you hear hoofbeats, think horses before you think zebras. In other words, take the simplest, most reasonable path.

I said it earlier, Comiskey could have had it both ways. He simply could have claimed he was fooled and had come to see things differently later. He didn't have to say that he believed Jackson played clean in the second trial. I actually admire him for that one point. He said something good & true when he had no compulsion to do so. Would have been much to his advantage to allege he was fooled, and since changed his mind.

In fact, I really don't know why Comiskey contested the backpay issue at all. Would have served his best interests to pay Joe, kept it strictly confidential, and avoided the embarrassing publicity of a trial altogether.

By accepting the legal process, he put himself in the uncomfortable position of having his attorney's admit they were in possession of stolen state GJ testimony, and saying Jackson played clean. Why did Commie do it? I don't know. Why didn't he deal with Joe secretly? Sidestepped the whole mess. Do you have any ideas why Commie went to trial?

Bill

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 09:57 PM
The GJ testimony that comiskey had did not have to be stolen. Its a view that has been assumed but there is no reason it has to be true. I mentioned in an earlier thread (or even perhaps this one) that private parties had the testimony even during and immediately after the first trial. Several members working for the government switched sides and worked for some of the defendants and their backers, They brought along the documents. For instance the public found out that Rothstein had the GJ testimony he had it because one of the attornies in the DA's office brought it with him when he switched sides.



Again I think Comiskey went to trial because he believed he didn't have to pay Joe and that their was no reason to pay Joe. Why pay Joe when he is no longer allowed to play? It's basically flushing money down the drain. I'm at my research now and the dispute came down to the ten-day clause and whether or not it was agreed on to be waived. If it wasn't then COmiskey could fire Joe without cause or reason as long as he gave him a ten day notice. If it was waived then Comiskey would have to prove a reason why he was fired. So for Jackson it was a two prong attack. Show that he was misled or that the clause was indeed waived and that the team had no real reason to fire him. For Comiskey he needed to show that the clause was agreed on. Everything else didn't matter. He could say anything he wanted about Joe. He could say Joe was framed, Joe was a *******, anything and it would not jeopardize the view that the clause was agreed on. The presenting of the past GJ testimony was basically Joe's nail in his coffin. It showed Joe to be a liar which meant that the court could not take seriously his claim that the clause was waived. It's a fine point of legality that was lost on the jurists which is why the Judge set aside the verdict. The jury was basically ignoring the law or I should say not following the law.

Secondly I think the jury got it wrong. One of the instructions to the jury was to answer whether or not Joe was in on the conspiracy. Not a major player not an active fixer just part of the conspiracy. The jury said no he was not. Looking at the same evidence they saw and more I cannot possibly believe that answer, and most people even those in Jackson's camp do not believe Joe was a total innocent in this.


Bu on a sidenote even Carney barely covers the 1924 case. In that I mean the actual amount of raw primary material the reader sees is very light compared to all that we have seen on the first trial and the fix itself. Perhaps most of it no longer exists, perhaps he couldn't get the rights to publish it I don't know. But the 1924 trial is sprinkled throughout the book and we only see a glimpse of the transcripts in the book. It would a wonderful companiion piece to the book if one was able to read the court transcripts themselves. For instance I have still not found out what Joe's answer was to the first GJ testimony. What was asked of him and what were his answers. Granted I should head to my library and read the Gropman book but even that I beleive has only partial transcripts.

Bill Burgess
04-29-2006, 10:14 PM
There remain some of your points that I do not understand. You and Judge Reple allege that Joe Jackson perjured himself in the first trial. I do not see what that point is.

In the GJ testimony, (Joe never testified in the first trial), he admitted he took $5,000. but played to win. He repeatedly said he tried at all times to win all the games, committed no errors, etc. So where is his perjury? Where is the lie? I don't get it. What did he change?

In his GJ testimony, he never told Chick Gandil he was in. For a point to be real, there must be a 'meeting of the minds'. Did the fixers/Jackson have an understanding that Joe was with them? What can anyone show me that substantiates that? And don't tell me that accepting money represents a 'tacit' agreement. It represents no such thing. Taking that much money when someone presses it on you without ANY strings does not constitute in any form, an agreement to participate in a conspiracy. It does not translate into, "I will now throw games." To me it means, "Thanks you very much, suckers."

So, where is the perjury? Where are the lies? What did Jackson change in the second trial?

