"Shoeless" R.I.P.

[Knuckles]

In this day and age, where Pete Rose is a cause celebre (as perhaps he should be) because he got 4,000 hits and is banned from the Hall, it's good to pause, I think, and remember "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. He remains banned from baseball for the part he played in the Black Sox Scandal but the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate he did nothing wrong. Joe died 51 years ago today.

On this day in 1958 The Phillies dropped any plans for 1959 broadcasts into the Big Apple. Their plan had been to fill the National League void in New York City caused by departure of the Giants and Dodgers to the west coast. They abandoned their plans for intracity broadcasts after the Yankees threatened to broadcast into Philadelphia.

On December 5, 1973, Ron Santo of the Cubs became the first major league baseball player to veto his trade.

The aforementioned Charley Hustle (Pete Rose) signed a four-year, $3.2 million deal with the Phillies on this day in 1978 after sixteen years with the Reds. The move paid off in a championship for the City of Brotherly Love.

In 1983, Steve Howe received his first of many suspensions for cocaine abuse.

On December 5, 1984, the Yanks had a busy day as they obtained base-stealing outfielder Rickey Henderson and pitcher Bert Bradley from the A's in exchange for pitchers Jay Howell and Jose Rijo, outfielder Stan Javier, and minor leaguers Tim Birtsas and Eric Plunk. We also traded catcher Rick Cerone to the Braves for pitcher Brian Fisher.

And a year ago today New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced he wanted to complete new stadium deals for the Mets and Yankees before leaving office at the end of the month.

Cliff Floyd is 30 years old today.

YANKEE BASEBALL!!!

[penguin4]

Originally posted by Knuckles

And a year ago today New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced he wanted to complete new stadium deals for the Mets and Yankees before leaving office at the end of the month.

For all the "good" Giuliani had done for our city in the wake of great crisis, this had to be the most moronic decision I'd ever heard. We'd had national landmarks blown to bits and 3000+ people killed instantly, had a city in the midst of major debts during a worsening recession and thousands of people out of work, were on the brink of war with who knows how many countries, and our national security in question, and his first concerns were building new BASEBALL stadiums??? How was that supposed to help us out? Run up more debts? Bring in more people? -- which it wouldn't, as everyone was afraid to travel, and when all was said and done no one would be able to afford ticket prices. Have those stadiums replace the twin towers in their sybollic status? Tell that to the people in New York City.
WHAT THE HELL WAS RUDY THINKING????

[Spiker]

Originally posted by Knuckles
In this day and age, where Pete Rose is a cause celebre (as perhaps he should be) because he got 4,000 hits and is banned from the Hall, it's good to pause, I think, and remember "Shoeless" Joe Jackson. He remains banned from baseball for the part he played in the Black Sox Scandal but the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate he did nothing wrong.

What Shoeless did wrong was to be born poor and uneducated. If he had a good lawyer, he would have played another decade and been among the inagural HOF class.

[Nome]

Shoeless had nothing to do with the Black Sox problems. It is a terrible shame that he was banned from baseball. There is no knowing what stats he could have accumulated had he been allowed to continue to play baseball. That said, he absolutely deserves a place in the Hall.

As fare as Rose is concerned, let's not argue what he did. I think he was innocent, others think he was guilty as hell.

No matter, what he did on the playing field has earned him a place in the Hall. With him and Joe Jackson not there the place is a joke

Andy

[NYYRules#1]

Originally posted by Nome
Shoeless had nothing to do with the Black Sox problems. It is a terrible shame that he was banned from baseball. There is no knowing what stats he could have accumulated had he been allowed to continue to play baseball. That said, he absolutely deserves a place in the Hall.

As fare as Rose is concerned, let's not argue what he did. I think he was innocent, others think he was guilty as hell.

No matter, what he did on the playing field has earned him a place in the Hall. With him and Joe Jackson not there the place is a joke

Andy

Ditto!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW - the place would be a joke anyways. Some of the players in there just don't cut it.

[Slippery Elm]

Originally posted by Nome

As fare as Rose is concerned, let's not argue what he did. I think he was innocent, others think he was guilty as hell.

No matter, what he did on the playing field has earned him a place in the Hall. With him and Joe Jackson not there the place is a joke

Andy

You're wrong in this forum, too.

