most disgraceful moment in baseball...

[k_dol8990]

what do you feel is the most disgraceful moment?

[fenrir]

none of the above. i actually choose the 1998 hr race...but of the choices i pick the blacksox scandal.

[redlegsfan21]

none of the above. i actually choose the 1998 hr race...but of the choices i pick the blacksox scandal.

How exactly was the '98 HR Chase disgraceful. It probably saved baseball. The Chase brought fans back to the ballparks not just in St. Louis and Chicago but all across the country.

[Elvis]

How exactly was the '98 HR Chase disgraceful?

The same way Marion Jones Olympic "victories" were disgraceful.

[placount]

maybe its time, but the most disgraceful to me is that baseball allowed the steroid thing to happen. sat and watched when they knew the most sacred records of a game that lives on records were being spoiled. barry bonds is the face of the most disgraceful moments in baseball.

[RuthMayBond]

what do you feel is the most disgraceful moment?Two of them have even been proven :waving:waving:waving

[Erik Bedard]

The Black Sox Scandal. Unquestionably.

[holyroman]

how about drunk fans on the field atacking an umpire. Or a player spitting in an umpire's face. I can't think of those two things marring other proffesional sports.

[holyroman]

maybe its time, but the most disgraceful to me is that baseball allowed the steroid thing to happen. sat and watched when they knew the most sacred records of a game that lives on records were being spoiled. barry bonds is the face of the most disgraceful moments in baseball.

well said. I would agree

[Chickazoola]

how about drunk fans on the field atacking an umpire. Or a player spitting in an umpire's face. I can't think of those two things marring other proffesional sports.

Soccer says hi.

[geezer]

August 1994

[mojorisin71]

Where's the option for "the baseball color line"?

[Elvis]

Where's the option for "the baseball color line"?

Or boiling Dodger Dogs?

[Matty]

1. O'Malley moving the Dodgers from Brooklyn.
2. O'Malley getting elected to the HOF.

[Elvis]

1. O'Malley moving the Dodgers from Brooklyn.
2. O'Malley getting elected to the HOF.

One mans disgrace is another mans pleasure.:D

[Gregory Pratt]

August 1994

Bingo.

Follow-up: Black Sox
The Rose Confession (in his book, no less)
Color Line
98 HR Chase
2001 Season
Bonds passing Aaron

Color line would be higher BUT it was more societal than merely a phenomena in the game.

[k_dol8990]

yea, i should've put more options, but i was rushed, just wanted to throw those three things out there.

[Colorado Express]

As much as I can't stand Bonds or Rose, I have to say the Black Sox Scandal.

[Dalkowski110]

The Black Sox Scandal. You can't have baseball with players actually trying to lose and throwing games. Though I generally come down very hard on steroids, AT LEAST they do it to try and win ultimately.

[BeatEmBucs]

I would vote the HOF putting Walter O'malley in the worst out of all of them.

[Elvis]

I would vote the HOF putting Walter O'malley in the worst out of all of them.

That makes little sense. O'Malley pioneered International baseball, pioneered the westward expansion, pioneered stadium construction, pioneered modern spring training, pioneered travel...

[FiveFrameSwing]

Shoeless Joe Jackson was innocent.

[FatAngel]

Players hitting somebody with a bat or intentionally throwing it at another participant of the game.
Regardless of the specific situation, everybody who uses a bat against others should be immediately suspended for life.

[Mattingly]

That makes little sense. O'Malley pioneered International baseball, pioneered the westward expansion, pioneered stadium construction, pioneered modern spring training, pioneered travel...
He's still very much disliked by many who'd lived in Brooklyn for some time. :D

For the poll question:

I'd say (1) the fact that Negro League players weren't allowed into the MLB until 1947, (2) Black Sox scandal, (3) Pete Rose, then (4) anything related to Barry Bonds.

[metfan13]

Clemens throwing the end of the bat at Piazza in the World Series.

Not that it's #1, but should be on the list. And is more of a "moment" than the system-wide color line or the widespread steroid use.

Or how about canceling the World Series in 94?

[hellborn]

Clemens throwing the end of the bat at Piazza in the World Series.

Not that it's #1, but should be on the list.
...

How about Clemens not getting thrown out of the game after doing that?
I couldn't believe that he wasn't ejected immediately.
Great, great pitcher, but what a frickin head case. Coo coo for cocoa puffs.

[vptpt]

The best thing about that was Roger's excuse - he said he thought the bat was actually the ball. Even if that were true, why was he throwing it directly at Piazza?

But really, I laughed when that happened. I don't like Mike Piazza.

[BolaNgBasebol]

The best thing about that was Roger's excuse - he said he thought the bat was actually the ball. Even if that were true, why was he throwing it directly at Piazza?

But really, I laughed when that happened. I don't like Mike Piazza.

I really dont get such excuse by Clemens, I even heard that he thought that it was that bag filled with powder that they put on their hand.

Gary Thorne on the international broadcast was a bit furious or something to that extent telling that "this is not over", a pitch or two after he said that bottom line both men are happy. :rofl:

At least it wasn't the Schilling socks conspiracy that he brought out a while.

[ipitch]

The best thing about that was Roger's excuse - he said he thought the bat was actually the ball. Even if that were true, why was he throwing it directly at Piazza?


Because he thought Piazza was his first baseman, silly! :)

[SamtheBravesFan]

Because he thought Piazza was his first baseman, silly! :)

Hee hee, good one. ;)

[hellborn]

Because he thought Piazza was his first baseman, silly! :)

Hey, yeah! Why didn't he think of that!!?!?
:highfive:
When he hit Piazza in the face earlier that year, he though Mike's nose was the catcher's mitt...he didn't ask out of the '86 WS Game 6, he thought the bench was the mound...and, he really did retire, but then thought the major leagues were really the NABA.
Next, he's going to start confusing 20 year old bombshells for his wife..."Honey, I thought she was you!!!! You can't get mad!!!"
What a convenient disease Roger has...he's the man who mistook his wife for a hat redux.

[Einstein'sCurve]

Clemens throwing the end of the bat at Piazza in the World Series.


Correction needed.

Had Clemens thrown the bat at, Piazza would have been impaled or knocked out.

Clemens clearly endangered his own health by fielding the sharded bat end, but made sure he well missed Piazza as he sent an inimitating message in the direction the Mets in the heat of competition.

Not a fan of Roger's, but it was ridiculous to listen to all the Dudley Dogoods try and make some kind of assault over the incident.

Now, back on topic, I'd say the most modern day disgrace of baseball starts with the 97 WS win by Livian Hernandez. Nice story about the Cuban hero leaving bloody strongman commie Fidel to win freedom, opportunity and riches in the beacon of the the world, the good ol' US of A, as well as being a rookie outdueling Greg Maddox in a close WS game, but total bunkum.

The ump was giving him any pitch a foot outside the plate and 6 inches off the ground which he took every chance. MLB had sold out the integrity of the game for an infantile political statement.

The next year was the big HR season that some of you have complained about, but not Mac, Griffrey, and Sammy's fault the umps pancaked the strike zone that year, taking away any high strikes. Pitchers forced into the sweetspot and those sluggers just got into the groove. What with shrinking parks, it became more obvious by the end of the season what had transpired.