Bill

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 10:45 PM
Second trial:
Joe Jackson said he got the money after the series. Got the money because they used his name, and that he wasn't involved.

First trial:
Jackson says he got the money after the 4th game. Jackson says he agreed to fix the series for 20,000 dollars. Jackson says he goes and talks to Chick and says he is out of the fix.

In the first GJ testimony Jackson says he agreed to take 20,000 for throwing the series. AFter a game he asks for money, they throw another game, he asks for money, finally he gets some money he complains that it wasn't all that was promised goes to see Cicotte (I beleive), then goes to see Chick and threatens to go to Comiskey. Virtually any part of what he said in the first GJ constitute involvment in a conspiracy.

Jacksons testimony in the second trial is completely different then his GJ testimony how is one or the other not perjury?

I've posted the statements before probably even on this very thread.


The judge does not decide which trial he is lying in. He simply knows that he has lied under oath somewhere which calls into question is honesty in the proceedings.

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 10:55 PM
Here is what I wrote before:

In the grand jury testimony Joe talks a lot about the money and how much each player got. For a person who supposedly had this money fall in his lap he sure was concerned about getting his fair share. He talks about them having conversations before during and after the series about the pay and what each person got. It even continues on into spring training of next year.

Another point is that in his testimony he talks about a meeting in after the 4th game and after he got his money in which he talks to Cicotte about the money and about how much he was supposed to get.

The defenders of Jackson on BBF push the view that the money was given to Joe without his knowledge or his consent. So far as I can tell this is the only place that this view is actually pushed.

Joe says he knew about the fix well before the series, and that he agreed to take part for $20,000. But somehow that gets turned into this rather silly notion in which Joe is given $5,000 because they used his name and they felt he should get some compensation for that. Even though the players got ripped off by the gamblers and Chick ripped off his fellow teammates they still felt a guy who supposedly had nothing to do with the fix and had no knowledge that they used his should get some money for it.


http://seansatt.pbwiki.com/f/jackson4.gif

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 11:14 PM
One more thing here is the question that it seems a lot jackson supporters want to hang there hat on in regards to the 1924 trial.

6. 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 Series to the Cincinnati Baseball Club? Answer: NO.

And I'll say the same thing I said when first presented that. There is no other possible answer one can return but a no. Jackson could not have unlawfully conspired to do anything in regards to the 1919 series. Rightly or wrongly Jackson was found innocent of any wrongdoing in the 1921 criminal trial.

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 11:15 PM
I found some more excerpts I posted:

Ubiquitous
04-29-2006, 11:16 PM
second part:

yanks0714
04-30-2006, 06:17 AM
Which Chase book are you referring to?

'The Black Prince of Baseball' by Dewy and Acocella.

Ubiquitous
04-30-2006, 09:02 AM
why? fraud is not illegal?

just because there wasn't any formal baseball rules against it doesn't make it legal - the laws that govern the united states supersede baseball - and this applies to steroids as well - individual employee contracts do not need to include a full listing of the laws of the land

the tossing of the 1919 world series was fraud committed against the people of the united states - it's amazing people still don't get that - one can argue the Jackson case all he/she wants but come on - wake up and recognize that something wrong occurred

I'm not sure if I understand your point at all.

The 1921 trial was held to decide whether the Sox fixing the World Series was a criminal act. In fact they were tried on fraud charges. The jury found them not guilty, therefore the committed no crime. So their actions could not be unlawful.


Secondly the fix was probably not fraud upon the fans of America, not defined by law. Though one could argue that it was fraud upon their fellow sox players whose damages were real. Their World Series were less because they lost. Yet the jury even found them not guilty of this. One of the charges was fraud against Ray Schalk.

Bill Burgess
04-30-2006, 09:23 AM
I'm not sure if I understand your point at all.

The 1921 trial was held to decide whether the Sox fixing the World Series was a criminal act. In fact they were tried on fraud charges. The jury found them not guilty, therefore the committed no crime. So their actions could not be unlawful.


Secondly the fix was probably not fraud upon the fans of America, not defined by law. Though one could argue that it was fraud upon their fellow sox players whose damages were real. Their World Series were less because they lost. Yet the jury even found them not guilty of this. One of the charges was fraud against Ray Schalk.
Ubi,

You just undermined all your good work from post 311. I do believe that the fixers committed fraud against the White Sox team, their honest fellow Sox, Comiskey, the baseball public, etc.

