PDA

View Full Version : Shoeless Joe in the hall?


gogosoxgogo
12-22-2002, 09:11 PM
I doubt it will happen, but at least he's getting some attention (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20021222&content_id=188332&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp).

jortafan
12-22-2002, 11:32 PM
Jackson might have been just a rube, and not anywhere near the sleaze that Pete Rose is. But I still can't justify any restoration for him.

I honestly believe there's no way anyone could merely reinstate Jackson, unless they are willing to consider the merits of all eight ballplayers. I can't imagine Selig or Jerome Holtzman want to bother reopening the 1919 Series can of worms.

After all, who's to say Jackson was the only one of the eight deprived of a Hall of Fame career? Maybe Eddie Cicotte could have made the Hall, or Buck Weaver? Consider some of the Veterans Committee choices made over the years of ballplayers from the 1920s. I seem to recall Babe Ruth once said Weaver was the best third baseman he ever played against.

I'm not saying they should be in the Hall. All I'm saying is that there's probably no fair way to restudy the issue, in large part because so much time has passed.

Foulke You
12-23-2002, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
Jackson might have been just a rube, and not anywhere near the sleaze that Pete Rose is. But I still can't justify any restoration for him.

I honestly believe there's no way anyone could merely reinstate Jackson, unless they are willing to consider the merits of all eight ballplayers. I can't imagine Selig or Jerome Holtzman want to bother reopening the 1919 Series can of worms.

After all, who's to say Jackson was the only one of the eight deprived of a Hall of Fame career? Maybe Eddie Cicotte could have made the Hall, or Buck Weaver? Consider some of the Veterans Committee choices made over the years of ballplayers from the 1920s. I seem to recall Babe Ruth once said Weaver was the best third baseman he ever played against.

I'm not saying they should be in the Hall. All I'm saying is that there's probably no fair way to restudy the issue, in large part because so much time has passed.

I think you hit it right on the head with that last statement. Far too much time as passed since then and there are so many differing accounts and opinions on what went down that perhaps we'll never know.

Personally, as a baseball fan and a White Sox fan, I would like to see Shoeless Joe get in. He arguably was one of the best hitters of his era and certainly one of the best in White Sox history. If he indeed threw the series and not just took the money, it has been 83 years since that World Series. I think the lesson has been learned.

WhiteSox = Life
12-23-2002, 03:03 PM
I've always contended, that if players like Rose and Shoeless Joe are not going to get their rightful (speaking purely on stats here) place in the hall, their stats should not be counted "officially", but still kept. Plus, any records they have or high spots, such as in hitting, where Jackson ranks 3rd best career BA (.356) behind only Cobb (.366) and Hornsby (.358), or Rose's all-time hits record (4,256) overall Cobb's (4,191) should be kept but not officially counted. If they're not allowed into the HOF as they currently aren't and probably won't be for a long time, if ever, take out their place in "official history" but clearing their spots on all the lists.

That's just how I've always felt about the fact. Rose's and Jackson's statistics should not be "erased", but, because of what they "did", the statistics shouldn't count. If and when they get reinstated into the Hall of Fame, reinstate their statistics and numbers.

I'm not trying to start another Rose v. Jackson v. HOF Admission, I"m just stating my opinions.

FarmerAndy
12-23-2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
If he indeed threw the series and not just took the money, it has been 83 years since that World Series.

All of the details about the money, who took it and who didn't, can be debated. But the stats from the series are on the books, and I think it's pretty obvious that Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver played no actual part in throwing the series, while the others did. Jackson and Weaver are banned because they knew about the fix. I'm sure alot of others knew about the fix too, but we'll never really know.

In my humble opinion, any player who tanks a game should be banned for life. But after all this time, I think Weaver and Jackson should be cleared. Like I said, the other details can be debated, but those games are on the books, and it's pretty easy to see who tanked the games and who didn't. Now that they are long dead, I don't think that those two should be punished just for having known about it.