Sorry boys, but have yet to see a single shred of steroid evidence leading to that record year. That's the cushy theory of the couchpotato conspiricists. Even if any evidence surfaces, steroids were not needed that year given all the advantages given to the sluggers. Maris and The Babe would bust their own records too.

Yet, steroids had become a growing problem that Selig was unwilling to deal with which led to Bonds. But the lack of integrity starts with that 97 WS and snowballed and Selig in charge the whole way.

[rockin500]

anyone who doesnt say the Black Sox scandal is being a fool. If you say steroids stuff was a bigger disgrace, you are doubly a fool. It doesnt take rocket science to figure the reasons why.

[digglahhh]

Soccer says hi.

So do Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson.

[digglahhh]

Where's the option for "the baseball color line"?

I don't know if this is fair. This wasn't something unique to baseball, it was reflective of the values of the country. For that, we might as well also say, "treating players as property." In terms of race, baseball actually integrated in '47; Brown v. Board of Ed wasn't until 1954. So, I don't know if it is fair to single out baseball in this regard.

What was disgraceful in regards to race and baseball was the racism involved in the death threats against Aaron during his pursuit of breaking Ruth's record. But that's not baseball being disgraceful so much as individual fans being disgraceful.

The Black Sox scandal is pretty hard to top. If you are going to say anything involving steroids, it should be MLB being complicit in the rise of PEDs to obscene proportions through either willful ignorance, or outright negligence. It's not fair to pin it on one moment, or one man.

[SamtheBravesFan]

So do Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson.

Please don't remind me of that. :disbelief: The Pacers are the way they are right now because of that fight.

[fenrir]

Clemens throwing the end of the bat at Piazza in the World Series.

roid rage.

[fenrir]

How exactly was the '98 HR Chase disgraceful. It probably saved baseball. The Chase brought fans back to the ballparks not just in St. Louis and Chicago but all across the country.

it was a hoax thats why.

[digglahhh]

Please don't remind me of that. :disbelief: The Pacers are the way they are right now because of that fight.

I'm a Knicks fan, so pardon me if I don't shed any tears for you guys.

Although, you're still in better shape than we are.

Actually, we can share one tear, ISIAH! :eek::hp

[Mattingly]

He's still very much disliked by many who'd lived in Brooklyn for some time. :D

For the poll question:

I'd say (1) the fact that Negro League players weren't allowed into the MLB until 1947, (2) Black Sox scandal, (3) Pete Rose, then (4) anything related to Barry Bonds.
anyone who doesnt say the Black Sox scandal is being a fool. If you say steroids stuff was a bigger disgrace, you are doubly a fool. It doesnt take rocket science to figure the reasons why.
In #24, which I've quoted myself for your convenience, I'd placed the lack of black & Hispanic players that comprised the Negro League at the top of the list, followed by the Black Sox scandal, then Rose and Bonds.

I presume I wouldn't be foolish by your standards, but then again, I could be wrong. Where would you rank the lack of mixed-race league in with the other 3 choices I'd given?

On another note, as to steroids and other PEDs themselves, would you put a greater fault/sense of disgust upon baseball's looking the other way as players used PEDs in order to get those offensive numbers, or would you blame the individual players (or players as a whole) the most?

[Mattingly]

it was a hoax thats why.
I wouldn't say it was a total hoax, as if it were something that never existed (Big Foot, Cardiff Giant, etc). I would say that players used fraudulent means to attain their goals. Having seen this, it's been said that Barry Bonds used similar illegal means to attain his goals from 2001 and onward.

I would've much greater enjoyed the 1998 season had the players not been so strongly accused of cheating to get there.

[hellborn]

Correction needed.

Had Clemens thrown the bat at, Piazza would have been impaled or knocked out.

Clemens clearly endangered his own health by fielding the sharded bat end, but made sure he well missed Piazza as he sent an inimitating message in the direction the Mets in the heat of competition.

Not a fan of Roger's, but it was ridiculous to listen to all the Dudley Dogoods try and make some kind of assault over the incident.

...

Clearly, you won't be confused with the real Einstein.
Your comment about Clemens endangering his own health is ridiculous...he just picked the barrel up off the ground, which the batboy would normally do.
You certainly don't know what Clemens' target was, and I wonder if he really did, because he seemed to be out of control at that moment. The threat to Piazza's health was much greater than that to Clemens', obviously. Clemens is more threatened by a bat on the ground than Piazza is by a bat whizzing near his head????
If Roger was trying to send an intimidating message, he was idiotic in the way he did it, because he was running a huge risk of getting tossed from the game. Pitchers who throw at batters might get warnings, but throwing part of a bat at somebody from close range isn't going to warrant a warning. The whole thing was so bizarre and out of control that I feel the ump made a huge mistake in not tossing Clemens immediately. Especially when Roger's "explanation" made no sense.
My take...
Roger is too pumped due to the pressure of the game, which I posit because he had shown many signs of cracking under extreme pressure in previous years. Piazza being at the plate makes it much worse because of the HBP during the season and, possibly, because Roger hates Piazza, about whom rumors of homosexuality have been spreading. Roger isn't going to throw at him because everybody is thinking about the previous HBP.
The bat breaks, and Clemens' mind races...he takes this as an attack of some kind by Piazza, maybe thinking that Piazza just threw the bat at him. Roger just loses it, and has to do something back to Piazza. The barrel is right there, and Piazza may have just thrown it at him, so just throw it right back. Whether Roger just missed his target, missed intentionally to send a message, or come partly to his senses during the act and couldn't hold up enough to just stop, I can't really guess.
Roger now realizes that there was no intent by Piazza to attack, and realizes that he could be in really big trouble. He spits out the first thing that comes to his mind, which makes no sense at all...like he would give up an out, and possibly two bases, by throwing a batted ball at a runner when he could have just brushed the guy back with a pitch and maybe just sent him to first.
This makes the most sense to me, but maybe Roger will come clean with the truth some day.

And, Roger's actions were definitely assault...and, attempted battery. Assault is making a threat, and battery is an actual physical attack. You could look it up, as Casey would say.

[Mattingly]

I'd add Walter O'Malley's moving the Dodgers out of Brooklyn to the list of most disgraceful moments in baseball. Your vote on this could be greatly affected by whether you live on the east or west coast. I'd put this as so ranked:

1 - No integrated baseball until 1947;
2 - Black Sox scandal;
3 - Dodgers moving from Brooklyn to LA;
4 - Pete Rose betting on baseball;
5 - Steroids scandal and baseball's looking the other way while it happens.

===================

I wouldn't even begin to think that Clemens and Piazza would even rank anywhere near this. It was one of those crazy things that we Yankee fans had to explain to Mets fans, even if we were good friends, and in NY/NJ, that's often the case. How many other fans of rival teams live in the same or neighboring cities & towns, and often go out partying with one another? Chicago would be the only other city that I can think of.

Clemens is a fastball pitcher and Piazza, like Trot Nixon (who'd also hit well against Clemens), is a fastball hitter. So Piazza had around a .508 BA against Clemens at the time of the Interleague game HBP.