Baseball HoF Rule #5:

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

He has no integrity, character, or sportsmanship, and should never get in the HoF. "What he did on the playing field" is NOT NOT NOT the sole deciding factor, as I have been telling people weekly for ten years including on this site. :rolleyes:

Ask Ray Fosse about "sportsmanship". Ask the Federal government about the hard time he did in the slammer. Read the Dowd Report: www.dowdreport.com. Tell the HoF to change its rules. If you care.

[penguin4]

Originally posted by Slippery Elm


You're wrong in this forum, too.

Baseball HoF Rule #5:

5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

He has no integrity, character, or sportsmanship, and should never get in the HoF. "What he did on the playing field" is NOT NOT NOT the sole deciding factor, as I have been telling people weekly for ten years including on this site. :rolleyes:

Ask Ray Fosse about "sportsmanship". Ask the Federal government about the hard time he did in the slammer. Read the Dowd Report: www.dowdreport.com. Tell the HoF to change its rules. If you care.

And I'VE been telling people that there are guys in the Hall who did just as wrong as Rose did. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker also bet on baseball -- it's just Rose got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[Spiker]

Originally posted by penguin4

And I'VE been telling people that there are guys in the Hall who did just as wrong as Rose did. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker also bet on baseball -- it's just Rose got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Yep. What's more they bet on baseball while players. Even more significantly, there is very strong evidence that a few HOFers in the actually threw games, most prominently Hal Chase. Two of Chase's own managers, in the middle of seasons, accused their star player of throwing games. He also reportedly cheated in clubhouse poker games, which in my view is just about the biggest sin of all. Nope there are a lot of bigger sinners in the HOF than Pete Rose. I understand banning him for the game. I don't understand barring him from the HOF, unless the Hall is prepared to throw out the Hal Chases and the Ty Cobbs as well.

[Nome]

Even worse than the players were some of the owners, who were big time bettors and whose cheapness contributed to the players problems. Notable are Chuck Comisky owner of the Black Sox, Clark Griffith. Steinbrunner wasn't exactly a model of honesty. He tried all he could do, using professional crooks, to try and smear Dave Winfield.

No, Rose belongs in the hall for his performance on the field.

Until Pete has a court trial and is convicted of gambling on the games of his teams, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

The Dodd report was based on testamony of several known crime underlords who wanted Pete dragged through the mud. And as far as I am concerned, Pete capitulated in exchange for the promise from Bart Giamatti that Giamatti would not discuss terms of the deal and would allow Pete to apply for reinstatement after a year. Pete agreed to his plea in full assurance of his reinstatement. Giamatti, then about a month after the agreement went public, against the agreement and made the alegations public. Giamatti was a scumbag.

Nontheless, no matter what the truth of the situation is, Pete deserves to be in the hall. Unlike Hal Chase and others he never let his play or managing be impacted by his gambling habits.

Andy

[Knuckles]

Don't get me wrong guys. I love a post of mine to spark a little give and take. But if the passions and opinions are so strong on both sides regarding Mr. Hustle, how much more tragic is it that Shoeless Joe died banned, amd remains so?

The back and forth on Rose is fine, but how about the guy the post was really about?

Not to mention that two Yankee trades on 12/5/84 were huge, and largely futile.

YANKEE BASEBALL!!!

[Spiker]

Originally posted by Knuckles
Don't get me wrong guys. I love a post of mine to spark a little give and take. But if the passions and opinions are so strong on both sides regarding Mr. Hustle, how much more tragic is it that Shoeless Joe died banned, amd remains so?

The back and forth on Rose is fine, but how about the guy the post was really about?

Not to mention that two Yankee trades on 12/5/84 were huge, and largely futile.

YANKEE BASEBALL!!!

I agree. From what I've read Joe was simply taken along for the ride by the teammates, while other HOFers of the same era actually instigated game-throwing incidents. Shoeless Joe's problem is that he ran into a commissioner who was mandated to put an end to the tanking and made an example of the Black Sox to drive the point home. He was denied due process and the punishment was much more severe than his particular involvement warranted and that was tragic.
But while we're at it, remember Buck Weaver. He was a great 3b man from that team who probably deserved a place in the HOF but he too was banned for life. His sin was not in participating in fix, or accepting money. He didn't, as even Landis conceded. He in fact had a great series. He was banned for knowing the fix was in and not reporting it. He was in a really tough spot. What he chose to do was keep quiet and play as hard as he could. It was a mistake but it was mistake probably 80 percent of the other players in the game at the time would also have made. He should have been banned from playing again, probably, but the ban should have been lifted in his middle age to allow him his rightful place in the HOF.
And remember that Charles Comiskey wasn't even fined for his reneging on agreements with his players that provoked the whole mess in the first place.

