It is Baseball's fault (Oh ye of unshodden fame)

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Take a Southern Gentleman who never ventured far from home and thrust him into a city like Philadelphia, and he is likely to bolt, turn his back on MLB, and return to more comfortable territory. However, if you ease him into the game via Cleveland for a while, before presenting him with Chicago; he may be more able to adapt to his situation. Given time, complimented by his wit and charm, he will (sorta) blend in with the "in" crowd.

Give him an accurate view of his employers history, including: all of the drinking and gambling in the NA did not work for baseball, so the NL was formed.

Well yes, the Louisville Greys were in the National League, but they all got thrown out for fixing games. And yes, the Baltimore Orioles style of dishonest play was only challenged by the dishonesty of the Cleveland Spiders in the 1890s.

And actually management wasn't much better. It is true that after the turn of the century McGraw enlisted the assistance of two NL owners to buy controlling interest in the Orioles (did I mention that syndicate baseball was considered ok?) so that McGraw could release virtually his entire starting lineup to the Reds and Giants; and then take over the reins of the Giants. Similarly, when Connie Mack was faced with the courts disallowing his theft of Lajoie, he simply "transferred" Lajoie out of the courts jurisdiction.

Yes Joe, this is reasonable behavior. As is the following:
- the NY AL club is purchased by a Tamminy Hall politico, a gambler and a reputedly crooked cop.
- St. Louis' Jake Beckley is hired as an umpire in his own league while he can't play due to an injury.
- Lajoie beats Cobb for the batting title with 7 bunt singles to third.
- Cards + Giants are charged with conspiring to throw the pennant. Result: accuser is banned from baseball.
- Cobb and Speaker would never conspire to throw baseball games, some say.
- Hal Chase makes a mockery of the "competitive" status of this sport. Wrestling is more competitive when he plays. And the same is true for many others.

By 1919 gamblers openly boast that they control ballgames as easily as horse races, and have choice players on their weekly payrolls.

Then Gandil approaches Joe and tells him that everyone else from the "in" crowd is in on the fix.

Well Gentlemen and Ladies, baseball set this stage. And the eight were the fall guys. An example had to be made, and the time was up. Eight sacrificial lambs (maybe not all eight were lambs) because the NL had become the National Association, or near enough.

It is baseball's fault.
I think.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

by approaching Gleason the night before the game and saying he felt physically rotten, and didn't want to play. "You'll play, Jacksonm, you'll play," said Gleason. Which probably explains why he played so well while being in on the fix.

He also made an attempt to return the money he received by taking to Comisley's lawyer's iffice. He was told to take the money home and enjoy the offseason.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The issues raised do not prove Jackson was innocent; at most they prove he was an idiot.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Adam,

Jackson was ignorant,Hap Felsch was the idiot.......



Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

is that what actually happened...in the real world?

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Scott

There is a Yahoo group (1919BlackSox) which has more Black Sox knowledge than you, I or Eliot Asinof could imagine. Gene Carney carneya6@borg.com is the moderator. The traffic on the group isn't too heavy, but it's pretty interesting reading, even for a neophyte in the area like me.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

fiction...someone (not Asinov) pointed out to me that this incident might explain a) why Jackson played well (as far as anyone could tell), and 2) why, in his confession, he told about how easy it was to muff a fielding play...

Both the gamblers and Gleason were watching him...

I don't think anyone was claiming he was innocent--he took money, and confessed. As for his playing, perhaps what appears good to everyone else wasn't his best. Just took the edge off a bit...

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

1. Joe Jackson took the money to throw the series; and
2. Joe Jackson knew it was wrong when he did it.

Whether it was more wrong than the other wrongs cited is not relevant, just as it is no defense to a traffic ticket for speeding to claim that everyone else was speeding too. All we are really debating is Jackson's competence level as a crook, not whether or not he did something crooked.

Quite apart from the question of whether he took a bribe to throw the world series (he did it and he admitted to doing it) is whether his sanction for having done so should extend to being ineligible for an honor that did not exist at the time he was "convicted". If we were dealing in laws, the answer would be "no"; we don't allow new punishments to be created after the fact for crimes done before the punishments were enacted. If we did, Charles Manson and Sirhan Sirhan would have been gassed years ago. Personally, I'd make him eligible and let the voters decide, not because I don't think he is a crook but because the penalty being imposed on him did not exist at the time of his wrongful conduct.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Julie

If you join the 1919BlackSox group and watch the emails, you will see considerable discussion of 8 Men out. The experts bemoan the fact that Asinof's book has no footnotes or citations, and sources for much of the offered evidence in the book can't easily be identified to be verified.

Thus while the book is presented as fact, much debate still rages about how correct and complete the book actually is. I don't follow the scandal in that level of detail to be able to add anything, but the debate certainly is interesting to watch.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

on "www,Blacksox.com." They saw it here and asked for it. (I have no idea who took it; I guess nobody does).

Anyway, the report that Joe asked to be benched, twice, before the Series started is presented as FACT in the introduction to his section; that's good enough for me. If they're arguing about Asinov's sourses, why are they repeating his words?

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Julie

Is it the right link you gave? On http://www.blacksox.com , I found:

"The sockscription - there is no easier way to deal with your sock angst.
Blacksocks is the inventor of the revolutionary sockscription™. This is how it works: You choose between black mid-calf or knee socks."

No baseball, but they look like darn fine socks.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

As we all know, Jackson was one of the very best Baseball players of all time. However, we all know he was not a genius. So, going by what you stated, NOBODY should ever get by with an "insanity" plea!?!?!? Correct? I am not saying Jackson was "insane", just that with his intelligence and the hardships provided by people making fun of his intelligence, I could understand him wanting to "fit in" and not really thinking his actions were wrong at the time. People get light sentences all the time b/c of their intelligence in court! People also get lighter sentences acting on "impulse"!

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

and not the link I gave. There's also a "www.blackbetsy.com"--which also uses my photograph of Joe. It really gets around. Poor old orphan--wish I knew who took it.



Renata Gelasso used it in one of her many sets, but it's not as clear a picture as mine, and she further messed it up by attempting to repair the hole in the print of negative by his mouth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Warshawlaw, I really hesitate to disagree with you on this, but it appears to me that by mandating that convicted pedophiles be listed on the internet and otherwise made subject to revealation, public scrutiny and ridicule after they have already served their sentence; we are in fact allowing new punishments to be created after the fact for crimes done before the punishments were enacted.

Please offer your insight on this OT subject.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Scott: Yeah but...he did know it was wrong when he did it. The insanity defense is based on either irresistable impulse (i.e., a schizo being told by God to act) or lack of understanding due to mental disease so severe that he doesn't understand what he did was wrong.

Gilbert: I happen to think you are correct about the pedophilia registration laws amounting to an unlawful additional criminal sanction. The courts that have addressed it so far have fudged the matter by stating that absent incarceration and/or fines, the law isn't an impermissble ex post facto (after the fact) criminal penalty but merely a civil or administrative requirement. Sort of like the now famous fudging on torture: If I kick you in the nuts, it is torture but if I bitch-slap you and chain you to a door for four hours in an uncomfortable position it isn't. Personally, I'd like to see the jackasses responsible for Abu Ghraib chained to a door, etc., and see whether they think it is torture then...

Jackson knew what he was doing, so he was not insane, and in the baseball context, the sanctions are all "criminal" hence my view he should not be hung out to dry for something that wasn't even in existence when he was punished the first time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I think that there was ample time between Gandil's initial offer and the taking of the payoff for even an idiot to figure out what he was doing.

He accepted the payoff. He is guilty. Baseball may have set the stage, but Jackson was an actor. Weaver was not. And maybe in Buck's case it is baseball's fault. I mean, ya can't be a rat. Even if youre yella.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Buck was.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

I know very little about the events, outside of the movie (which is my favorite baseball movie) and things related to cards, like: Bill Burns didn't know which hand to wear his glove on, so I'm not surprised he bungled the blacksox caper.

...but when I see a dug-out conversation from 1919 quoted as 'fact', I'm skeptical.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

No, he was not innocent. An innocent. For a while.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Cornell

Buck was.

Buck was innocent? Oh, really? There are eyewitnesses who contradict that. Also, he knowingly suppressed info about the other players on his team throwing games. Landis was absolutely right to toss him and set an example.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

On August 4, 1921 Judge Landis established the rules which were then retroactively enforced, thereby instantly ending the careers of nine baseball players. This approach of making a rule and then using this new rule to judge past behavior is a technique which many may feel is arbitrary. His edict stated:

“Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player that throws a ballgame, no player that entertains proposals or promises to throw a game, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing games are discussed, and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.”

Without offering comment on the general vagueness of these statements, one observation comes to my mind. This ruling requires ratting on your fellow players.

Now looking at some key words here, specifically: Chicago, the 20s, gamblers – one could easily conjure up thoughts of tommy guns, gangsters and related considerations. The point being that people have been known to die for suspicion of ratting on another. For Landis to require that behavior as a condition of employment, some may think is optimism at the level of unrealistic expectation.

In any event Joe Gedeon, who was a member of neither of the 1919 World Series clubs was thrown out of baseball because of his involvement with the fix. His “involvement” was that he had heard about it. Heck, IMHO if everyone who had heard about the fix was thrown out of baseball I think only Kid Gleason and a batboy from some obscure minor league team would remain in the game. But he was guilty (of failing to comply with a baseball law which did not yet exist).

So was Fred McMullin. Now Fred was smart enuff to get $5000. for his part in the fix. His part consisted in successfully handing the only fielding opportunity he had and getting one hit in two at bats. Admittedly, he didn’t help the Reds much, but he did get $5000. I should be that smart. But he disobeyed Landis’ rules, which hadn’t actually been promulgated yet.

The same is true for Jackson. He got $5000. And he hit .375. Some say that he didn’t hit in the clutch. Others point out that the player who failed to hit was the White Sox’s second baseman. Into the final game he brought a .140 batting average with one RBI. And this, a fellow with 80 RBIs that year and a BA of .319. Ill tell ya, with all of that illiterate country charm, a few aww shucks and a bit of shyness, that Jackson was no rube. He got $5000. and he didn’t change his game a bit.

And Weaver was guilty of not complying with a rule that he should have known may exist sooner or later. Although he did not take any money, and he did not alter his play – he is certainly guilty of failing to read the mind of a person who had not yet been appointed as the first commissioner of baseball

Are none of these four innocent of actual wrongdoing?

I do not think that it is wrong to choose to not be a whistle blower.
I do not think that it is wrong to entertain any and all proposals.

But that is me. And I also realize that if one was to govern his assessment of who actually participated in the fix on the basis of statistics alone, an argument could be made that Cicotte was innocent. He did botch a cutoff play, and he got shelled in the first game. But that is all. His two other games were fielded adequately and in one he surrendered two runs and the other he held the opposition to a single run.

There are lots of WS pitchers who wish they had equaled that performance.

Yes there have been players who threw games since before the National Association. The NL had cleaned up the game that it inherited from its predecessor, until the turn of the century. From then until the Black Sox, some contend that baseball allowed gambling to gain a foothold in the sport. By 1920 gambling was again out of control. But I do not accept that these men did anything different from typical societal behavior. Gambling in Chicago was big business, as was other illegal endeavors. That ballplayers were “on the take” is less noteworthy than politicians and police departments being on the payroll of gangsters.

We all lost here. And blame can reasonably be placed in many directions. But I think that a couple of these good ol’ boys managed to scam the gamblers out of $5000. each. Another, Gedeon, may have placed some bets based on inside knowledge – but I’ve never heard of that being alleged. And Weaver entertained the gambler’s offer, then rejected it.

And baseball had to make an example.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Cicotte, Jackson and McMullin (to use the guys cited) took money to cheat their boss. I think Landis was correct to kick them out, regardless of whether they actually cheated in the WS or merely cheated the gamblers too. Weaver is different. He did not agree to cheat.

One thing no one mentions is the "so what" factor as it relates to Weaver: so what if Weaver had informed on the others, what would have happened? Would the White Sox have pulled all of the suspect players out of there? Right, like they are going to sit Jackson and half their staff on one player's accusation. Would the series have been called off? Not likely. Or would the cheaters simply have lied about their involvement as they did afterwards? Landis was no dummy. His action against Weaver was calculated grandstanding, not rule enforcement. He banned Weaver and other peripheral actors because he wanted to send a message he felt was necessary to save the sport, not because he believed a rule had been broken. If he'd been concerned with rules, he would have promulgated a set of rules for the future and hammered the snot out of whoever broke them later on. It was more public relations than law enforcement and it makes no sense to debate the legalities of his actions. Later on, when the fire was put put and baseball was prospering under the Babe's wings, Landis had far more evidence of malfeasance by Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb. He again went with public relations by brushing it under the rug. Of course, he did end up getting Speaker and Cobb sent to D.C. and Philadelphia, so perhaps there was some real punishment involved

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

I really get tired of hearing how Landis "saved" baseball because I'm not sure that's a real accurate take on what occurred. He was one of the lousiest federal judges ever, almost completely uneducated, tyrannical, rigid, self-rightious, and very often reversed. He was also a huge racist. Gee, come to think of it, he could very well be a Bush appointee. .