Just one man's opinion.

Foulke You
12-23-2002, 06:07 PM
Another note on the whole Jackson vs. Rose debate. Rose was a millionaire when he was placing bets on baseball. Joe Jackson and the other 7 White Sox players were making meager wages even by the standards of that day. Many players had to hold down other jobs in the offseason. For example early 1900s Sox pitcher "Doc" White got his nickname because he was a dentist in the offseason. Charles Comiskey was notoriously cheap and wouldn't spend anything on his players (yes I know, how ironic that some things never change). If you were a married man eeking out a living playing baseball like Joe Jackson and someone handed you an envelope with $5000 wouldn't you be tempted?

kermittheefrog
12-23-2002, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
All of the details about the money, who took it and who didn't, can be debated. But the stats from the series are on the books, and I think it's pretty obvious that Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver played no actual part in throwing the series, while the others did. Jackson and Weaver are banned because they knew about the fix. I'm sure alot of others knew about the fix too, but we'll never really know.



I dunno about Weaver but if you look at Jackson's performance it does support the fact that he was in on the fix. Everyone likes to bring up the fact that he hit .375 but he got his hits in the games they weren't throwing and there were several triples hit to left field where Jackson was playing. Honestly, how often do you see triples hit to left?

Take a look at this, Rob Neyer's breakdown of how Joe helped throw the series. I know many aren't a big fan of Neyer's work as a columnist because he's a stathead but this is completely different as he's working as a historian rather than a columnist:

http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2001/0730/1232950.html

Paulwny
12-23-2002, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I dunno about Weaver but if you look at Jackson's performance it does support the fact that he was in on the fix. Everyone likes to bring up the fact that he hit .375 but he got his hits in the games they weren't throwing and there were several triples hit to left field where Jackson was playing. Honestly, how often do you see triples hit to left?

Take a look at this, Rob Neyer's breakdown of how Joe helped throw the series. I know many aren't a big fan of Neyer's work as a columnist because he's a stathead but this is completely different as he's working as a historian rather than a columnist:

http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2001/0730/1232950.html

You're right, I've read articles which confirm your post.

Daver
12-23-2002, 06:34 PM
Joe Jackson was given a lifetime ban,he dealt with it and spent his lifetime banned from the game,I just checked for the third time in a month,and Joe is STILL dead,put him in the hall.

TornLabrum
12-23-2002, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Another note on the whole Jackson vs. Rose debate. Rose was a millionaire when he was placing bets on baseball. Joe Jackson and the other 7 White Sox players were making meager wages even by the standards of that day. Many players had to hold down other jobs in the offseason. For example early 1900s Sox pitcher "Doc" White got his nickname because he was a dentist in the offseason. Charles Comiskey was notoriously cheap and wouldn't spend anything on his players (yes I know, how ironic that some things never change). If you were a married man eeking out a living playing baseball like Joe Jackson and someone handed you an envelope with $5000 wouldn't you be tempted?

Once again, pick up a copy of Rich Lindberg's "Stealing First." He does a pretty good job of demolishing the "skinflint" label Comiskey has been stuck with since Asinof decided his historical novel "Eight Men Out" needed a villain. Jackson was underpaid. Cicotte certainly was not.

At any rate most of those guys were making more in six months in 1919 than most working stiffs were in three or four years.

gogosoxgogo
12-23-2002, 09:16 PM
for those saying that Jackson should be banned because he knew about the fix, answer me this: why is Charles Comiskey in the Hall? Jackson went to Comiskey before the series and told him about the fix, yet Comiskey said he already knew and told him to go home. Also, Jackson went to his manager the day of the game and asked to be taken out of the lineup because he knew what was happening, but was denied.