Fans have every right to expect that all games will be contested to the best of the participants abilities. NO excuses. There could have been many reasons for the NOT GUILTY verdict.

1. The state lawyers could have been out-lawyered. Out-prepared.
2. The judge might not have been technically sharp.
3. The DA might not have charged the appropriate charges, hence the jurists might have had their collective hands/judgments tied.
4. Much of the necessary information might have been missing, withheld, unavailable for various reasons.
5. Witnesses might have lied.
6. Alliances behind the scenes might have shifted.
7. The jurists might have been biased going in.
8. Jurists might have been tampered with, bribed, intimidated by the mere presence of certain, powerful gamblers.
9. Vital evidence, such as the GJ testimonies, might have turned up 'missing'.

And even if none of the above occurred, as you said earlier, juries don't always get verdicts right, even under the best of circumstances.

Landis understood that a fraud against the fans had occurred all right. I simply think he erred in lumping Jackson in with them. But I have zero tolerance for any athlete that fails to give their 100% best in trying to win their competitions. Anything less is cheating their fans. And I will not have that.

Bill

Ubiquitous
04-30-2006, 09:36 AM
No I didn't. Its a legal point one that the Judge of the first trial clearly understood.

Here is his instructions to the jury:

He told them that to return a guilty verdict they must find the players conspired "to defraud the public and others, and not merely throw ballgames."


Secondly I never said the jury got it right. What I am saying is that based on the 1921 trial the players actions were not criminal. I am saying that proving fraud in this case was going to be difficult and as it turns out it was. I have no idea how they proved that Schalk wasn't defrauded. It seems both sides ignored the actual charges and focused on other things. For instance the defenses closing remarks all but admitted they fixed the games but so what we didn't think we would hurt anybody. Kind of an amazing statement to make:

"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."

I think he was saying we took the gamblers money but we were not going to throw the series so therefore we didn't do anything wrong. At least I think that is his view. Its hard to tell since much of everything else about the trial is missing.

Bill Burgess
04-30-2006, 10:01 AM
I think a fraud was committed, even if no one could prove it. The 1st trial was certainly a monkey trial. It proved nothing. The state couldn't prove a game was thrown, and the players didn't prove they tried to win.

Here is more to what I feel is important in my head. It didn't matter if the players discussed throwing games. It doesn't impress me that Jackson discussed taking money.

Discussing throwing isn't throwing. Discussing, considering, arguing is not the act itself. Conspiracy itself is not a crime in my mind. Not until someone does something to lose a game onfield. THEN we have our fraud.

Many discuss, brag, plan, write down elaborate, step-by-step details of how to do wrong. Many guys brag about talking back to cops. Or asking certain women out for dates. But until they put up, they should shut up. Bragging ain't doing. Until one actually throws a game, asks someone out, or does what they say they will do, it's all smoke and wind. Just the garden-variety chit chat BS you hear in locker rooms/bars.

So, to all the anti-Jackson camp, I don't care how much he discussed taking the money. I couldn't care less if he said he was going to let grounders roll between his legs. Until he did it onfield, he was merely trying to sucker some dumb gamblers out of their money.

Is that a crime? Not in my book. Should it be a crime? Not to me. Did Jackson ennoble himself to me, assuming he spoke as he alleged he did, "NO. He did not".

The state has no right to move against a citizen for what they consider doing in their mind. Some might contemplate murder, but don't. Some may contemplate cheating on their partners, but don't.

For the record, I once asked out the most beautiful women I ever saw, for a date! She smiled, and said, "Thank you but I have other plans." I was only a 19 yr. old kid in the Big Apple, 1969, but I will always be proud that I had the nerve to do that!! No smoke. I actually did that.

Moral of story. Talking/planning/considering ain't doing, and shouldn't be treated as such. The fixers actually laid down on the field. Jackson did not. The fixers executed onfield. Jackson blew the fixers smoke. That is a critical difference in my mind.

Bill Burgess

Ubiquitous
04-30-2006, 10:28 AM
That's fine that you think that way but that isn't how the law works or the way the world moves.

Under your view a terrorists could plan an attack, even legally obtain weapons and explosives to use in the attack. Drive to the building they wish to attack and could not be stopped until they actually started attacking the building or people. We if we behaved the way you wished could not stop them until they actually started attacking. The same applies with murder, we could not stop them from killing someone until they were actually physically trying to kill someone. Society has decided that is unacceptable, society has decided that planning a crime is illegal, and it should be. Planning a crime is against the law, people should not be actively planning to break the law. It doesn't make much sense to me to be allowed to plan a crime and not have that be a crime.



As for Joe Jackson in his GJ testimony he admits to throwing games. They ask him what did you do after the first game? He says we went ahead and threw the second game. So even if one wants to ignore the fact that he agreed to take 20,000 to throw the world series, and he recieved 5,000 for doing it there is still that.

Bill Burgess
04-30-2006, 10:43 AM
Well, what I said should be taken with some context. The law does not make it a crime to fantasize, discuss, consider, etc. Let me give you an example.

I watch a great deal of crime shows on TV. Court TV. A woman planned to have her husband killed. It wasn't a crime until she actually paid the undercover cop the money for the deed. Only then did the cops bust her. Until then she was all smoke.

So I am willing to make some common sense exceptions. If terrorists are planning on an event to kill a lot of people, then the intended victims do indeed have a right to muster their counter-measures, coordinate/organize/commence their defense, in anticipation of an imminent attack.

By the same token, if we see another country preparing to go to war, or put nuclear weapons in Cuba, we have a right to act to pre-empt an imminent attack.

But, that right has limits. Today, the US considers itself to have a right to dictate to the world who has the right to have nuclear weapons. That is outrageous. Similarly, Israel once took out a factory in Iraq, that would have had the ability to make nukes. Again. That was an outrageous act of war. Israel gives itself the right to have a nuclear monopoly in the MidEast and attacks its neighbors without provocation.

I digress. There is a line between planning a crime and executing it. That is why police/FBI infiltrate hate groups/gangs. We can monitor, surveille without violating the rights of others.

How we got from Joe Jackson to this is too circuitous a route. I was only trying to illustrate a principle.

When Joe Jackson tells the GJ, "We went ahead and threw", I'm not satisfied by any stretch of the imagination, that he wasn't lying through his teeth, as instructed by Commie attorney, Alfred Austrian, to placate Landis.

Not satisfied at all. But he was not saying he personally "went ahead and threw a game." He was speaking of the team.

Sorry for the political detour.

Ubiquitous
04-30-2006, 10:54 AM
Joe Jackson said we went ahead threw the game and then we went after Chick and Joe said what are you going to do. Joe in his statement is saying that he was involved in the fix afterward he and others went to chick for money and he said this.

He wasn't talking in abstract as in they threw it but I wasn't apart of it. He said we as a group threw the second game.


As for the crime like the hitman negotiating and agreeing on a price is the overt act. If paying for a hitman is a crime then why isn't paying for a fix not a crime? The agent didn't actually go out and kill someone he simply took money for the deed. Yet it is still a crime. It's the same with agreeing with a fix. In the eyes of the law agreeing to the fix and Eddie taking the money is the overt act that makes it against the law.

Bill Burgess
04-30-2006, 07:42 PM
Someone expressed regrets that Gene didn't put in more of Joe Jackson's GJ testimony in his book. Just got an email from Gene and he gives a link to one of the trials. Hope this is interesting.
------------------------------------------------------

OK, I ran into a problem right away ... the grand jury statements I had planned to post section by section, are in PDF format. Maybe someone has a solution for that?

OR, we can just go to a web site and read the transcript there. Let's see if that works and it will save somebody some time.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/blacksox/shoelessjoe.pdf

Is the Great Trials web site of the U of Missouri, Kansas City Law School. There you can find (and download if you want) the copy of the grand jury transcript that is typewritten with corrections made by hand. It includes a cover letter from the law firm that made it public in 1988.

http://www.blackbetsy.com/jjtestimony1920.pdf

Is the Joe Jackson Virtual Hall of Fame site, where you can read the transcript "cleaned up" some -- not the actual copy.

For "Round One" -- go to either site. Start at the top, and read until you find this exchange:

Q: "Were you present at a meeting at the Ansonia Hotel in New York about two or three weeks before -- a conference there with a number of ball players?"
A: "I was not, no sir."

If you're using the UMKC site, that is on page 5. At the VHOF site, you'll be on page 4. (There are about 28 pages in all.)

This lead-off section is pretty tame. I'm sure no one will actually STOP when they find the line I chose. So you'll see, things are about to get a lot rougher for Joe. But let's take it easy in Round One, till we all get our bearings. Please let me know if this process works or not -- do we need to post sections? If we do, then we need a wizard to convert the PDF, or to send me the text in a different format -- I know that can probably be done.

