Sometimes its far worse than a crapshoot, so to speak.
This is the 100th anniversary of the Chicago Black Sox, or eight members of that team, at least, reportedly throwing the 1919 World Series.
It's also the 30th anniversary of the heart-tug movie "Field of Dreams" and its effort to either set the truth straight or else whitewash it:
And, per Kevin Costner, one person is identified with that more than anybody, even though not the ringleader and totally opposite Rose in personality. I'm talking Shoeless Joe Jackson, of course.
So, why do we still "pick on" Shoeless Joe, and even more than Pete Rose?
Jackson was proven innocent in a court of law, as his own granddaughter notes in discussing the centennial with ESPN.
Beyond whether Shoeless Joe helped do it or not, there's the question of whether MLB isn't hypocritical, on him, or on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, as I've discussed before. And, within baseball, there's three managers named Tony La Russa, Joe Torre and Bobby Cox who likely knew some of their players, including Bonds and Clemens, plus Gary Sheffield and Mark McGwire, were "helping themselves." And, there's allegations of Ty Cobb (not a racist, as far as that part of morals, apparently, legends to the side) and Tris Speaker conspiring to fix games.
Beyond whether Shoeless Joe helped do it or not, there's the question of whether MLB isn't hypocritical, on him, or on Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, as I've discussed before. And, within baseball, there's three managers named Tony La Russa, Joe Torre and Bobby Cox who likely knew some of their players, including Bonds and Clemens, plus Gary Sheffield and Mark McGwire, were "helping themselves." And, there's allegations of Ty Cobb (not a racist, as far as that part of morals, apparently, legends to the side) and Tris Speaker conspiring to fix games.
The Black Sox in general, because this was so early in organized sport, and organized sport was trying to become more professional after the Great War, were a target. That's both as in a target for the eventual Judge Landis crackdown but at the same time, with Prohibition starting and the Roaring 20s around the corner, a target for gaming and cheating. Plus, baseball was the National Pastime. City College of New York point-shaving scandals hurt that game somewhat, but everybody moved on. More on both parts of the "target" come near the end.
As for Jackson? Like his granddaughter, as I note in this long piece, I don't think he did it. Well, so I thought at the time, which was four years before this piece.
But ... but ... but ...
That said, as John Thorn notes, many myths still abound about the Black Sox. That includes that they were underpaid (actually, the highest paid team in baseball), that they were rubes taken for a ride by gambling sharks (not true in general, and note Cobb and Speaker above, representing just a tip of alleged game-fixing at this time), and that Shoeless Joe was just a country bumpkin (actually, he had good post-baseball business career). And, contra Shoeless Joe's granddaughter, Thorn says that on the legal angle, the jury basically bought the angle peddled by "Field of Dreams" and committed jury nullification. Some might argue that Thorn, as official historian of MLB, has a reason to take this angle.
And now, Don Van Natta, amplifying Thorn, says that Shoeless Joe, by being dead, is NOT on baseball's ineligible list any longer. Meaning? The Early Baseball era incarnation of the Hall of Fame's old Veterans Committee meets in December. It could vote for Jackson if it chose, despite both MLB and Cooperstown no-commenting, in essence, to Van Natta.
But?
On PBS, Jacob Pomrenke, in addition to refuting more myths, wonders if other pre-1919 WS were fixed. I'm addressing that in Part 2.) Pomremke, a member of SABR, chairs a committee it has just over the Black Sox. Here's a list of all his research.
As for Jackson? Like his granddaughter, as I note in this long piece, I don't think he did it. Well, so I thought at the time, which was four years before this piece.
But ... but ... but ...
That said, as John Thorn notes, many myths still abound about the Black Sox. That includes that they were underpaid (actually, the highest paid team in baseball), that they were rubes taken for a ride by gambling sharks (not true in general, and note Cobb and Speaker above, representing just a tip of alleged game-fixing at this time), and that Shoeless Joe was just a country bumpkin (actually, he had good post-baseball business career). And, contra Shoeless Joe's granddaughter, Thorn says that on the legal angle, the jury basically bought the angle peddled by "Field of Dreams" and committed jury nullification. Some might argue that Thorn, as official historian of MLB, has a reason to take this angle.