[Nome]

Knuckles,

Don't get us wrong. The only reason, I believe, that there hasn't been enough discussion on Shoeless Joe, is that, I believe, there is absolutely no doubt in the majority of our minds, that Joe belongs in the Hall, and for him not to be there is a major injustice.

There is more discussion on Charlie Hustle for two reasons;

1. Quite a few of us have seen him play.

2. There is much debate on the merits of his enshrinement due to the gambling question.

Joe belongs in the Hall, there is no doubt, and if I had a vote, so would Pete.

Andy

[penguin4]

Originally posted by Spiker


Yep. What's more they bet on baseball while players. Even more significantly, there is very strong evidence that a few HOFers in the actually threw games, most prominently Hal Chase. Two of Chase's own managers, in the middle of seasons, accused their star player of throwing games. He also reportedly cheated in clubhouse poker games, which in my view is just about the biggest sin of all. Nope there are a lot of bigger sinners in the HOF than Pete Rose. I understand banning him for the game. I don't understand barring him from the HOF, unless the Hall is prepared to throw out the Hal Chases and the Ty Cobbs as well.

Thanks for the support, Spiker, except Hal Chase isn't in the Hall. He had Hall-of-Fame capabilities, but the stats don't show it because he threw so many games.

So far as Shoeless Joe goes, I agree, he should be enshrined. Even if he allegedly did "throw" the World Series, the fact of the matter is, the rest of his career was brilliant, and you don't hear any Joe Jackson stories about him not trying or not giving it his all. Think about it -- not baseball as it is now, but back then, when it was just a "bummer's game" -- you're an illiterate farmboy scrapping to make a living and not knowing how much longer your career would last (there were no multibillion-dollar seven-year contracts back then, let alone multithousand-dollar ones); suddenly, you're given a chance to double or triple your salary in a few days, just by missing a fly ball here or there--which you very well could've done anyway (by accident) for free and LOST your job. Baseball wasn't even broadcast back then, so it's not like anyone but the people in the ballpark would even know what went on. Your teammates would all be in on it with you, even, so you wouldn't be alone and they could help to cover up the loose ends. Would YOU not take it??

I don't know all the facts (and I've only seen pieces of Eight Men Out) but for all I know, they could've come up to Joe and said "How would you like to make $5000? Just sign right here." Ignorance is not a saving grace, for sure, but I think Joe's given his due in not being allowed to play anymore; don't take away from him all he did, though, in the short time he did play.

MLB is trying to hold up Jackson as an example for baseball posterity, and I think they've made their point and he forever will be rememberd in baseball infamy even if they put him in the Hall. If he were still alive, it would be one thing, but the guy's been dead for over half a century, so it's not even like he could say something about it -- he died a drunk, poor, and rejected man; suffice to say he himself served his penalty. You can kind of compare it to olympian Jim Thorpe, whose medals were taken from him because he violated the rules of olympic qualification, having played professionally; Thorpe died stripped of all honor, but posthumously his family was given back his gold medals. Why is the situation any different here?

[Knuckles]

Originally posted by penguin4

You can kind of compare it to olympian Jim Thorpe, whose medals were taken from him because he violated the rules of olympic qualification, having played professionally; Thorpe died stripped of all honor, but posthumously his family was given back his gold medals. Why is the situation any different here?

Do I have my facts wrong? Has there been a posthumous awarding of status to Joe that I missed? If so, the situation is the same. If not, well, it's pretty clear how they're different, isn't it?

YANKEE BASEBALL!!!

[penguin4]

My words deceive me. I meant "why SHOULD THE SITUATION BE any different here?" that is to say, they both committed serious offenses and died owning up to their punishments. Except that Jim Thorpe was reinstated and Joe jackson never was.

[CPatriarch]

Contrary to public opinion, Shoeless Joe was guilty of throwing the WS. In his testimony during the trial, Jackson admitting that there were several balls hit to him that had he hustled he could have caught but didn't. Everyone seems to focus on his awesome offensive stats, but baseball is not all defense. While he wasn't charged with an error during the Series, he himself admitted he didn't give it his all. Read his own testimony in the book, "Shoeless Joe and Ragtime Baseball".

[Knuckles]

Originally posted by Nome
Knuckles,

Don't get us wrong. The only reason, I believe, that there hasn't been enough discussion on Shoeless Joe, is that, I believe, there is absolutely no doubt in the majority of our minds, that Joe belongs in the Hall, and for him not to be there is a major injustice.

