Eight Men Out

[Jcfowler6]

I watched Eight Men Out today and thought of two things:

How accurate is the movie?
And
What kind of cards the Net54 members might have of those guys?

[Bugsy]

Not very accurate at all; mostly because there is far too much to tell in the span of 2 hours. Gene Carney's "Burying the Black Sox" is the best book on the topic. Every couple of years, more and more info on this trickles out.

Chris

[Jcfowler6]

Was Buck Weaver innocent?

[Bugsy]

What is innocent? Attending meetings and not reporting? Taking money, but still playing your best? There are different layers of guilt in this and no black and white answers. I think the most telling fact is that he was still actively trying to clear his name 35 years later.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Not very accurate at all; mostly because there is far too much to tell in the span of 2 hours. Gene Carney's "Burying the Black Sox" is the best book on the topic. Every couple of years, more and more info on this trickles out.

Chris

The only way we could get an accurate account of the Black Sox, would be to let Kevin Costner star in and direct another one of his 3 1/2-4 hour sagas, with a 5 hour director's cut.. Just kidding.

In all honesty, I'd love to see Ron Howard take a crack at a Black Sox movie. If he can get it to turn out anywhere near as perfect as "Cinderella Man", we might be potentially looking at the greatest baseball movie ever made...I'm thinking Russel Crowe would be ideal for Ray Schalk...

[Jcfowler6]

I think a three part epic by Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame would be cool.

I just wonder how deep the rabbit hole went on this though. Like who knew what and who did what. It is both sad and intriguing.

Was Commy that bad of an owner?

[Jcfowler6]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Not very accurate at all; mostly because there is far too much to tell in the span of 2 hours. Gene Carney's "Burying the Black Sox" is the best book on the topic. Every couple of years, more and more info on this trickles out.

Chris

Chris,

Thanks for the tip on the book. I am going to pick that one up.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Jcfowler6

I think a three part epic by Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame would be cool.

I just wonder how deep the rabbit hole went on this though. Like who knew what and who did what. It is both sad and intriguing.

Was Commy that bad of an owner?

Maybe go the Star Wars route. But doing the 3rd trilogy as well.

Start with the three part epic. Follow that up with a 3 part epic style prequel, to give a little more insight into the players, owners and state of the league and economy at the time. Then follow that up with another 3 part epic detailing the aftermath.

Anyways, all humor aside. A simple trilogy as you suggested would be great. Possibly following the outline that I detailed(obviously without the need for 9 total movies). Part 1-the fix and the series. Part 2(prequel)-events and insight leading up to the fix and series. Part 3-Aftermath.

[Jcfowler6]

Anyways, all humor aside. A simple trilogy as you suggested would be great. Possibly following the outline that I detailed(obviously without the need for 9 total movies). Part 1-the fix and the series. Part 2(prequel)-events and insight leading up to the fix and series. Part 3-Aftermath.[/QUOTE]

David, I like it!

[Shoeless Moe]

The way they butcher some sports movies they'd probably have Judge Landis played by Judge Judy.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

The way they butcher some sports movies they'd probably have Judge Landis played by Judge Judy.

I was thinking Judge Reinhold.

[Jcfowler6]

Judge Ito?
Seriously what about Sam Elliot?

[tbob]

I suggest reading the book The Original Curse in which a case is made that the Cubs threw the 1918 Series and that was one of the reasons for the 1919action. Reading books like these gives a more encompassing look at the times and conduct of the players prior to the 1919 Series and provides insight on why what happened in 1919 had been happening for years.

[Jcfowler6]

Originally Posted by tbob

I suggest reading the book The Original Curse in which a case is made that the Cubs threw the 1918 Series and that was one of the reasons for the 1919action. Reading books like these gives a more encompassing look at the times and conduct of the players prior to the 1919 Series and provides insight on why what happened in 1919 had been happening for years.

Well if I keep reading this thread I am gonna be reading for weeks. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I will be sure to read this one as well.

For sure the times were different in those days. It makes for good reading.

[Kawika]

Sean Penn as KML?

[Matt]

[Jcfowler6]

Originally Posted by Matt

Matt that is sweet.

[Vol]

I know that the Reds were the underdogs for the Series, but can anyone tell me the odds that they were getting?

I am sure Rothstein laid off money all over the place, but surely the line had to move quite a bit.

And is that the way the truth came to light? By the line moving?

[MacDice]

I always wondered who did the movie props for Eight Men Out. Would love to get a nice reproduction glove from that period to play catch with.

[Jcfowler6]

Originally Posted by MacDice

I always wondered who did the movie props for Eight Men Out. Would love to get a nice reproduction glove from that period to play catch with.