In any event, Landis was very selective about those he banned while he was "saving" baseball. There is a fair amount of evidence that Comiskey was made aware of the fix while it was occurring. There is a fair amount of evidence that he attempted to tell Ban Johnson, with whom he was feuding, about it, and that he was rebuffed. There is utterly no doubt that Comiskey routinely screwed his players salary-wise, and almost no doubt that Comiskey dispatched Alfred Austrian, his lawyer, to misrepresent his status to the involved players, purport to be on their side, get them to make confessions, and then use the information contained in those confessions against them. They couldn't use the actual confessions against the players because it is also fairly clear that Comiskey had them stolen. They disappeared during the trial of the fixers, but mysteriously re-appeared during the trial of Jackson's claim for his salary against Comiskey several years later.

To my way of thinking, the claim that Landis "saved" baseball is problematic. As I understand things, AT THE TIME, it was no secret that a fix was occurring. In fact, some of the things I've read seem to indicate that there was a double, perhaps even a triple, fix, going on. In that regard, if you look at the records of many of the "clean" Sox during that series, I think it is hard to argue that they performed better than did the black ones.

Whatever the case may be, it seems to me that Landis banished those who were least able to fight his decree. In that regard, I have always found it somewhat ironic that Landis didn't see fit to banish Cobb and Speaker, both of whom had money, influence, and good lawyers, his reason being that whatever might have occurred was before his time as Commissioner. Guess what? So did the 1919 World Series.

I don't think any reasonable baseball fan will disagree with the concept that agreeing to throw a game is perhaps the worst thing that a player can do. However, while I don't like sounding like a Joe Jackson apologist, I also think that failing to follow through with the fix, doing your best, and having the highest batting average of anyone in the series, having the only homerun, having 12 hits ( a record that stood for years), playing errorless ball, not being involved in any of the meetings with the gamblers, should be seen as somewhat of a mitigating factor. I won't even mention the acquittal thing, given that baseball, as a "private" institution, had no duty to reinstate him after he was acquitted.

Landis was a black and white (more white than black) guy. So far as I can tell, he had a whole lot of evidence about a lot of people who knew of, or were involved in, the fix. Comiskey, who I think is perhaps the biggest culprit of all, wasn't banished and was elected to the HOF in 1939. Ban Johnson was elected about the same time. I can't really say that I have much respect for Landis at any level. I don't think he saved baseball at all. I think he saved the owners, for which they were eternally grateful to him. That's an entirely different thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Hi Guys, and gal,
Name one person on the Black Sox who didn't know or surpress evidence of the fix. Anybody who has played organised sports, especially at this level can tell when there's something going on. So College boy Collins, Schalk and Gleason didn't surpress anything. Give me a break, Landis said anyone who knew about the fix should be banned, and that would include all of the Sox and probably half of the Reds. Weaver was just unlucky enough to have been " One of the boys" someone with direct knowledge of the fix, even though he didn't participate. And that's where they drew the line in the sand, so that the owners and other players could be salvaged.
Be careful judging the actions of men from the past by standards of today. There actions were still wrong, just more excepted during the early 20 century than today. Do you ever see betting lines on NWA wrestling? Why? Because the outcome is already determined. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

direct knowledge.

Landis may have been a lot of things but his determination on the Black Sox issue is undertandable in light of certain legal principles. First, he appears to have treated all of the conspirators the same, which is consonant with how participants in a criminal conspiracy are treated (you are all guilty of murder regardless of who actually pulled the trigger). Whether they took money, actually threw the games, or merely agreed to do it, they were all sentenced the same. Second, Weaver and the others who stood by and were banned had direct knowledge of the fix because they were in on the conversations. No one is suggesting that Collins, Schalk or Comiskey were in the room when the cheats conspired and agreed; they had reason to suspect things but were not witnesses to the events. It is the difference between direct evidence ("I heard them say they were going to throw the Series") and hearsay ("I heard someone say that they said they were going to throw the Series"). I still think the judge got it wrong as far as banning the non-conspirator witnesses but I understand why he would key on the inaction of direct witnesses to the acts rather than those who heard about it second-hand. Also, whether or not Comiskey was a $hit, it is no excuse for what the players did. Just because I think my boss is an a-hole doesn't excuse my ripping off the cash receipts.

I did not state that Landis saved baseball; we all know Babe Ruth and the rabbit ball did that. What I did state is that Landis cracked down as hard on the Black Sox as he did because he felt a heavy sanction was necessary to save baseball. Nor did I state that he was fair, impartial or even right. What he did have was a good understanding of the public relations aspect of everything he did, which is why IMHO he made some of the decisions he made.