There is more discussion on Charlie Hustle for two reasons;

1. Quite a few of us have seen him play.

2. There is much debate on the merits of his enshrinement due to the gambling question.

Joe belongs in the Hall, there is no doubt, and if I had a vote, so would Pete.

Andy

Sorry Andy.

I know that there are good reasons that Pete is a good and lively debate topic. I lean toward your assessment because that number of hits just stands out so when you see how few make it to 75% of the total he did. But the guy is a sleaze, no question.

YANKEE BASEBALL!!!

[Spiker]

Originally posted by penguin4

Thanks for the support, Spiker, except Hal Chase isn't in the Hall. He had Hall-of-Fame capabilities, but the stats don't show it because he threw so many games.

Thank you for the correction. You're absolutely right. Chase ain't in the hall; it's Frank Chase. For some reason, I've always confused the two in my mind, despite the fact that Chance was a terrific human being as well as a great ballplayer -- when he wasn't injuried.

[bobby jr]

My understanding is that Shoeless Joe Jackson did know about the 1919 Fix of the WS and I believe that he may have even participated in it.

[Bozidar]

Originally posted by bobby jr
My understanding is that Shoeless Joe Jackson did know about the 1919 Fix of the WS and I believe that he may have even participated in it.

I don't think so.

Peter Angelos told me that Joe Jackson was completely innocent.

[Carissa]

Originally posted by Bozidar
I don't think so.

Peter Angelos told me that Joe Jackson was completely innocent.

LMAO!!

[smr15]

Originally posted by Bozidar
I don't think so.

Peter Angelos told me that Joe Jackson was completely innocent.

Oh great.
Coffee through my nose and onto my sweater..... thanks, Boz!

[Bozidar]

Originally posted by smr15
Oh great.
Coffee through my nose and onto my sweater..... thanks, Boz!

my pleasure, really

[1-2-3 inning]

I was just reading the Baseball Encyclopedia on the 1919 scandal (haha geeky I know) and even though it is most likely biased they claim that Shoeless Joe may have shown the great offensive numbers (he hit something like .375 in the series) but those hits that gave him that great average NEVER came in clutch situations. I don't know, just a piece of information that I'd like to pass on.

Regardless, I don't think that anybody should be denied from the hall of fame just because of their attitude and all that. I think it should be strictly a numbers thing. Some people are jerks, idiots, and everything else, but if they were damn good ball players, they deserve a spot! Just my opinion.

Lorie

[bobby jr]

Joe Jackson was a great player, the best of his time. But revisionist history is something I do not believe in. Judge Kenesaw (Mountain) Landis believed he was involved, and he was banned from baseball. He should never be allowed in the Hall now. We can never be as close to the reality of the events of the 1919 WS as those who made the decision to ban Shoeless Joe.

Peter Angelos? The world does not revolve around him, although since you brought it up he is a darn good owner.

[YanksRockMan]

Originally posted by bobby jr
Joe Jackson was a great player, the best of his time. But revisionist history is something I do not believe in. Judge Kenesaw (Mountain) Landis believed he was involved, and he was banned from baseball. He should never be allowed in the Hall now. We can never be as close to the reality of the events of the 1919 WS as those who made the decision to ban Shoeless Joe.

Peter Angelos? The world does not revolve around him, although since you brought it up he is a darn good owner.

Peter Angelos====>darn good owner?

Oh wait....you meant Peter Angelos is a darn good smoker... ....my bad...

[YanksRockMan]

Originally posted by Bozidar
I don't think so.

Peter Angelos told me that Joe Jackson was completely innocent.

he also told me that Joe Jackson was the one who was trying to break up the scandal....

[Knuckles]

Originally posted by bobby jr
Joe Jackson was a great player, the best of his time. But revisionist history is something I do not believe in. Judge Kenesaw (Mountain) Landis believed he was involved, and he was banned from baseball. He should never be allowed in the Hall now. We can never be as close to the reality of the events of the 1919 WS as those who made the decision to ban Shoeless Joe.

Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis was an unapologetic racist too. It is not totally coincidental that Jackie Robinson broke into the minors, and then the majors, after the judge passed away in 1944. Are we going to start kicking minorities out of major league baseball?

YANKEE BASEBALL!!!

[bobby jr]

Social mores were different in the 1920's, especially in regards to racial issues. Besides, whether Mountain Landis was or was not a racist is not relevant to his actions in banning Shoeless Joe from baseball. If anything, if Landis were a racist he would have been more likely to give Shoeless Joe a break, as he was white.