In the first instance, which I think was dated June 2, 2000, this was originally billed for two things which quickly were forgotten:

First, how often is there a double-header that is played at two different stadiums? The first was at Shea, and the second at Yankee Stadium. Trust me, the #7 train which goes from Shea in Queens to Grand Central in Manhattan was *CROWDED* that day. I had to go to work. I think there were more fans along for the joyride than who'd actually had tickets to both or either game. From Grand Central, you could take the #4 train which went to Yankee Stadium's 161st St stop.

Second, Dwight Gooden pitched the first game of the double header at Shea. His being such a big name in Mets history made it noteable that he was pitching there as an opposing player. The infamous game was at Yankee Stadium.

My thoughts on that was that Clemens is an old-schooler and likes to throw inside. Players like Piazza, Jeter, Ortiz, Bonds, they all love the inside of the strike zone. Clemens, being an old schooler, considers the strike zone to be his and his alone.

Some say that when a player throws hard inside, it's to get the player out of the part of the plate that the pitcher believes is "his". Clemens threw hard, he may have expected Piazza to back off, but the pitch came in too high and tight, and hit him hard on the noggin. That obviously preceded the WS game at Yankee Stadium, but to me, needs to be mentioned since I consider both events to be related.

In 2000, since both teams were headed to the WS, many Mets fans insisted that Clemens was the ace, and thus should pitch Game 1 of the WS, which was at Yankee Stadium. Why, I asked? Few replied, but if he'd pitched Game 1, then he'd be sure to pitch Game 5 at Shea. If that were to occur, you'd likely have had to fight Mets fans off from scaling the walls to see that game, ticket or no ticket. You may as well have sold it on Pay Per View with all the lunacy it would create.

Anyway, Torre seemed to want to coddle Clemens, so he insisted upon pitching Clemens in Game 2, insuring that he would pitch no earlier than a possible Game 6 at Yankee Stadium.

Andy Pettitte pitched both Games 1 at YS-II & Game 5 at Shea, sparing Clemens the indignity of facing an angry Mets crowd.

The Piazza beaning, I could somewhat defend, saying that it was an inside pitch. After all, Mo Vaughn had been HBP quite a few times in his career, far more than Piazza had been. However, when you throw a broken bat at someone running to 1B, I didn't know then or now how to defend this.

I'm also not too crazy about players holding press conferences about being HBP. I can definitely understand complaining about it, but until 2003 and a little into 2004 (after Clemens had left for Houston), I was still hearing about the HBP, often from Mike Piazza himself. While the thrown bat is not something I could really defend, I think that too much had been made about that very unfortunate situation.

[fenrir]

I wouldn't say it was a total hoax, as if it were something that never existed (Big Foot, Cardiff Giant, etc). I would say that players used fraudulent means to attain their goals. Having seen this, it's been said that Barry Bonds used similar illegal means to attain his goals from 2001 and onward.

I would've much greater enjoyed the 1998 season had the players not been so strongly accused of cheating to get there.

well by the time bonds broke the record in 01 people knew there was something fishy. i hate bonds as much as the next guy...but atleast he was never revered the way sosa and mcgwire were. i also think the sosa and mcgwire homerun race was the leading cause for rampant steroid use among batters and pitchers because batters seen what steroids could do for them, and pitchers got tired of batters cheating them. i remember reading in si that the reason why bonds started to cheat was because he was jealous of mcgwire and sosa. now this doesn't excuse anyone...but i think it's a big factor in why so many players cheated. if mcgwire and sosa didnt break any records in 98 bonds wouldnt have broken records and aaron's record would be intact.

[digglahhh]

Mattingly,

What do you think about my post #35. Do you think answering "the color line" to this question unfairly singles out baseball, when the offense (disgusting as it may be) was one for which society as a whole was guilty?

And, what about the fact that baseball, in comparison to society, can be argued as being somewhat progressive in terms of integration?

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I'd agree with you diggs. I guess one could make the argument that just because it was common in society doesn't excuse baseball for doing it (the 'just because everyone else was doing it doesn't make it right' argument). But that doesn't fly for me. I'd have to say that baseball was indeed rather progresive in terms of it's views on race, considering that the majority of the civil rights movement took place in the 50's and 60's.

[rockin500]

I'd agree with you diggs. I guess one could make the argument that just because it was common in society doesn't excuse baseball for doing it (the 'just because everyone else was doing it doesn't make it right' argument). But that doesn't fly for me. I'd have to say that baseball was indeed rather progresive in terms of it's views on race, considering that the majority of the civil rights movement took place in the 50's and 60's.
exactly.

This part goes to Matt:
but what the black sox scandal did to the game, it strikes at the very heart of what competition is all about. What those guys did was shake the very foundation of what consitutes sports. Without a belief in what we are watching is an actual contest, what would make the sport any different than the WWE? Is there any more despicable thing that can be done in terms of sports?

[mojorisin71]

I don't know if this is fair. This wasn't something unique to baseball, it was reflective of the values of the country. For that, we might as well also say, "treating players as property." In terms of race, baseball actually integrated in '47; Brown v. Board of Ed wasn't until 1954. So, I don't know if it is fair to single out baseball in this regard.

What was disgraceful in regards to race and baseball was the racism involved in the death threats against Aaron during his pursuit of breaking Ruth's record. But that's not baseball being disgraceful so much as individual fans being disgraceful.

The Black Sox scandal is pretty hard to top. If you are going to say anything involving steroids, it should be MLB being complicit in the rise of PEDs to obscene proportions through either willful ignorance, or outright negligence. It's not fair to pin it on one moment, or one man.

It doesn't matter. Segregation, regardless of whether it was the status quo, is wrong under all circumstances. And keeping players out of MLB because of their skin color is idiotic and disgraceful.

[rockin500]

It doesn't matter. Segregation, regardless of whether it was the status quo, is wrong under all circumstances. And keeping players out of MLB because of their skin color is idiotic and disgraceful.
it was part of the culture and the way of the united states. so it makes it endemic to the whole of society, not to baseball alone.

[mojorisin71]

it was part of the culture and the way of the united states. so it makes it endemic to the whole of society, not to baseball alone.

It still doesn't make it right. I stand by my original statement.

[rockin500]

It still doesn't make it right. I stand by my original statement.
then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

[Mattingly]

Mattingly,

What do you think about my post #35. Do you think answering "the color line" to this question unfairly singles out baseball, when the offense (disgusting as it may be) was one for which society as a whole was guilty?

And, what about the fact that baseball, in comparison to society, can be argued as being somewhat progressive in terms of integration?
I'm not as well-versed in history as others are, be it baseball, civil war, some (but obviously not all) aspects of racial relations, but considering how awful and atrocious some of the events were in the 1950s, and this began 3 years after Jackie Robinson's historic 1947 rookie year, I'd say that the country had quite a lot to learn about inclusion of the races.

When you'd mentioned in your #35 that baseball was as guilty as the country as a whole, I'd agree. I still consider it unfair that this was the way it was, but like the country itself, I'd say that the exclusion of so many quality players was a very serious bad mark on the sport we love.