Mike,

Check out these links:

http://www.baseballamericaspastime.com/equipment.html
http://www.dugout-memories.com/jersteam.html

[FrankWakefield]

Rothstein: The Life, Times, and Murder of the Criminal Genius Who Fixed the 1919 World Series, by David Pietrusza, is a must read book to understand the BlackSox matter. Short of reading that I now think that a fellow's merely scratched the surface. After reading that I'm satisfied that Arnold Rothstein had orchestrated two separate, simultaneous fixes, to insure that the fix was in. And that duality is what is perceived as somewhat confusing or inconsistent when someone only partly examines the events.

Weaver knew what was happening, he should have told, he deserved his fate. He was a good ballplayer, an interesting and sympathetic fellow.

[Shoeless Moe]

.......and in, which pretty is common knowledge, was that Buck requested a seperate trial. The only one who did that. He also said he'd never rat on his friends.

However in requesting a seperate trial that speaks volumes, it means he wanted to seperate himself from the others. Why would he want to do that? Obviously he knew the others were guilty. If he knew they were innocent also he would not have done that. So by doing so, he basically is saying the others were dirty.

Not that that is a big surprise to those who have read on the subject. Buck also placed a bet on the Series. He bet with drawing a blank offhand but a member of the media or someone a pair of new shoes that the Sox would win the Series.

Another tell that Buck was not dirty. He did have knowledge though and that is what he was banned for, but that is way to stiff a punishment for not saying anything. As from reading several other books including the Ray Schalk story amongst others, Schalk knew something was up, as did manager Gleason as did Comiskey. But all remained quiet.

Its like today, most people feel the steriod users should not be in the Hall of Fame, but I'm sure their were non-users, Thome, Maddox, Smoltz, Jeter who knew their buddies were doing it, should they be banned like Buck was just because they to had knowledge and didn't speak up, seems kinda similar to me.

[Bugsy]

The difference between Buck and Schalk, Collins, Comiskey, Johnson, etc is that Buck attended meetings where details of throwing games were discussed and he did not report it. That is why Landis expelled him and not the others. Jackson actually has a better case than Buck does since he never attended any of the meetings.

[Shoeless Moe]

Bugsy, if all of your buddies were at ones house and it was brought up that they knew of an illegal way to make some money, it wouldn't hurt anyone or steal from the poor or anything like that, but they had a plan and u decided u wanted no part of it. Or a cash station spit out a crapload of money and they took it. Do u go straight to the police and rat your friends out?

[Bugsy]

I am not arguing that Weaver is innocent or guilty. If you look at my earlier post, I don't believe he did throw the Series. The fact is that he knew about it and had discussed it with other players that did. That is why Landis kicked him out (to set a precedent) and not the other "clean" Sox. There were actually a handful of others that were cleaner than Weaver that received the punishment. It was Landis drawing a line in the sand.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

The difference between Buck and Schalk, Collins, Comiskey, Johnson, etc is that Buck attended meetings where details of throwing games were discussed and he did not report it. That is why Landis expelled him and not the others. Jackson actually has a better case than Buck does since he never attended any of the meetings.

Jackson took money - there goes his case. Granted he felt guilty and tried to return/report it to Comiskey, but still he took money, that's worse then being at a meeting and deciding you didn't want in. Jackson doesn't need to be at a meeting, once he took the money he sealed his fate.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

I am not arguing that Weaver is innocent or guilty. If you look at my earlier post, I don't believe he did throw the Series. The fact is that he knew about it and had discussed it with other players that did. That is why Landis kicked him out (to set a precedent) and not the other "clean" Sox. There were actually a handful of others that were cleaner than Weaver that received the punishment. It was Landis drawing a line in the sand.

No I agree with you on why Buck was banned, I just think it was too harsh. Granted Landis had to make a point, but I think his point was made when he banned the other guilty 7. Buck should have been reinstated. The decision by Landis was made after Buck did, or didn't do what he did. You can still set the precedent going forward that anyone with knowledge will be banned. Just too harsh in my opinion.

[Bugsy]

I think Jackson was even more innocent that Buck.

1) He didn't attend any fix meetings.
2) He asked to be benched before the first game. Would a guy in on a fix call attention to himself by asking out of the lineup?
3) His batting and fielding were flawless. Some argue he "let up" in the clutch which simply isn't true. If you examine every at bat, this carries no weight. His throw to the plate (that Cicotte cut off) is proof his fielding was on the level too.
4) He received money the evening after the last game and tried to return it the next day, but Comiskey wouldn't see him (trying to separate himself from his players) and sent Jackson home with the money. Went Grabiner went to visit Jackson in the winter to get him to sign for 1920, he again tried to return the money.
5) The signed testimony is a joke too. Commy's lawyer had an illiterate scrawl on a sheet of paper. He didn't confess to anything. He was pressured by a few suits to do what he was told.

As far as Landis' standard for expulsion is concerned, Joe passes the test, but since he was tied to the others in public opinion, Landis expelled him too. Honestly, I don't mind Joe being kicked out. I am not a Landis fan, but it served a greater good. Game fixing didn't end in 1920, but the game would have perished had nobody taken a hard line on it.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Jackson took money - there goes his case. Granted he felt guilty and tried to return/report it to Comiskey, but still he took money, that's worse then being at a meeting and deciding you didn't want in. Jackson doesn't need to be at a meeting, once he took the money he sealed his fate.