Also, why the hell is Weaver on the list? Yeah, he knew about the fix, but so did Comiskey as mentioned above. He didn't receive any money and played his damned best every single game. I just don't get it.

kermittheefrog
12-23-2002, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by daver
Joe Jackson was given a lifetime ban,he dealt with it and spent his lifetime banned from the game,I just checked for the third time in a month,and Joe is STILL dead,put him in the hall.

Why should a man with less than 2,000 career hits be in the hall?

Daver
12-23-2002, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Why should a man with less than 2,000 career hits be in the hall?

Fourth in career batting average.

kermittheefrog
12-23-2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by daver
Fourth in career batting average.

He didn't play in his 30s when his skills would be on decline and his batting average would drop. It's an unfair advantage against players who had full careers. And don't even say he deserves credit for the time he missed due to his ban because thats ridiculous.

Daver
12-23-2002, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
He didn't play in his 30s when his skills would be on decline and his batting average would drop. It's an unfair advantage against players who had full careers. And don't even say he deserves credit for the time he missed due to his ban because thats ridiculous.

The hall is not fair to begin with,so you come into this with a bad argument.Why is Sandy Koufax in the hall if you are going to carry that reasoning? Why is Don Drysdale in the Hall when he has career numbers that are worse than Billy Pierce and Milt Pappas?You can't have it both ways Kermit.

kermittheefrog
12-23-2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by daver
The hall is not fair to begin with,so you come into this with a bad argument.Why is Sandy Koufax in the hall if you are going to carry that reasoning? Why is Don Drysdale in the Hall when he has career numbers that are worse than Billy Pierce and Milt Pappas?You can't have it both ways Kermit.

Thats a terrible argument. The idea of inducting people in the hall based on the lowest common denominator will get half of baseball in the hall. Just because a mistake has been made in the past doesn't mean another one should be made. His numbers do not merit induction and the reason he didn't play a full career is because he threw a World Series. Thats not the kind of fellow I want in my favorite sport's hall of heroes.

Daver
12-23-2002, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Thats a terrible argument. The idea of inducting people in the hall based on the lowest common denominator will get half of baseball in the hall. Just because a mistake has been made in the past doesn't mean another one should be made. His numbers do not merit induction and the reason he didn't play a full career is because he threw a World Series. Thats not the kind of fellow I want in my favorite sport's hall of heroes.

No it is a valid argument,the hall has plenty of guys that made it in on marginal numbers,and it is not because of past mistakes,it is because the system for selecting who gets into the hall is biased from the outset.I notice you have no comment on the Drysdale issue.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-23-2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Thats a terrible argument. The idea of inducting people in the hall based on the lowest common denominator will get half of baseball in the hall. Just because a mistake has been made in the past doesn't mean another one should be made. His numbers do not merit induction and the reason he didn't play a full career is because he threw a World Series. Thats not the kind of fellow I want in my favorite sport's hall of heroes.

HOF induction is a subjective process, Kermie. It's silly to suggest it isn't--or even that it shouldn't be.

For example, there are sportswriters, and even some Sox Fans, who aren't convinced Frank Thomas is a hall-of-famer based on the accomplishments he has already achieved. Only subjective matters can tarnish his HOF credentials.

:shammy
"I have no such problem. Did you ever hear about how I won the homerun championship with my good friend, Mark McGwire? I saved baseball!"

:moron
"I can vouch for all of this and will do so in not less than 30 of my columns this coming year. Sammy, you are the greatest!"

idseer
12-23-2002, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy
All of the details about the money, who took it and who didn't, can be debated. But the stats from the series are on the books, and I think it's pretty obvious that Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver played no actual part in throwing the series, while the others did. Jackson and Weaver are banned because they knew about the fix. I'm sure alot of others knew about the fix too, but we'll never really know.


i wonder if you'd still feel the same way after reading this article?

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20021222&content_id=188332&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp

hose
12-24-2002, 01:23 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kermittheefrog
[B]Why should a man with less than 2,000 career hits be in the hall?