If you missed the ground rules, look up my post of April 23; if you have the Digest form, it's in #522. And rememeber, we can discuss the rules as we go along, too.

Feel free to suggest to me, off-list, any ideas to make this more effective, or more fun. One goal is to spark discussion & comments, from the wide range of folks who know more about the B-Sox than the average fan. Feel welcome to test new theories, bring in new research, try out new opinions. Be civil. This is Joe Jackson versus Baseball -- keep that in mind -- let's not form sides or gang up on individuals with unique viewpoints. And if you choose to keep score -- vote AFTER the discussion, not right after you read the section of the transcript.

There's not much meat in this intro, so we might move on to Round Two in less than the suggested week. We'll see.

Gene

PS: If you do an internet search for "Jackson + transcript" -- you'll find MICHAEL Jackson is a lot more popular a target than Joe!

Ubiquitous
04-30-2006, 08:09 PM
I was talking about his 1924 trial transcripts. Most of the first GJ transcripts are pretty reasy to obtain nowadays.

Bill Burgess
04-30-2006, 09:30 PM
The anti-Jackson camp seems to love the GJ testimony, and insist Jackson told the truth. Except where it clashes with their beliefs. If he told the truth about the money, why wouldn't he tell the truth about his onfield play.

See how they want it both ways. Believe when he talks bad about himself, but then and only then. He must have lied when he said he played to win. Want it both ways, but can't have it both ways.

leecemark
04-30-2006, 09:37 PM
--If it makes you feel any better, Bill, I'm willing to believe he betrayed his team, the game and the fans by accepting money for the fix and then betrayed his friends by not participating in it. I'm not convinced he played his best in the series, but maybe so. It really doesn't matter either way to me since his knowledge of and profiting from the fix are enough to merit his banishment regardless of his subsequent actions.

Ubiquitous
04-30-2006, 09:58 PM
The anti-Jackson camp seems to love the GJ testimony, and insist Jackson told the truth. Except where it clashes with their beliefs. If he told the truth about the money, why wouldn't he tell the truth about his onfield play.

See how they want it both ways. Believe when he talks bad about himself, but then and only then. He must have lied when he said he played to win. Want it both ways, but can't have it both ways.

So the pro-jackson camp is any different?


But where is the anti-jackson camp saying what you claim? You are putting words in our mouth, and especially mine since I am the only/primary anti-jackson person in this conversation.

Do I know that Joe Jackson threw games? Nope, I don't. I don't think i have ever said that I knew enough to convict him on that one.

Do I know that Joe Jackson played the games to his fullest? Nope, I don't know that either. If I had to rule on that I couldn't rule in his favor either.

Joe Jackson in his GJ testimony said he agreed to the throw the world series and that they together threw the games. He also said he never threw games in the series. That is a conflict, but just because there is a conflict that does not mean it favors Joe. In fact it harms Joe, it shows Joe to be a liar, it shows that Joe's testimony cannot be reliable, that it isn't a proper defense. Which is why in the second trial the Judge decided against him. Because you cannot take the word of a liar in a dispute. When I am dealing with someone who I think is lying I (and probably like most people) tend disregard statements that one makes that paint themselves in a favorable light while placing more weight on those statements of his that are damning.

What I see is a person under oath lying and he seems to be lying a lot over several court proceedings. This isn't somebodies who I am going to assume the best in and disbelieve the worst in.

Ubiquitous
04-30-2006, 10:09 PM
Here is what I said on the very first page of this thread about Joe and the world series and all this time later I haven't changed my view.



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 fixed 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.

Bill Burgess
04-30-2006, 10:40 PM
--If it makes you feel any better, Bill, I'm willing to believe he betrayed his team, the game and the fans by accepting money for the fix and then betrayed his friends by not participating in it. I'm not convinced he played his best in the series, but maybe so. It really doesn't matter either way to me since his knowledge of and profiting from the fix are enough to merit his banishment regardless of his subsequent actions.
Yes, thank you. I feel much better now.


and then betrayed his friends by not participating in it.
He betrayed his friends by playing honest. Intriguing concept.

Yes, I do feel strangely relieved. Thank you.

leecemark
04-30-2006, 10:46 PM
--Well when your friends are crooks then honest behavior can easily betray them. Especially if they have paid you to join them in their nefarious activities.