I wonder if that story is true about the little kid on the street saying to Shoeless Joe Jackson, "Say it ain't so, Joe. Say it ain't so", and supposedly Joe looked like he wanted to deny it, but could not. So he remained silent.

[YankyDave]

As usual, the facts escape Booby. ALL players were white in the 20's. Does the name Jackie Robinson ring a bell.

And about you not believing in revisionist history, the only reason you even know that term is because it has been repeatedly used against you. Now take your "Angelos is a darn good owner" crap and file it in the "in my own world, by Bobbyjr" file.

[Knuckles]

Originally posted by bobby jr
Social mores were different in the 1920's, especially in regards to racial issues. Besides, whether Mountain Landis was or was not a racist is not relevant to his actions in banning Shoeless Joe from baseball.

Look, Bobby,

You have an opinion, and so do I, and I think you have as much of a right to one regardless of whom you root for. But "the mores of the 20s" to which you refer were changing in lots of walks of life as the century passed (changing slowly, but changing). And in the world of baseball they began to change too, but not until the day Landis died. Did the times make Landis a racist? Perhaps. But he kept the sport racist, not only in the 20s, but right up until 1944, when he died.

And I only attack the man because your justification of his findings alluded to him with his "Judge" title, and that's just plain inaccurate. The Landis who put the tag on Shoeless Joe was acting as a commissioner who chose to ignore the acts of owners like Comiskey that caused all the trouble, not as a "Judge."

YANKEE BASEBALL!!!

[bobby jr]

Originally posted by YankyDave
As usual, the facts escape Booby. ALL players were white in the 20's. Does the name Jackie Robinson ring a bell.

And about you not believing in revisionist history, the only reason you even know that term is because it has been repeatedly used against you. Now take your "Angelos is a darn good owner" crap and file it in the "in my own world, by Bobbyjr" file.

As usual, the point sailed right over your head, YankyDave. The point is that Shoeless Joe was NOT discriminated against by "Mountain:" Landis. Therefore the issue of whether Landis was a racist is not the reason why Shoeless Joe was banned.

He was banned because it is certain that he knew about the fix of the 1919 WS and did not report it to anyone. He was banned because he may have been in on the fix himself.

I would like to read more about this, anyone know any good books on the subject of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the 1919 WS?

[YankyDave]

Speaking of racists, how's the alter-egos Tenn68 and Rebb doing these days BigotJr? You can't post your bigoted diatribes here, thank God.

Also, you said if Landis were a racist he would have given Jackson a break because he was white and I pointed out that all players were white so it was irrelevant.

In case you find time in your busy day while avoiding answering the questions on sunspot, here's a good book:
"Say It Ain't So, Joe!: The True Story of Shoeless Joe Jackson"

[Slippery Elm]

Race-baiting discussions aside, people knew the fix might have been in BEFORE the first game of the Series. That is why Christy Mathewson was closely watching every game. He was convinced Jackson was doing things that were highly suspect and helping the Reds to win. Matty was convinced Jackson was throwing the Series. That's good enough for me. No one ever questioned Matty's honesty, intelligence, or baseball acumen.

BTW, a lot of people were 'racists" in 1919 (by today's standards), and that includes the president, Woodrow Wilson, who just loved that tribute to the KKK - "Birth of a Nation".

[Knuckles]

Originally posted by Slippery Elm
BTW, a lot of people were 'racists" in 1919 (by today's standards), and that includes the president, Woodrow Wilson, who just loved that tribute to the KKK - "Birth of a Nation".

Just to straighten out the record here, I am the one who brought up Mr. Landis's racism, and I did in reply to Bobby Jr.'s point that we should let the adjudicated case stand as is because "Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis" was behind it. He was not a judge in THIS case, and though the Series was certainly thrown, it would be silly to put all one's faith in the Landis basket here because he had every reason to find players guilty and owners not, which is why there was such a complete "investigation" but no mention of Mr. Comiskey's disgraceful behavior.

And yes, it was a different time in 1919, but it was also a different time in 1944, and if you read up on the career of Mr. Landis you will find sources that insist that if he had lived to this day, and retained the office of commissioner, the league would still not have been integrated. The man stood in the way of that progress a full 25 years after the Black Sox Scandal, and there is nothing wrong with holding him responsible for that.

Believe Joe guilty or not, but don't tell me the only reason you hold that belief is that the "judge" was behind it.