Not counting players that played part of their career in the Negro leagues, like Roy Campanella for example, I came up with 27 Hall of Famers.

Some of the more notable players with less than 2,000 hits.

Dickey, Cochrane, Hartnett, Schalk, Lombardi all wore the tools of ignorance.

Lazzeri, Rizzuto, Combs, Greenberg, Kiner, Ferrell, Home Run Baker, King Kelly, Hack Wilson, Tinker, Evers

hose
12-24-2002, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by hose
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kermittheefrog
[B]Why should a man with less than 2,000 career hits be in the hall?


Not counting players that played part of their career in the Negro leagues, like Roy Campanella for example, I came up with 27 Hall of Famers.

Some of the more notable players with less than 2,000 hits.

Dickey, Cochrane, Hartnett, Schalk, Lombardi all wore the tools of ignorance.

Lazzeri, Rizzuto, Combs, Greenberg, Kiner, Ferrell, Home Run Baker, King Kelly, Hack Wilson, Tinker, Evers

Bill Mazeroski - 2016 hits

kermittheefrog
12-24-2002, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by hose
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kermittheefrog
[B]Why should a man with less than 2,000 career hits be in the hall?


Not counting players that played part of their career in the Negro leagues, like Roy Campanella for example, I came up with 27 Hall of Famers.

Some of the more notable players with less than 2,000 hits.

Dickey, Cochrane, Hartnett, Schalk, Lombardi all wore the tools of ignorance.

Lazzeri, Rizzuto, Combs, Greenberg, Kiner, Ferrell, Home Run Baker, King Kelly, Hack Wilson, Tinker, Evers

All of those guys either don't belong in the hall or played a position more defensively demanding and meaningful than left field. Also, none threw a world series.

hose
12-24-2002, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
All of those guys either don't belong in the hall or played a position more defensively demanding and meaningful than left field. Also, none threw a world series.


What? Explain how Hank Greenberg doesn't belong in the HoF.

Gambling aside, based on talent and stats Shoeless Joe was good enough to get in the Hall. I would like to see Jackson's named cleared by MLB and placed in the HoF, but I know that it is very unlikely.

Payoffs and graft were part of everyday life, from cops to judges, to politicians and Wall Street, the fix was in at every level of society. Gambling by players was also very prevalent in baseball up to the Black Sox Series. I'm sure they're plenty of Hof'ers who bet on baseball, they just didn't get caught or it never became public knowledge. Without the hard stance by Landis I believe baseball would have eventually lost it's integrity , similar to pro boxing .

jortafan
12-24-2002, 10:18 AM
We really need to quit worrying about Joe Jackson. I can't see anybody being able to shame Bud Selig into reconsidering his case the way people are shaming Bud into rethinking baseball's views on Pete Rose. We'd probably see Gorman Thomas in the Hall before Joe Jackson.

Any real Sox fan ought to think more about what it would take to get Minnie Minoso, one of the great ballplayers of the 1950s, into the Hall. Minoso was a true talent, historically significant in the flow of Latin-American ballplayers to the U.S., and a class act to boot. Yes, I've had the chance to talk with him a couple of times when he was doing his PR work for the team. A nice guy.

I also remember an Old Timers game at Comiskey in 1982 when Sox old-timers beat Yankee old-timers. The sight of a batch of old men was in some ways pathetic, but Minnie managed to smack a home run into the third row of the left field lower grandstand. No other player even came close.

And for those of us who have trouble accepting that the White Sox did exist before we were born, what about Harold Baines. With all the Hall of Fame voters I hear bashing Harold for being a DH for more than half of his career, I wonder if when he becomes eligible for the ballot, he's going to get the Lou Whitaker treatment -- knocked off the ballot altogether after one year for insufficient votes. That would be more of a travesty than Joe Jackson's plight.