And now, Don Van Natta, amplifying Thorn, says that Shoeless Joe, by being dead, is NOT on baseball's ineligible list any longer. Meaning? The Early Baseball era incarnation of the Hall of Fame's old Veterans Committee meets in December. It could vote for Jackson if it chose, despite both MLB and Cooperstown no-commenting, in essence, to Van Natta.
But?
On PBS, Jacob Pomrenke, in addition to refuting more myths, wonders if other pre-1919 WS were fixed. I'm addressing that in Part 2.) Pomremke, a member of SABR, chairs a committee it has just over the Black Sox. Here's a list of all his research.
So now, per Thorn and Pomrenke, I'm not so sure about Shoeless Joe.
As for the Black Sox in general? Per a sublink off Pomrenke's research, a few years ago, incredible and incredibly rare tape was found of selected highlights of Game 3 (first) then Game 1. And per that, it don't look good overall. Per Pomrenke, go to 3:06 in the video; note the brief GIF on the website for further looks at a blown double play started by pitcher Eddie Cicotte and ending with first baseman Chick Gandil that made many suspect the fix was in, then Cicotte getting (letting himself?) get knocked out of the box. At the end of that sequence, about 3:45, is the infamous play of Cicotte cutting off Jackson's throw to the plate. That's a play that's cited both for the other seven of the eight cheating but also, the quality of the throw plus Jackson's .375 BA for the Series, as evidence of his innocence.
IF ... he didn't do it? Jackson should be made eligible for the Hall, and then voted into Cooperstown, if there's at least the strong likelihood he didn't do it.
As for the Black Sox in general? Per a sublink off Pomrenke's research, a few years ago, incredible and incredibly rare tape was found of selected highlights of Game 3 (first) then Game 1. And per that, it don't look good overall. Per Pomrenke, go to 3:06 in the video; note the brief GIF on the website for further looks at a blown double play started by pitcher Eddie Cicotte and ending with first baseman Chick Gandil that made many suspect the fix was in, then Cicotte getting (letting himself?) get knocked out of the box. At the end of that sequence, about 3:45, is the infamous play of Cicotte cutting off Jackson's throw to the plate. That's a play that's cited both for the other seven of the eight cheating but also, the quality of the throw plus Jackson's .375 BA for the Series, as evidence of his innocence.
IF ... he didn't do it? Jackson should be made eligible for the Hall, and then voted into Cooperstown, if there's at least the strong likelihood he didn't do it.
He's got the cred.
Despite his career being forcibly ended at age 32, he's 13 in JAWS among right fielders, as I note at that link. Give him four more years, and he's at around 90 WAR. Around 70 on JAWS. Right next to Al Kaline and Roberto Clemente, at a minimum.
But, did he or didn't he? Seems more gray than ever. Pomranke and Thorn both lean yes on Shoeless Joe and all eight, and marshal their evidence better than Keith Law.
And, even his good performance could square with cheating. Maybe the adrenaline kicked in and he performed on autopilot. Maybe he had a guilty conscience, or fear of getting caught, enough to pull back. Maybe, even, he was a designated cutout, to do better than normal while the others cheated, to try to put people off the scent.
The biggest part is that the players went looking, rather than the gamblers starting by soliciting them.
Final thought? Could such a scandal happen today? Before you say "no," read my Part 3.
But, did he or didn't he? Seems more gray than ever. Pomranke and Thorn both lean yes on Shoeless Joe and all eight, and marshal their evidence better than Keith Law.
And, even his good performance could square with cheating. Maybe the adrenaline kicked in and he performed on autopilot. Maybe he had a guilty conscience, or fear of getting caught, enough to pull back. Maybe, even, he was a designated cutout, to do better than normal while the others cheated, to try to put people off the scent.
The biggest part is that the players went looking, rather than the gamblers starting by soliciting them.
Final thought? Could such a scandal happen today? Before you say "no," read my Part 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment