eight men out

[howard38]

http://www.chicagolawyermagazine.com...-just-aint-so/

I doubt this is new to you guys but I just came across it.

Howard

[Butch7999]

New to a few of us, at least -- thanks, Howard. Fascinating stuff.

"... experience teaches that once accepted, a certain perception of history is difficult, if not impossible, to correct." Sadly true. Asinof's version of events has become written in stone as some unassailably factual account, in spite of its largely fudged, semi-fictionalized nature. Shoeless Joe to the Hall!

[paul]

That's an interesting condemnation of the author of Eight Men Out. But it doesn't change the fact that Jackson and others admitted in court to taking money from gamblers to throw the World Series. Whether they actually played their best, double-crossing the gamblers, may be another matter.

The jury acquittals referenced in the article also mean nothing to me. For one, I've never been able to figure out what they were charged with. As far as I know, "throwing a game" was not a crime in 1919, and may not be a crime today. So, it may be that the jury concluded that this species of wrongdoing just didn't violate the laws that they were charged with violating. More likely, the jury just didn't care. I have an original newspaper account of the acquittal. After the jury announced its verdict, the jurors carried Eddie Cicotte out of the courtroom on their shoulders. That should not instill confidence in anyone that the jurors were unbiased.

[grandslamcardscria]

Originally Posted by paul

That's an interesting condemnation of the author of Eight Men Out. But it doesn't change the fact that Jackson and others admitted in court to taking money from gamblers to throw the World Series. Whether they actually played their best, double-crossing the gamblers, may be another matter.

I was thinking the same thing. To me, Its kinda like Pete Rose only betting on his team to win.. Its an integrity issue, you cant just have a little integrity, its all or none in my book.

[FrankWakefield]

Hey there, Paul,

For the most part, the 8 were indicted for defrauding Shano Collins (John F. Collins at the end of the Indictment) out of $1784, which is how much more he'd have collected, I think, had the White Sox won the World Series in 1919. Collins was a clean Sox, one of them had to be named for the fraud.

Basically, anyone who is willing to discard their emotion and feelings should read The Fix Is in: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals (9780786400546): by Daniel E. Ginsburg. Then, they can make informed comments about Jackson's, Weaver's, and Rose's eligibility for the Hall. And they will easily be able to understand why these players should never get in (Pete should be allowed in for the day, any day he buys an admission ticket).


The Indictment and Bill of Particulars

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ictpartic.html

[ScottFandango]

the thing that some people dont get about ROSE:

even if he just bet ON his team, that is essentially betting AGAINST his team on the days he DIDNT PLACE A BET!

if he knew he had no money on his team that day, he may save his best pitchers or manage differently for when he HAD money on the line...

[ScottFandango]

i wonder if the "two chicago based lawyers" may have some interestin JJackson cards........buy as many as you can, then come out with the story that he is not really a cheater and should be in the HALL and BOOM, the cards explode...


we all know lawyers do nothing for free ...they all have their motives $$$$

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by ScottFandango

i wonder if the "two chicago based lawyers" may have some interestin JJackson cards........buy as many as you can, then come out with the story that he is not really a cheater and should be in the HALL and BOOM, the cards explode...


we all know lawyers do nothing for free ...they all have their motives $$$$

I don't think any lawyers have an interest in collecting baseball cards.

[Mark]

Perhaps you're joking about the lawyers' motives, but I predict that inclusion of Jackson to the Hall of Fame would cause his baseball card prices to drop. He would no longer be the romanticized victim of circumstance and hasty judgments. He would simply be one of the greatest hitters of all time.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by ScottFandango

i wonder if the "two chicago based lawyers" may have some interestin JJackson cards........buy as many as you can, then come out with the story that he is not really a cheater and should be in the HALL and BOOM, the cards explode..

How much more can they explode?

[Exhibitman]

"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked ballplayers and gamblers, where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."
--Kenesaw Mountain Landis

1. If not for the scandal the cards of most of the players involved would be of little value above commons. Setting aside Jackson, who was a likely first-tier HOFer, only Cicotte might have been a second tier HOFer like some of his teammates. Weaver would have had a rep as a very good player. The rest would be commons. Even Abe Attell's boxing cards would be worth less than they are now as a result of his participation in the fix.