After all people, he took the money, even if it wasn't as much as he was originally promised, or if he tried to give it back later. He's just lucky he was acquitted and didn't wind up doing jail time.

hose
12-24-2002, 11:38 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jortafan
[B]We really need to quit worrying about Joe Jackson. I can't see anybody being able to shame Bud Selig into reconsidering his case the way people are shaming Bud into rethinking baseball's views on Pete Rose. We'd probably see Gorman Thomas in the Hall before Joe Jackson.

Any real Sox fan ought to think more about what it would take to get Minnie Minoso, one of the great ballplayers of the 1950s, into the Hall. Minoso was a true talent, historically significant in the flow of Latin-American ballplayers to the U.S., and a class act to boot. Yes, I've had the chance to talk with him a couple of times when he was doing his PR work for the team. A nice guy.




.


Good call, I think Shoeless Joe will never be cleared and making it to the HoF is a pipe dream.

Minnie Minoso was a awesome player that lost the early part of his career due to race. He would make an excellent HoFamer.

A few years back I was at a SoxFest where a very old Ted "Double Duty" Radcliffe was sitting at a table with a woman getting signatures for support to get into the HoF.

I always felt bad for my reaction , refusing to sign the petition, and telling him and his handler that,
"When Nellie Fox gets into the Hall of Fame I might sign your petition."

It was more emotion for Nellie than disrespect for Radcliffe.

kermittheefrog
12-24-2002, 03:42 PM
I really don't understand this idea that we should condone the behavior of Rose and Jackson. BOTH OF THESE MEN CALLED INTO QUESTION THE INTEGRITY OF THE GAME OF BASEBALL! I think thats the most important idea here. If you do anything but make an example of people like this then you are inviting others to gamble on the game and throw games and such. The most important thing in baseball is the integrity of the game, the idea that we know nothing is going on behind the scenes to effect the outcome. These guys called into question that integrity. The penalty is a permanent ban. They are permanently banned, I see no reason not to leave it at that.

vegyrex
12-28-2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I really don't understand this idea that we should condone the behavior of Rose and Jackson.

Maybe because basball has condoned bad behavior in the past. Step back and you'll see Basball has never been all that pure. It's a great game, I love it, but stop thinking it was something it never was.

What Jerry Riensdork and his fellow owners did in '94 was far worse than anything Shoeless Joe did. Get over it.

As the late great Ted Williams said, "Joe belongs in the HOF."

I'm with Ted.

MarkEdward
12-29-2002, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by vegyrex

What Jerry Riensdork and his fellow owners did in '94 was far worse than anything Shoeless Joe did. Get over it.


When did the owners throw a World Series?

TornLabrum
12-29-2002, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
When did the owners throw a World Series?

The minute they cancelled it?

TornLabrum
12-29-2002, 08:47 AM
Naturally I thought of something else as soon as I posted.

I'd say a far better example would be the owners throwing three entire seasons, which they did during the three years of collusion. And that was done at the direction of the Commissioner , Peter Ueberroth.

By deliberately not signing free agents, they failed to put the best teams possible on the field, and in many cases that could have made the difference between at least a division title and mediocrity.

Collusion didn't just harm the free agents who were re-signed by their clubs at bargain-basement rates. It kept the lower salaried players from earning post-season money.

MarkEdward
12-29-2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The minute they cancelled it?

I am in no way taking the owners' side, but labor strife is *much* different than purposefully losing a World Series.

vegyrex
12-29-2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Naturally I thought of something else as soon as I posted.

I'd say a far better example would be the owners throwing three entire seasons, which they did during the three years of collusion. And that was done at the direction of the Commissioner , Peter Ueberroth.

By deliberately not signing free agents, they failed to put the best teams possible on the field, and in many cases that could have made the difference between at least a division title and mediocrity.

Collusion didn't just harm the free agents who were re-signed by their clubs at bargain-basement rates. It kept the lower salaried players from earning post-season money.