I was around for Hank's #713, #714 and #715. In NYC, the Daily News, which my Dad read every day, pretty much belittled it as being nothing special. I hadn't read any other newsdailies, so I'm unaware of how the story was otherwise treated by print reporters.

I still think that in addition to the racial threats, especially since it seemed like the heart of the south had been emptied out and had been pushed back 20 years with how many people wanted him dead, was the fact that (and I consider this the most important part) that he'd ended his 1973 with guess what? *SEVEN HUNDRED THIRTEEN HOME RUNS*.

That's right, he had exactly 713 and that, to me, intensified the fact that anyone who'd have picked him off would've been a hero in some parts of the country, as Aaron would symbolically be considered second best. I remember something about Bowie Kuhn's insisting that he play one game in April, but need to re-read about that.

I'm not saying that Aaron wouldn't have received all of the hateful mail and death threats, which I remember reading more about when espn.com had some "Sports Center" bio on quite a few of the top athletes (even elite thoroughbreds), but I think that his being one away intensified the rush to attention that this unfortunately became.

[Mattingly]

exactly.

This part goes to Matt:
but what the black sox scandal did to the game, it strikes at the very heart of what competition is all about. What those guys did was shake the very foundation of what consitutes sports. Without a belief in what we are watching is an actual contest, what would make the sport any different than the WWE? Is there any more despicable thing that can be done in terms of sports?
We may not normally agree, especially about my fave team, but in this case, I'll definitely agree that you make a very strong, valid and heart-feld argument.

I fully agree that when players blow games on purpose, there is something very wrong with this. While this is very awful, I consider it moreso because this was an entire team, not just an individual player, manager, or player-manager, as in the case of Pete Rose betting on baseball (regardless of whether he'd bet on or against his team's winning).

However, when baseball has an all-white professional league, meaning that the blacks and Hispanics (there was a Cuban League or team in the Negro Leagues) had to play elsewhere.

If this were in existence today, there would be no discussions of Johan Santana, Alex Rodriguez, Ichiro Suzuki, Bob Gibson, Willie Mays, Roberto Clemente and many others I've not named.

I think that a very reasonable argument can be made that both are pretty bad, but like asking who did worse for baseball: Bonds or Rose, I think that it's two entirely different things, both of which hit me very hard to debauching the purity of the game itself.

If you feel that the Black Sox scandal is #1, as would others here, I would fully respect this. I still feel that requiring non-white players to have a Negro Leagues, especially when many were quite willing to become MLB players, was very much wrong for many decades.

[Baseball Guru]

The Black Sox Scandal. You can't have baseball with players actually trying to lose and throwing games. Though I generally come down very hard on steroids, AT LEAST they do it to try and win ultimately.

Well said and I would agree completely!

The strike of "94" in which we had no WS is also VERY high on the list!

[Einstein'sCurve]

Clearly, you won't be confused with the real Einstein.
Your comment about Clemens endangering his own health is ridiculous...he just picked the barrel up off the ground, which the batboy would normally do.


No worries about me being confused with Einstein, but conversely no worries about being as confused as you.

Clemens fielded a sharp ended broken bat half that was crazily propelled his way. Bat takes the wrong hop and sinks itself into Clemens eye, throat, or worse, and he's in big trouble. Better go review the incident. Bat not just sitting in the grass waiting for him to mosey over and pick up.

Like I stated, had Clemens thrown at Piazza, he wouldn't miss. Bat never propelled close to Piazza.

The sport is played by men either trying to intimidate each other or fool each other or both. Save the sociology for the classroom. It's considered bush in the Big Leagues.

[metfan13]

No worries about me being confused with Einstein, but conversely no worries about being as confused as you.

Clemens fielded a sharp ended broken bat half that was crazily propelled his way. Bat takes the wrong hop and sinks itself into Clemens eye, throat, or worse, and he's in big trouble. Better go review the incident. Bat not just sitting in the grass waiting for him to mosey over and pick up.

Like I stated, had Clemens thrown at Piazza, he wouldn't miss. Bat never propelled close to Piazza.

The sport is played by men either trying to intimidate each other or fool each other or both. Save the sociology for the classroom. It's considered bush in the Big Leagues.

What Clemens did was as bush as it gets.

[EdTarbusz]

It doesn't matter. Segregation, regardless of whether it was the status quo, is wrong under all circumstances. And keeping players out of MLB because of their skin color is idiotic and disgraceful.

In my opinion, early segregation of the game (say in the pre-Landis era especially) would have been disatrous for the game and could have possbily turned baseball into something of a fringe sport like boxing. Look at the public reaction to the Jack Johnson/Jim Jeffries fight of 7/4/1910, and imagine the same thing happening if their had been black World Series heroes. A cursory glance of race riots from that perios leads me to belive that black players would have been subject to violence from other players and fans alike. Unlike 1947, I also think white players would have struck rather than played with black players. I also don't think the lynching of a black player would have been out of the realm of possibility, either. Before WWII, American society was not ready for integration. Guys like Joe Louis and Jesse Owens started laying the groundwork in the late 30s, but it took the War really start changing peoples minds.

[Edo]

I voted for the Black Sox scandal. Throwing the World Series is pretty heinous. What makes it worse, is that Shoeless Joe Jackson got banned from the sport. It's just my opinion, but I don't believe he deserved that. The other two choices don't bother me nearly as much.

By the way, this is my first post on Baseball Fever. I've read a fair number of posts and have really enjoyed them.

Ed

[k_dol8990]

steroids finally overtook the black sox scandal, FINALLY. steroids are terrible and they ruin lives worse then betting on baseball and throwing a world series, lets over look the game real quick and look at what they do to the people taking them. steroids could've ruined the game of baseball, permanently staining the players and who ever else was involved. all the black sox scandal was, was a bunch of kids trying to make some real money, baseball wasn't paying them the millions they would get today.

[digglahhh]

It doesn't matter. Segregation, regardless of whether it was the status quo, is wrong under all circumstances. And keeping players out of MLB because of their skin color is idiotic and disgraceful.

Agreed.

But, then would "segregation" then be, de facto, the answer to any most disgraceful moment in _____ questions?

I mean, to me it seems self-evident that the answer to this question has to be something explicitly and uniquely related to baseball.

Even performance enhancing drugs, to a less poignant extent, are something of a reflection of culture, and a behavior common across other sports, and other fields.

Plus, the Black Sox scandal fits the question better because it is one dinstinct and event/momnent, as opposed to PEDs or the color line which are overarching ways to characterize substantial portions of the game's history, as opposed to discreet events or moments.

My :twocents:

[cardsfanatic]

Of the choices listed it has to be the Blacksox scandal since I have zero issue with the other two items. However, speaking as a father, I was more offended and disgusted at Robbie Alomars displays than anything I've ever seen in baseball. The fact they didn't drop the hammer on the ol' boy really irked me, too. He's lucky I wasn't commish. He would have gotten an extra long vacation.