2. Jackson did not continuously proclaim his innocence, at least not according to the accounts of the day. When Joe Jackson left criminal court building in custody of a sheriff after telling his story to the grand jury, he found several hundred youngsters, aged from 6 to 16, awaiting for a glimpse of their idol. One urchin stepped up to the outfielder, and, grabbing his coat sleeve, said:
"It ain't true, is it, Joe?"
"Yes, kid, I'm afraid it is," Jackson replied.
The boys opened a path for the ball player and stood in silence until he passed out of sight.
"Well, I'd never have thought it," sighed the lad
--"'It Ain't True, Is It, Joe?' Youngster Asks," Minnesota Daily Star, September 29, 1920, pg. 5

3. Jackson's performance during the series was a model of A-Rod non-clutch play, which certainly raises my suspicions about whether he really played to his best in every instance. During the series, Jackson had 12 hits and a .375 batting average, and the only homer, true. However, his game by game batting was very interesting:

Game 1: 0-4 Sox lost
Game 2: 3-4 Sox lost
Game 3: 2-3 Sox won
Game 4: 1-4 Sox lost
Game 5: 0-4 Sox lost
Game 6: 2-4 Sox won
Game 7: 2-4 Sox won
Game 8: 2-5 Sox lost.

He went 6-21 in the Sox losses. In the Sox wins he went 6-11. His hits in game 8 were a HR with no one on in the 3rd when the Sox were down 5-0 already and a double in the 8th when they were down by 8 runs.

4. Jackson took money. An innocent man, IMO, doesn't accept a massive (for the times) wad of cash from a co-worker, and isn't offered it, unless there is a deal in place. It later emerged that Jackson had taken the money and gave it to a local hospital in South Carolina when he got home afterwards:

http://www.fcassociates.com/ntjackson.htm

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/cheat...ory?id=2958708

Sounds to me like a guilty conscience, not an innocent man.

The fact that we have profound doubts 90 years later is grounds enough for me to never want to see him in the HOF.

Rose is a slam dunk IMO, even though as one of my favorite players ever I have a hard time believing he would ever have hurt his teams while playing. He admittedly bet on baseball. Whether he did so on his own team or not is irrelevant. He broke the most "sacred" rule of the game, the one that is posted on every clubhouse wall, and he did so while in the position of field leader of the team.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

3. Jackson's performance during the series was a model of A-Rod non-clutch play, which certainly raises my suspicions about whether he really played to his best in every instance. During the series, Jackson had 12 hits and a .375 batting average, and the only homer, true. However, his game by game batting was very interesting:

Game 1: 0-4 Sox lost
Game 2: 3-4 Sox lost
Game 3: 2-3 Sox won
Game 4: 1-4 Sox lost
Game 5: 0-4 Sox lost
Game 6: 2-4 Sox won
Game 7: 2-4 Sox won
Game 8: 2-5 Sox lost.

He went 6-21 in the Sox losses. In the Sox wins he went 6-11. His hits in game 8 were a HR with no one on in the 3rd when the Sox were down 5-0 already and a double in the 8th when they were down by 8 runs.

This argument doesn't resonate with me - according to you he would have hit .650 and hitting .375 was throwing the series? Was he throwing games his entire career?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

"
1. If not for the scandal the cards of most of the players involved would be of little value above commons. Setting aside Jackson, who was a likely first-tier HOFer, only Cicotte might have been a second tier HOFer like some of his teammates. Weaver would have had a rep as a very good player. The rest would be commons. Even Abe Attell's boxing cards would be worth less than they are now as a result of his participation in the fix.

You're wrong about Felsch's cards becoming common cards if he had played past 1920. He was going to become a superstar.

[Exhibitman]

You are conflating short term and long term statistics. It is not unusual for a player to have a series above average. In 1976, for example, Munson hit .529 and Bench hit .533, which was way above either man's season average.

My point was that Jackson had a seesaw series where the dips just happened to coincide with games where we know the conspirators included the starters. Jackson's best performances in the series occurred in situations where either the starting pitcher was not in the conspiracy (Kerr in games 3 and 6) or where the game was out of control already (game 8). If you believe the 8MO account as to what happened behind the scenes, game 7, which was the Sox's Cicotte-led rebellion against the gamblers for nonpayment, was the other game where he played well. In the games where you would have expected him to tank, he played 20% below his career average. Does that mean Jackson threw the Series? No. But you are rarely if ever going to get a direct answer to a conspiracy to defraud. Is it another piece of circumstantial evidence? Yes, when combined with the conspiracy, the money, the gifting of the dirty money, the quotes in the contemporary papers, the grand jury indictment, and so on.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

You are conflating short term and long term statistics. It is not unusual for a player to have a series above average. In 1976, for example, Munson hit .529 and Bench hit .533, which was way above either man's season average.

I'm not denying he could have batter .650 in the series, but to say that him not batting .650 is proof he threw some of the games doesn't sit well with me. More likely to me is that he had days where he saw the ball well and days where he didn't; days where he felt comfortable with the pitcher and days where the pitcher had him guessing. Just my 2 cents.

[SteveMitchell]

Thank you for the link to an excellent article!

Steve Mitchell