As bad as collusion was it didn't affect the relationship the with the fans. You never heard people vow they'd never return to the ballpark because of collusion. When the owners canceled the '94 world series you heard from a great many people who said they were done with baseball.
On that basis I think the '94 strike did far more damage than collusion or the Black Sox scandal.

TornLabrum
12-29-2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by vegyrex
As bad as collusion was it didn't affect the relationship the with the fans. You never heard people vow they'd never return to the ballpark because of collusion. When the owners canceled the '94 world series you heard from a great many people who said they were done with baseball.
On that basis I think the '94 strike did far more damage than collusion or the Black Sox scandal.

I don't remember saying anything about baseball's relationship with its fans. However, by deliberately and collectively refusing to sign players who would improve each team's chance of success is just as harmful to the game itself as throwing the entire season. The only difference between that and what the Black Sox did was that the owners were not kicked out of the game because the strategy was plotted by the Commissioner himself. Instead the owners had to pay substantial damages to the affected free agents.

vegyrex
12-29-2002, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I don't remember saying anything about baseball's relationship with its fans.

You didn't. I was pointing out why Collusion didn't hurt the game like the '94 strike did. The Black Sox scandal, it was feared, would cause fans to turn away from baseball. It didn't. With a little from Babe Ruth baseball did very well in spite of the scandal. Fans did turn away from the game after the '94 strike.
No fans=no income.

Daver
12-29-2002, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by vegyrex
You didn't. I was pointing out why Collusion didn't hurt the game like the '94 strike did.

Collusion hurt the game in more ways than one,if you look at it from the right perspective,the NLRB ruling against MLB forced them to pay a judgement of over 250 million dollars to the MLBPA (a sum that would have been in excess of 750 mil were it not for the antitrust exemption,which saved the owners from from paying the law allowed treble damages) to raise that money MLB chose to expand,and used the franchise fees generated by expansion to pay the judgement,and then turned around six years later and threatened to contract the league.I think threatening to shut down two franchises due to your own greed counts as hurting the game.

But then again what the hell do I know? ©

themollineaux
01-01-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
He didn't play in his 30s when his skills would be on decline and his batting average would drop. It's an unfair advantage against players who had full careers. And don't even say he deserves credit for the time he missed due to his ban because thats ridiculous.


Joe's stats wouldn't have dropped in the 1920's, due to the start of the lively ball era. Look at Eddie Collins or Rogers Hornsby for proof.

Jackson was a better hitter than either of them in that time, and would have been better in the coming years.



.........By the way, how many meetings related to the fix did Shoeless Joe attend?

Daver
01-01-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by themollineaux
Joe's stats wouldn't have dropped in the 1920's, due to the start of the lively ball era. Look at Eddie Collins or Rogers Hornsby for proof.

Jackson was a better hitter than either of them in that time, and would have been better in the coming years.



.........By the way, how many meetings related to the fix did Shoeless Joe attend?

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

themollineaux
01-01-2003, 07:41 PM
I'm a regular at the mlb.com boards, and read this site often,

......just decided to post.......

TornLabrum
01-01-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by themollineaux
Joe's stats wouldn't have dropped in the 1920's, due to the start of the lively ball era. Look at Eddie Collins or Rogers Hornsby for proof.

Jackson was a better hitter than either of them in that time, and would have been better in the coming years.



.........By the way, how many meetings related to the fix did Shoeless Joe attend?

Jackson's stats in 1920, his only year with the new pitching rules and cleaner balls, were among his best. However, he would have probably undergone some kind of decline as he aged.

From what I remember from Asinof's historical novel "Eight Men Out," Jackson didn't attend any of the meetings, unlike Weaver who attended but refused to participate.

Also, iirc, there may be testimony somewhere that Cicotte actually "gave" Jackson the money by throwing at him, or on his bed or something like that. I haven't looked that up in years, though.

T Dog
01-01-2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
From what I remember from Asinof's historical novel "Eight Men Out," Jackson didn't attend any of the meetings, unlike Weaver who attended but refused to participate.