Williams gave Joe money after the last game of the Series because he said he had used Joe's name with the fixers. Joe took the proof to his club immediately the next day. Commy wouldn't see him, and Grabiner told Joe to take it home. Joe again tried bringing it up when Grabiner went to sign Joe over the winter and was told to keep it (and keep quiet about it). Joe did everything that is asked of a player (by the Landis standard).

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

I think Jackson was even more innocent that Buck.

1) He didn't attend any fix meetings.
2) He asked to be benched before the first game. Would a guy in on a fix call attention to himself by asking out of the lineup?
3) His batting and fielding were flawless. Some argue he "let up" in the clutch which simply isn't true. If you examine every at bat, this carries no weight. His throw to the plate (that Cicotte cut off) is proof his fielding was on the level too.
4) He received money the evening after the last game and tried to return it the next day, but Comiskey wouldn't see him (trying to separate himself from his players) and sent Jackson home with the money. Went Grabiner went to visit Jackson in the winter to get him to sign for 1920, he again tried to return the money.
5) The signed testimony is a joke too. Commy's lawyer had an illiterate scrawl on a sheet of paper. He didn't confess to anything. He was pressured by a few suits to do what he was told.

As far as Landis' standard for expulsion is concerned, Joe passes the test, but since he was tied to the others in public opinion, Landis expelled him too. Honestly, I don't mind Joe being kicked out. I am not a Landis fan, but it served a greater good. Game fixing didn't end in 1920, but the game would have perished had nobody taken a hard line on it.

I'm going to bed, but could argue a few of these points. For one Jackson's hitting was not flawless. He went a combined 1 for 12 in games 1, 4, & 5. Buck hit .324 in the Series but had a lifetime .272 avg.

As to when he actually rec'd the money I think that's unclear, I would need to check my books unless u have a quote u could provide stating such.

And as for Joe's confession. Joe was much smarter then the movie portrayed. He wasn't a dope. He might have been back in '09 but after playing 10 or so years in the Bigs he knew a thing or 2. So to say he was duped into confessing is open for debate, but fact is he did at one point confess. I'm not saying he didn't play hard most or maybe even the whole series but I just think unfortunately he has more guilt then Buck, but there are degrees of guilt for all of them.

[benderbroeth]

i need to get these books

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

He went a combined 1 for 12 in games 1, 4, & 5.

Cherrypicking statistics. He went 3-4 and 2-5 in the other two losses.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Cherrypicking statistics. He went 3-4 and 2-5 in the other two losses.

......after Williams blew the game wide open in the first inning.

I'm not debating he had a decent Series, but he did not overachieve like Buck did. And taking the money is worse then being at a meeting and not taking any money or part in. Your argument he tried to return it is fine and all, but just don't take it and then u don'tneed to return it.

[Ladder7]

This topic will be debated 'til hades freezes over. imo Buck suffered an injustice. Regardless, they're all wrong and Comiskey was the instigator and should have been the 9th Man Out.

Folks are wrong to blame Landis, he saved the sport... Selig could learn something from him.

[ChiefBenderForever]

Tell what you know and die, or keep your mouth shut and play ?

[ALR-bishop]

In his testimony before the Cook County Grand Jury on September 28, 1920, Jackson testified that he received the $ 5000 after game 4. He also tetified he was promised $ 20,000. He also testified that in return for $ 20,000 he would participate. He also testified that he was upset that the initial payment was only $ 5,000

The transcript is in the public domain ( I have a copy) and pretty much gave Landis all he needed

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

In his testimony before the Cook County Grand Jury on September 28, 1920, Jackson testified that he received the $ 5000 after game 4. He also tetified he was promised $ 20,000. He also testified that in return for $ 20,000 he would participate. He also testified that he was upset that the initial payment was only $ 5,000

The transcript is in the public domain ( I have a copy) and pretty much gave Landis all he needed

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/arti...ejackson.shtml

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

In his testimony before the Cook County Grand Jury on September 28, 1920, Jackson testified that he received the $ 5000 after game 4. He also tetified he was promised $ 20,000. He also testified that in return for $ 20,000 he would participate. He also testified that he was upset that the initial payment was only $ 5,000

The transcript is in the public domain ( I have a copy) and pretty much gave Landis all he needed

You mean the testimony where he didn't have his own attorney and signed a document that was put before him? Look at the 1924 Milwaukee trial, when he had his own attorney.

[ALR-bishop]

Yes. That one

[Jcfowler6]

What happened to these 8 guys after the ban? Did any of them play organized ball in anyway again?

[jerseygary]

Here is what happened to Eddie Cicotte

and Happy Felsch

[Jcfowler6]

Originally Posted by jerseygary

Here is what happened to Eddie Cicotte

and Happy Felsch

Good stuff! Thanks.