Eddie Cicotte's HOF chances - should he get in? Will he?

[ThomasL]

In 1956 columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote a series of articles on the Black Sox scandal and interviewed several 1919 Sox players including Eddie Cicotte. Cicotte said he was paid well ($10,000) but others werent (citing Lefty Williams and Ed Walsh) Here it is, sorry for the large upload image hope that is ok (leon)

In his first article of this series Pegler has a great line

"Jackson, Fred McMullin, a substitute infielder, and Weaver, are gone. American public opinion buried them in a quick-lime of moralistic scorn..."

[DaveW]

Interesting article! Thanks for posting it.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

In 1956 columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote a series of articles on the Black Sox scandal and interviewed several 1919 Sox players including Eddie Cicotte. Cicotte said he was paid well ($10,000) but others werent (citing Lefty Williams and Ed Walsh) Here it is, sorry for the large upload image hope that is ok (leon)

In his first article of this series Pegler has a great line

"Jackson, Fred McMullin, a substitute infielder, and Weaver, are gone. American public opinion buried them in a quick-lime of moralistic scorn..."

That is awesome. Pegler writes in a way that makes you feel like you're right there, listening to Eddie Cicotte talk.

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by DaveW

Interesting article! Thanks for posting it.

Originally Posted by jingram058

That is awesome.

Very interesting and enjoyable article. Do you have the other four pieces? If so, I hope you post them. Learned a thing or two, particularly that he brought up Cobb to the Bigs with him. Cicotte's description of his control was amazing. Talking in quarter-inches. Imagine that. Still don't know how to pronounce Cicotte. Am sticking with See-cott.

[paul]

If Cicotte makes it into the HOF, I will be very surprised. People forget that Cicotte was eligible from 1936 until about 1991 when the HOF passed the rule barring all players on MLB's permanent ineligible list. In all that time, as far as I can tell, he never received a single vote from the writers, and he was never elected by any of the veterans' committees. I suspect he never got any votes from the veterans' committees, but they had secret ballots at the time, so I can't know for sure.

It seems to me that the writers and committees repeatedly made the judgment that Cicotte is not worthy of the HOF because he deliberately threw the World Series. Unless today's veterans' committee has a wildly different opinion about the morality of throwing a World Series, the vote today will be the same.

Pete Rose is a different case because the writers and veterans' committees have never decided whether Rose's sins should keep him out of the HOF.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by paul

If Cicotte makes it into the HOF, I will be very surprised. People forget that Cicotte was eligible from 1936 until about 1991 when the HOF passed the rule barring all players on MLB's permanent ineligible list. In all that time, as far as I can tell, he never received a single vote from the writers, and he was never elected by any of the veterans' committees. I suspect he never got any votes from the veterans' committees, but they had secret ballots at the time, so I can't know for sure.

It seems to me that the writers and committees repeatedly made the judgment that Cicotte is not worthy of the HOF because he deliberately threw the World Series. Unless today's veterans' committee has a wildly different opinion about the morality of throwing a World Series, the vote today will be the same.

Pete Rose is a different case because the writers and veterans' committees have never decided whether Rose's sins should keep him out of the HOF.

What about Jackson? Is his situation different?

[frankbmd]

I am not old enough to have gotten Eddie's signature in person, but did get his grandnephew Al Cicotte in person in 1957.



He was a 10 game winner over 5 seasons in the late 50s. He's not borderline. In fact he can't even see the border.

[paul]

Originally Posted by jingram058

What about Jackson? Is his situation different?

I think Joe Jackson is the same. If the veterans didn't vote for him in 1990, why would they vote for him now? On the other hand, there's been a lot of public sympathy building for Jackson, so you never know for sure.

[sacentaur]

I saw mention that the 3 (of 8) players who gave incriminating statements to the grand jury later saw their confessions go “missing”, thus contributing to an acquittal at trial.

Anyone have more info on this detail?