[gojays]

Definitely not #1, just wanted to add: the Yankees being catapulted back into the "Dynasty" team in '96 ALCS, partly by luck, partly by a bad call, and partly by Maier.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Black Sox Scandal. You can't have baseball with players actually trying to lose and throwing games. Though I generally come down very hard on steroids, AT LEAST they do it to try and win ultimately.

This is exactly the point of the matter. The "legitimacy" of Barry Bonds' record will NEVER be as questionable as the "legitimacy" of the 1919 World Champion Cincinnati Reds.

[Dalkowski110]

Exactly. And I don't care about Joe Jackson's innocence or guilt or whatever (well, it's not that I don't care, but if you look at it, it doesn't have much bearing on the situation). The fact is that Chick Gandil, Swede Risberg, Happy Felsch, Lefty Williams, and Eddie Cicotte severely damaged that team and everyone agrees on those guys. Likewise, the general concencus is that Weaver (just knew about it) and McMullin (a pinch-hitter) had no real effect. The former guys may not have had HoF careers (save for Cicotte), but they were still key players that the team could not properly function without. Now imagine this type of throwing games happening on the same scale steroids are likely used on...let's just say 25% (I'm pulling that number out of nowhere, but I'll show you why). If 25% of MLB arbitrarily threw games, important and unimportant, then I guarantee you there would be no baseball. Period.

[lovethegame]

every game played prior to robinson and doby gets my vote

[FrenchyLefebvre]

In my lifetime, I'd have to vote the 1994 World Series; What caused it.
None of the choices -- or even world wars or earthquakes -- had ever managed to, literally, wipe out a World Series before. A Series always went on, despite the gamblers, cheats, racists, druggies and so forth wreaking havoc throughout history.

[MedicCook]

I had to go with the Black Sox Scandal. Barry and Pete are individuals who cheated, but the Black Sox Scandal took most of the team to conspire.

[rugbyfreak]

I guess I had to pick one of those three, so I chose Chick Gandill & Gang. But really--and I kid you not--I'm far more dismayed by the recent election of Kuhn to the HOF, coupled with its inseparable mutant sister, the rejection of Marvin Miller by a group of owners not adult enough to see past the fact that Miller's role in history inconvenienced them by finally removing their plantation owner's-like grip on the MLB player's destiny and entire career that was so overdue that they should have appreciated the fact that they had been playing with house money for too long and the jig was up.

They should have been grownup enough to realize that voting for the HOF is a special, important privilege, and when it comes time to cast one's vote, it's time to drop any and all personal sh**t that comes into play, and think only about the candidate's role in shaping baseball history. A grownup always acknowledges that there are times in life when you happen to be on the wrong side in history, and just because someone else's success occasionally comes at your expense doesn't make it any less worthy.

When Miller took the job, he knew full well he was destined to be a polarizing figure in MLB history. Union leaders are always guaranteed to alienate and anger at least half of the parties involved, and oftentimes you disappoint certain members of your own team in the bargain.

But he also knew history had chosen him to be a pivotal figure. He was there to make changes, not friends; he had promises to keep to the players that wholesale changes were finally coming.

I'll bet you there are times when nearly everyone connected with the game, including all those fans who have watched their favorite player walk for more money (or be forced to walk because the free-enterprise system Miller helped create stretched his owner beyond his budget), have at some point cursed Miller's name. I know I have, which is irrational, I later admit, since the big picture and all its benefits trumps the disappointing individual moments every time.

There is absolutely no need to ever have to sell a player on Marvin. Each time every one of them signs his latest unthinkably lucrative contract, he can't help but think about Marv and how he made possible everything he has today. Even the most clueless player makes this connection. Marv is Muhammad, he is the answer, he is the beginning, and the end.

Now, an owner cannot be expected to feel quite that warm about Marv. But if they thought about it, he made some things possible for them that never existed before. Ask an old exec of the Brownies or the Phils if, under the old system, they could ever envision a way out of the endless losing cycle that perpetuated itself, year after year. In the old days, losing simply bred more losing, just as winning built on itself.

For most of the 16 MLB teams, there was a groundhog day-like regularity to it all. In most years, the Yanks really only had to worry about 2, maybe 3 other teams. The rest were mired in financial woes, and thus had no money to build the only real way you did back then--through the farm system. There was no draft of amateur talent, so the Yankee network scoured the country and signed most of the good ones. Your only other option--trading--worked only if you had something to offer in return. And even if he were somehow available, you had to first consider if you could afford his contract to begin with.

Miller gave the owners, the same as he gave the players, the free agency system. Finally, a way for a beleagured franchise to break that pattern. Now, you could dream of acquiring talent without giving up talent. You needed only to find the money, which, with the advent of TV money (and most recently, revenue sharing), was becoming possible for all teams.

Anyone who doubts that free agency leveled the playing field need only examine the number of different teams that have made the post-season over any past period of your choosing. Then, compare it to the old days, with its same small handful of teams fighting it out, year after year, and it's not even close.

Or, you could look at the MLB attendance figures, which continue to set records in spite of all the game's problems, and how do you account for it? Hope, that's how. Back in the day, perhaps 5 or 6 teams had what you would call healthy attendance, and the rest barely scraped by, since their fans were bereft of all hope of contention, having sunk to the bottom of the reserve clause food chain.

Owners may have mourned the demise of the reserve clause, which on the surface made them feel more in control by being in charge of a player's destiny for life. But that was only if they looked on the surface. The flip side also meant they were stuck with that player for life, and there were precious few players you felt good about being cleaved to. If he became known as a "problem" type, just try unloading him for anything worthwhile. Today, a trade is still an option or, at worst, you let him play out his option and try his luck elsewhere. You try someone else, so you can cut your losses much quicker than the old way. Back then, the owner still had the option of letting the player finish his contract and negotiate elsewhere--they held all the cards back then--but for some reason very few did this. I can only conclude that they either had a deathly fear that the player would succeed and come back to haunt him, or, more likely, they all had a tacit agreement not to start this wheel moving, for fear of promulgating an open market that allowed players a hint of freedom of movement.

Thus you, as one owner, could not set players free if you could not be sure your fellow owners would respond in kind. If they wouldn't make their dead wood occasionally available to you, why should you help them out?

So the way I see it, even with a system in which they held all the cards, and were the dealers as well, the owners were too caught up in their petty power wars to see how they could bend their own rules and make things better for themselves, i.e. with the above form of limited, rigged "free agency."

The owners, rather than nursing their grudge with Miller for changing their precious way of life, should be thanking him for saving them from themselves. If someone didn't come along and force them to change, it's doubtful they would have ever done so themselves.

That's probably the most pathetic part of their HOF snub of Miller. They're still way too busy hating him out of habit to wake up and realize that, in a funny way, he's their friend, too. As Miller improved baseball forever, they stood to benefit as well.

As for Kuhn, he represents the owners' hero, inertia incarnate, a puppet who was hired and paid by them to say nothing, stand for nothing, and do nothing, except to stand and do nothing.

I'm aware that to sit here and mention Kuhn's feckless, often-invisible legacy as a disgrace on a par with the Black Sox or steroids really doesn't add up. But let me put it this way:

The 1919 fix? I abhor it and don't condone it, but I get it. Money was tight, especially on the White Sox. They hated their owner, and the best way to fix his wagon was to fix his series. The Fed League fallout meant even worse times for player-management relations. Gambling was a normal part of the game's fabric right then, and games were fixed all the time. World Series games had been fixed at least three other years, so fixing the final result was just one more step. Get it?