Eight Men Out was not a historical novel. It was a volume of historical journalism. It includes a couple of errors, which can be blamed on his sources. For example, Joe Jackson denied the "say it ain't so" story to his death, a dozen years before the book came out. The episode came from a contemporary newspaper account, probably fabricated by a reporter who thought it would improve his story. However, Eight Men Out remains the best single document on the Black Sox scandal, with fewer errors than you'll find in your average high school history textbook.

The best historical novel -- fiction -- dealing with the 1919 World Series is Harry Stein's Hoopla, although there is a passing reference to the series in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. I had hoped that the movie about the Black Sox scandal would be based on Hoopla because it tells a more entertaining story than Eight Men Out. Much of Hoopla is fictitiously narrated by Buck Weaver. The year after Joe Jackson died, Bernard Malamud came out with The Natural, which, he said, was inspired by the Joe Jackson tragedy. The book ends with Roy Hobbs striking out, despite his best efforts, and leaving the park and baseball in disgrace. Joe Jackson, of course, also sympthetically inspired W.P. Kinsella. Had Shakespeare been writing in the middle of the 20th century, he would have written about Joe Jackson. No doubt, Charles Comiskey would have had a hump on his back.

Intelligent, literate people (and baseball seems to attract more of those than any other sport) care deeply about illiterate Joe Jackson. He doesn't need a plaque in Cooperstown to achieve fame

TornLabrum
01-01-2003, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by T Dog
[B]Eight Men Out was not a historical novel. It was a volume of historical journalism. It includes a couple of errors, which can be blamed on his sources. For example, Joe Jackson denied the "say it ain't so" story to his death, a dozen years before the book came out.

And it was also contradicted by others who were there, I think one of them being Nelson Algren (but I may be wrong as to whom).

TornLabrum
01-01-2003, 11:47 PM
Oops. Hit the wrong button....

Originally posted by T Dog
The episode came from a contemporary newspaper account, probably fabricated by a reporter who thought it would improve his story.

The source, iirc, was Hugh Fullerton, who also wrote that six players probably would not be playing in 1920 before the scandal officially broke. It would be interesting to know which of the eight were not in his original list. My personal guess is McMullen (just because he only played minimally) and Weaver.

However, Eight Men Out remains the best single document on the Black Sox scandal, with fewer errors than you'll find in your average high school history textbook.

I call anything a novel when it puts thoughts into the minds of the people involved when they were not interviewed. When that happens it becomes fiction. I refer to the part in which one of the people supposedly recognizes Billy Maharg as Peaches Graham. This is interesting because the were actually two different people. For the fact that he attributes this person as recognizing Maharg as Graham, thereby putting thoughts in his head that obviously could not have been there, the book ceases to become history and turns into a novel.

T Dog
01-02-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I call anything a novel when it puts thoughts into the minds of the people involved when they were not interviewed

My apologies. I didn't realize you were using the term "historical novel" sarcastically. It is not uncommon, of course, in historical works and biographies to put thoughts in the minds of people who are dead and cannot be interviewed, with such thoughts based on the author's research. Had Eight Men Out been published in a historical journal and subject to peer review, it would have required more documentation. Still, it was not intended to be a novel. Maybe it would have been a better book had the author not felt constrained to the convention of writing a history. I don't know of any other historical look at the Black Sox scandal that would stand up to peer review. All have problems. Most are more tainted by their blatant points of view.

The "say it ain't so" thing is indicative of the nature of contemporary reporting of the scandal. I believe Joe Jackson (who I never interviewed) in his reportedly vehement denials of the story. I used to know a news photographer who carried a child's shoe in his trunk in case he needed something to make a picture of a bad traffic accident more interesting.

More significant, I believe, is my conclusion that Joe Jackson has a legendary and mythical status that Cooperstown could never have bestowed on him.