Steriods? A horrible life choice to make, but it was pretty much get with the program, or go home to mom. The minors had always tested for it, so players were extremely careful at this level, since one bad test could mean the end of a career before it started. No matter, as long as everyone else was skinny, too, the playing field was still level and still rewarded honest success. The juice up in The Show was whispered about, but the consensus was that it was only a handful of goofballs. Then the eager hotshot is called up, and he walks into the clubhouse the first time, and could swear he had lost his way and ended up in some NFL locker room. He quickly finds out the real deal and tells himself that his survival depended on cycling up, just to fit in. Then, around his second or third contract, he knows the really big money lies in HR's, a bigger hat size, and one of them chemists like Barry's got. I get it.

And finally, Charlie Hustle's gambling? Being an addict, only with a different color monkey, I certainly get that.

But Bowie Kuhn in the HOF? I'm trying, I'm really trying, to get that. But I simply can't get it, and I don't think I ever will.

[bob]

I voted bonds, but black socks would be equally worthy. Bonds is just more topical now. In 5 years it would have died down and not be as much of an issue.

[baseball junkie]

How about the 1994 World Series that didn't happen? How did that not make the list?

[bluezebra]

When George Steinbrenner was approved to purchase the Yankees.

Bob

[bluezebra]

I guess I had to pick one of those three, so I chose Chick Gandill & Gang. But really--and I kid you not--I'm far more dismayed by the recent election of Kuhn to the HOF, coupled with its inseparable mutant sister, the rejection of Marvin Miller by a group of owners not adult enough to see past the fact that Miller's role in history inconvenienced them by finally removing their plantation owner's-like grip on the MLB player's destiny and entire career that was so overdue that they should have appreciated the fact that they had been playing with house money for too long and the jig was up.

They should have been grownup enough to realize that voting for the HOF is a special, important privilege, and when it comes time to cast one's vote, it's time to drop any and all personal sh**t that comes into play, and think only about the candidate's role in shaping baseball history. A grownup always acknowledges that there are times in life when you happen to be on the wrong side in history, and just because someone else's success occasionally comes at your expense doesn't make it any less worthy.

When Miller took the job, he knew full well he was destined to be a polarizing figure in MLB history. Union leaders are always guaranteed to alienate and anger at least half of the parties involved, and oftentimes you disappoint certain members of your own team in the bargain.

But he also knew history had chosen him to be a pivotal figure. He was there to make changes, not friends; he had promises to keep to the players that wholesale changes were finally coming.

I'll bet you there are times when nearly everyone connected with the game, including all those fans who have watched their favorite player walk for more money (or be forced to walk because the free-enterprise system Miller helped create stretched his owner beyond his budget), have at some point cursed Miller's name. I know I have, which is irrational, I later admit, since the big picture and all its benefits trumps the disappointing individual moments every time.

There is absolutely no need to ever have to sell a player on Marvin. Each time every one of them signs his latest unthinkably lucrative contract, he can't help but think about Marv and how he made possible everything he has today. Even the most clueless player makes this connection. Marv is Muhammad, he is the answer, he is the beginning, and the end.

Now, an owner cannot be expected to feel quite that warm about Marv. But if they thought about it, he made some things possible for them that never existed before. Ask an old exec of the Brownies or the Phils if, under the old system, they could ever envision a way out of the endless losing cycle that perpetuated itself, year after year. In the old days, losing simply bred more losing, just as winning built on itself.

For most of the 16 MLB teams, there was a groundhog day-like regularity to it all. In most years, the Yanks really only had to worry about 2, maybe 3 other teams. The rest were mired in financial woes, and thus had no money to build the only real way you did back then--through the farm system. There was no draft of amateur talent, so the Yankee network scoured the country and signed most of the good ones. Your only other option--trading--worked only if you had something to offer in return. And even if he were somehow available, you had to first consider if you could afford his contract to begin with.

Miller gave the owners, the same as he gave the players, the free agency system. Finally, a way for a beleagured franchise to break that pattern. Now, you could dream of acquiring talent without giving up talent. You needed only to find the money, which, with the advent of TV money (and most recently, revenue sharing), was becoming possible for all teams.

Anyone who doubts that free agency leveled the playing field need only examine the number of different teams that have made the post-season over any past period of your choosing. Then, compare it to the old days, with its same small handful of teams fighting it out, year after year, and it's not even close.

Or, you could look at the MLB attendance figures, which continue to set records in spite of all the game's problems, and how do you account for it? Hope, that's how. Back in the day, perhaps 5 or 6 teams had what you would call healthy attendance, and the rest barely scraped by, since their fans were bereft of all hope of contention, having sunk to the bottom of the reserve clause food chain.

Owners may have mourned the demise of the reserve clause, which on the surface made them feel more in control by being in charge of a player's destiny for life. But that was only if they looked on the surface. The flip side also meant they were stuck with that player for life, and there were precious few players you felt good about being cleaved to. If he became known as a "problem" type, just try unloading him for anything worthwhile. Today, a trade is still an option or, at worst, you let him play out his option and try his luck elsewhere. You try someone else, so you can cut your losses much quicker than the old way. Back then, the owner still had the option of letting the player finish his contract and negotiate elsewhere--they held all the cards back then--but for some reason very few did this. I can only conclude that they either had a deathly fear that the player would succeed and come back to haunt him, or, more likely, they all had a tacit agreement not to start this wheel moving, for fear of promulgating an open market that allowed players a hint of freedom of movement.

Thus you, as one owner, could not set players free if you could not be sure your fellow owners would respond in kind. If they wouldn't make their dead wood occasionally available to you, why should you help them out?

So the way I see it, even with a system in which they held all the cards, and were the dealers as well, the owners were too caught up in their petty power wars to see how they could bend their own rules and make things better for themselves, i.e. with the above form of limited, rigged "free agency."

The owners, rather than nursing their grudge with Miller for changing their precious way of life, should be thanking him for saving them from themselves. If someone didn't come along and force them to change, it's doubtful they would have ever done so themselves.

That's probably the most pathetic part of their HOF snub of Miller. They're still way too busy hating him out of habit to wake up and realize that, in a funny way, he's their friend, too. As Miller improved baseball forever, they stood to benefit as well.

As for Kuhn, he represents the owners' hero, inertia incarnate, a puppet who was hired and paid by them to say nothing, stand for nothing, and do nothing, except to stand and do nothing.

I'm aware that to sit here and mention Kuhn's feckless, often-invisible legacy as a disgrace on a par with the Black Sox or steroids really doesn't add up. But let me put it this way:

The 1919 fix? I abhor it and don't condone it, but I get it. Money was tight, especially on the White Sox. They hated their owner, and the best way to fix his wagon was to fix his series. The Fed League fallout meant even worse times for player-management relations. Gambling was a normal part of the game's fabric right then, and games were fixed all the time. World Series games had been fixed at least three other years, so fixing the final result was just one more step. Get it?

Steriods? A horrible life choice to make, but it was pretty much get with the program, or go home to mom. The minors had always tested for it, so players were extremely careful at this level, since one bad test could mean the end of a career before it started. No matter, as long as everyone else was skinny, too, the playing field was still level and still rewarded honest success. The juice up in The Show was whispered about, but the consensus was that it was only a handful of goofballs. Then the eager hotshot is called up, and he walks into the clubhouse the first time, and could swear he had lost his way and ended up in some NFL locker room. He quickly finds out the real deal and tells himself that his survival depended on cycling up, just to fit in. Then, around his second or third contract, he knows the really big money lies in HR's, a bigger hat size, and one of them chemists like Barry's got. I get it.

And finally, Charlie Hustle's gambling? Being an addict, only with a different color monkey, I certainly get that.

But Bowie Kuhn in the HOF? I'm trying, I'm really trying, to get that. But I simply can't get it, and I don't think I ever will.

"...the rejection of Marvin Miller by a group of owners..."

Since when do the owners have a vote in the Hall of fame? And when did union officials become eligible?

Bob

[rugbyfreak]

When George Steinbrenner was approved to purchase the Yankees.

Bob

You must not be a Yankee fan. If so, I can understand your comment, since most people outside of NYC don't like him. But if you polled Yankee fans, just about all--even the ones who don't care for his personal "style"--would at least say they appreciate what he has done for the franchise. You have to admit, his MO as a team owner, which is to pump all available resources back into player talent, is one that a fan of any team wishes his owner would practice.

Let me put it another way. Although the available financial data on the teams is sketchy, it's common knowledge that the Brewers have been a "profitable" team in many seasons. And yet, their competitive track record is among the most pathetic over the past 25 years. One playoff appearance in that period--and that was 25 years ago (1982). Just six seasons above the .500 mark in that time. And yet we hear that they make money, which a club can do if it really watches its costs, which means basically staying out of the free agent market and fielding minor-league-type clubs every year. You'll never see a team publicizing its profitability, though, because they know the fans don't give a sh**t about that, and if the club is a loser, learning that their team finished in the black will only serve to piss them off if it also finished in 5th place. Do you know that, in the Yanks' current run of 13 straight post-season berths they have lost money in several of those seasons?

If you're a Brews' fan, does this current run of virtual irrelevance even begin to cut it? I hope not, especially when there are plenty of facts out there that will show that, in those 25 years, every other team in the N.L. has at least made the dance once, most of them more (except the Nats/Expos, who were in 1st in '94 before the strike). In the A.L., there is only one non-playoff team in the same period--the Devil Rays, but they were only formed in '98.

And I hope we're all done with the "small market=small budget=non-competitive" whining that larger market teams hear all the time. For one thing, it's silly to think that teams with large operating budgets should have to apologize or feel bad for it. For one thing, the playoff spread I just mentioned should tell you that there is reasonable opportunity (I don't use the word parity) for all out there.

Taking a more recent sampling, in the past 6 WS, there have been 11 different participants out of a possible 12 (with the Bosox the only repeater).

To give the Brewers just one more smack (not because I dislike them, but because I feel their fans are being royally cheated), who's pulling the strings? Well, it's a guy (Bud Selig) who has a much bigger job on his plate, who has been told he really isn't supposed to run his team while he's commish. So he says, OK, and backs off a bit, and to whom does he hand over some of the work? His daughter!

Don't get me wrong: I've got no preconceptions that a woman cannot run a sports franchise, but I haven't heard anyone in the game say anything favorable about her command of the game. And nothing has happened over there, except a new park. I don't even necessarily have anything against nepotism; anyone who does, better not follow baseball, because it's everywhere.

But any smart owner who wants his heirs to follow will have them pay their dues and trail some real baseball people around for years, and most of them, given a high level of dedication and some intelligence, will carry on just fine, some even better than their parents.

Back to Steinbrenner. Many of us, believe me, were quite nervous when this year became the year that George was going to cede the reigns. But he made Hank remain an underling for many years, and this off-season, Hank's first as figurehead, I'm slowly beginning to like his style.

One more thing about George. I didn't mean to imply above that a club's financial well-being was not important. It is. Since buying the club in '73, there is no dispute he achieved his number one mandate, which was to return the club to its accustomed pre-eminence in the game. (This does not mean winning it all every year. It means restoring it as an elite franchise in MLB.)

Now, for the less-publicized, but also important, financial concerns. Here's how bad things were in '73:

--In '64, just after the club's 5th straight WS, CBS bought it for $10m. Thus began a 9-year period that was the worst in team history, or at least since 1919.

--In '73, Steinbrenner and a small consortium of investors bought the franchise for $8m. That's right, the value of the Yanks had gone down over time, by 20%!

--GS was the Principal Owner, based on his initial investment being the largest. The others (4, 5 or 6 guys, something like that) were in for $1m minimum, some a bit more.

--Since then, some of those original guys sold out, but I believe 2 or 3 are still left from the original group. Since the franchise is now valued at an estimated $1 billion. Today, what would one of those original shares be worth? Hard to say exactly, but conservatively speaking, it's a 9-figure number. Could be $200m, maybe $300m, maybe even $500m.

Now, what do you suppose these original limited partners, who have watched him bump their investment of $1-3 million to this unthinkable number, call George? Not a**hole, I can tell you that. Not even George. Probably not even Mr. Steinbrenner. My guess is that they call him Jesus, or something like that.

Anyway, you get the point. He has done everything he promised back in those awfully dark days of '72-'73--and much, much more. His embarrassing fits of bluster and heavy-handedness back in the day--and let's face it, that type of behavior is a thing of the distant past--was a very small price to pay for the primacy he brought the franchise.

And you'll never hear any of us deny that his personal style left much to be desired. But baseball history is filled with warm, fuzzy, avuncular owners who never won anything. And all of his fellow owners talk of how much they love him, and what a credit he was to the game--and also to their teams, since they knew they could always fleece him, come trade time!

I feel sorry for fans of teams whose owners do nothing to show they've got their interests in mind. What we've always found amusing around here is how many fans in other cities would blast George, but privately, they wished they had an owner who had their back, as George had ours.

[brewcrew82]

YouTo give the Brewers just one more smack (not because I dislike them, but because I feel their fans are being royally cheated), who's pulling the strings? Well, it's a guy (Bud Selig) who has a much bigger job on his plate, who has been told he really isn't supposed to run his team while he's commish. So he says, OK, and backs off a bit, and to whom does he hand over some of the work? His daughter!

You are aware that the Brewers are no longer owned by the Seligs, aren't you? Mark Attanasio took over the reign in 2005 and has relaxed the purse strings a bit since taking over.

[SamtheBravesFan]

That's right, he had exactly 713 and that, to me, intensified the fact that anyone who'd have picked him off would've been a hero in some parts of the country, as Aaron would symbolically be considered second best. I remember something about Bowie Kuhn's insisting that he play one game in April, but need to re-read about that.

What Hank wanted to do was sit out the opening series in Cincinnati so he could attempt to tie and break the record in Atlanta, with a 10-game homestand after the three games with the Reds. Manager Eddie Mathews was going to let him do it, but Kuhn, for whatever reason, ordered Mathews to put Aaron in the lineup for at least two games in the series.

[rugbyfreak]

You are aware that the Brewers are no longer owned by the Seligs, aren't you? Mark Attanasio took over the reign in 2005 and has relaxed the purse strings a bit since taking over.

No I did not, so my slam was a bit dated. Thanks for updating me.

But that's the best news for the franchise I've heard. I don't think it's any coincidence that '07 was the first year in too long that the team was actually a factor in the race. True, they had a disappointing second-half fold, but there was a spark to the club we hadn't seen in years.

Thanks again!

[Boston Boxer]

i would say if you are going to have Bonds as a choice you need to have Clemens as a choice as well. Not nearly the pitcher he was without the help of steroids. A damn shame

[Solrac]

I wouldn't say it was a total hoax, as if it were something that never existed (Big Foot, Cardiff Giant, etc). I would say that players used fraudulent means to attain their goals. Having seen this, it's been said that Barry Bonds used similar illegal means to attain his goals from 2001 and onward.

I would've much greater enjoyed the 1998 season had the players not been so strongly accused of cheating to get there.

Its not cheating if it was legal...also sosa has wrongly been accused of using steroids for a while now...and his name didnt even appear in the mitchel report...and the mitchel report used testimony from individuals and not ONCE was he mentioned...

Also the HR Chase was the best thing that ever couldve happened...who knows if MLB was the one who supplied them with PED's so they can win back some fans with the HR chase...if that HR Chase havent happen baseball would most likely be compared with the likes of MLS and WNBA...

[rugbyfreak]

What Hank wanted to do was sit out the opening series in Cincinnati so he could attempt to tie and break the record in Atlanta, with a 10-game homestand after the three games with the Reds. Manager Eddie Mathews was going to let him do it, but Kuhn, for whatever reason, ordered Mathews to put Aaron in the lineup for at least two games in the series.

I take it back. There were actually times when our HOF do-nothing Bowie was actually pro-active in his implementation of the "best interests of baseball" powers of his office. Too bad this example shows him slamming one of the game's true class acts, in what was about to be the shining moment of his career.

And if I'm not mistaken, folks, was he not absent for that moment the following week in Atlanta? I seem to remember he flagged on being there, and I cannot recall what his excuse was, or what it possibly could have been that was acceptable. Anybody help us out here?

HOF work at its finest here. First he refuses to let his team manipulate it just a bit. Then he doesn't even post!!!

[rockin500]

And if I'm not mistaken, folks, was he not absent for that moment the following week in Atlanta? I seem to remember he flagged on being there, and I cannot recall what his excuse was, or what it possibly could have been that was acceptable. Anybody help us out here?


I forget the function he was at, but it was giving a speech for something relatively unimportant. he sent one of his lieutenants.

[Dodgerfan1]

Shoeless Joe Jackson was innocent.

I don't know if the Black Sox Scandal was the most disgraceful moment in baseball history or not, but I do know that it's in my top two or three. In fact, I put the miserly, tyrannical and callous dictatorship of Charles Comiskey up there almost as high... but not quite.

Matter-of-fact statements such as the one I quoted above are always sort of amusing to me. It's as if we were there and saw it all happen, so we just know these things. Not instinctively but intimately. Joe Jackson probably was less guilty than most of the others, but here are a few facts that we definitely know:

1) Jackson's own sworn testimony to the grand jury confirms that he did know what was going on, although in 1949, he told Sport Magazine that he had never been involved in the fix in any way and was quoted by the article as saying, "I didn't know anything was going on." Here is a transcript of a portion of his grand jury testimony:

Q: Did anybody pay you any money to help throw that series in favor of Cincinnati?
A: They did.
Q: How much did they pay you?
A: They promised me $20,000 and paid me five.
Q: How much did he (Gandil) promise you?
A: $20,000 if I would take part
Q: And you said you would?
A: Yes, sir

2) In his testimony, Jackson also said he told Gandil that he wanted to quit, said he felt ashamed at what he'd done, said he felt that he'd been cheated and admitted that he had received $5,000.

Those are just two examples of damning evidence that Joe Jackson was not 'innocent'. He knew about the conspiracy and, even if he didn't actually 'play dirty', he had guilty knowledge and didn't bother to act on it. If he did, in fact, play on the level at all times, why did he then feel that he’d been cheated by the gamblers? Possibly, he felt that way once he was told that $5,000 was all he would get, so he decided to play it square, but just as possibly not. Yes, I know that no one wants to rat on their friends, especially the way Commie treated them all so shabbily, but when you agree to consort with the types of people that Jackson openly admitted to consorting with, those are the decisions you have to make, and no matter what you choose, you have sealed your own fate one way or another.

So, how to explain the fact that Jackson performed so well? I’m sure I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I suppose it’s possible that he DID play on the level, but then what about the two facts I listed above? As I mentioned, if he had played to the best of his ability, why did he believe he was being cheated and that he was ashamed of what he'd done?

Possibly he was afraid to give the appearance that he was intentionally misplaying a fly ball or that he was intentionally making an out. I believe it was Risberg who stated that everyone was afraid to look bad; that most of the players didn’t want to make it obvious that they were throwing the games. Some, such as Cicotte and Williams, didn’t seem to care about that, as they lobbed meatballs at the Reds’ hitters and made horrible plays in the field. Jackson? Who really knows? I suspect that he was more afraid than most to make himself look bad since there had been many rumors, before the first game was even played, of corruption and game-throwing, and also because he was the best player on the team and knew he was least likely to make the kinds of bonehead plays that would make it appear that he was not playing honest ball. I suspect this may be the case.

Whatever the truth is, I firmly believe that Jackson was decidedly guilty as charged of having knowledge of the fix and taking money from the gamblers.

That is not innocence by any stretch, in my humble opinion.

[EdTarbusz]

And if I'm not mistaken, folks, was he not absent for that moment the following week in Atlanta? I seem to remember he flagged on being there, and I cannot recall what his excuse was, or what it possibly could have been that was acceptable. Anybody help us out here?

HOF work at its finest here. First he refuses to let his team manipulate it just a bit. Then he doesn't even post!!!

Kuhn had an appointment to speak before the Wahoo Club in Cleveland.

[Rube Waddell]

You should have add the syndicate ownership of the late 1890's. What the Robison brothers did to Cleveland fans was awful, not to mention what they did to the players they shifted back and forth from Cleveland and St-Louis. Had those kind of dealings be permitted longer, it would have killed major league baseball then and there.

Cancelling the World Series in 1994 deserve a mention. No only was it cancelled for nothing (the owners gave everything away to the players association anyway), it permenatly cimented the fact that from then on, you had 3 kind of ML teams:

-Rich teams who can access playoff every year by buying the best players the free market has to offer or rob poor teams of good players they can't afford.

-Financially average teams who can dream about a post-season presence once in a while
if they can retain above average player for a short period.

-Poor teams who's fans witness loosing record year after year and have nothing to hope for (ex: Pittsburg, Kansas City, Rays) .