PDA

View Full Version : 8 men out


RedPinStripes
06-09-2004, 08:04 PM
I just caught the last hour of it on cable and it has the same effect every time. Leaves me sad and pissed off at the same time. Comiskey seemed like a prick to his players, what a bunch of freaking boneheads. Guys like Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson really got the shaft .

fquaye149
06-09-2004, 08:11 PM
maybe so. . .but bob carroll wrote an interesting article about the black sox apologists in his book "baseball beyond the hype"

As far as joe jackson: If your boss in real life is underpaying you and is a miser does that make it right to steal out of the till? Bob Carrol says no. You might quit your job, but if you don't want to quit, it doesn't give you the right to break the law to secure more money.

As far as Buck Weaver, not ratting out your teammates might be a "noble" thing to do, but how is it fair to all the fans and straight betters to allow the sox to throw the series. Also how can you expect Buck to give 100% if he knows in advance the series is going to the reds? It's almost as though he's throwing it himself by allowing it to be thrown.

Obviously, Comiskey was a cheap bastard and it bit him in the ass in the form of the scandal, but that doesn't mean anyone was right to accept money to throw the series or conspire to keep the fix a secret and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been kicked out of baseball.

It was a mistake, but everything illegal can be seen as a mistake. And every crime has its own extenuating circumstances. And the fact that Cobb may have thrown games does not mean that they should be allowed back in.

Throwing the cheaters out was the right move, although it pains me to say it.

SEALgep
06-09-2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149

As far as Buck Weaver, not ratting out your teammates might be a "noble" thing to do, but how is it fair to all the fans and straight betters to allow the sox to throw the series. Also how can you expect Buck to give 100% if he knows in advance the series is going to the reds? It's almost as though he's throwing it himself by allowing it to be thrown.
He thought they might turn it around and want to at least win the series despite throwing games. What good would it do to say something during the series if they indeed were going to try to win it. As far as him giving 100%, I don't think there is any question that he did.

fquaye149
06-09-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by SEALgep
He thought they might turn it around and want to at least win the series despite throwing games. What good would it do to say something during the series if they indeed were going to try to win it. As far as him giving 100%, I don't think there is any question that he did.

Maybe so, but really, being quiet about it is still a grave crime. I know there's a lot said about honor and everything, but if they can prove you knew your friend would rob a bank and didn't turn him in, it's just as bad as if you drove the getaway car, so it's not really any different here

TornLabrum
06-09-2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
[B]As far as joe jackson: If your boss in real life is underpaying you and is a miser does that make it right to steal out of the till? Bob Carrol says no. You might quit your job, but if you don't want to quit, it doesn't give you the right to break the law to secure more money.B]

Two points regarding Jackson:

1) There is no evidence, other than the confession that he was advised to make by Comiskey's lawyer (under the ruse that he was acting in Jackson's interest) that Jackson actually agreed to throw games.

2) We do know that he did try to take himself out of the lineup before the Series started. We also know that when it was over, Cicotte tried to give him the money, and Jackson refused to take it. IIRC, Cicotte ended up throwing the money on Jackson's bed or some such thing.

Jackson's immediate response was to go to Comiskey, but Harry Grabiner told him, "We know all about it," and then told him to keep the money.

illinibk
06-09-2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Guys like Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson really got the shaft .

Maybe Weaver, but I don't think Jackson got the shaft. He threw the series, not as much as Cicotte, Risberg, Gandil, or the other guys. His numbers were put up after games were out of hand, with the exception of one, that being when the players decided to actually play when they didn't receive their money. Joe was just a great player who was very naive and easily persuaded. He was a great player who got mixed up with the wrong people, and people feel sorry for him. But, he still threw the games.


Originally posted by fquaye149
As far as Buck Weaver, not ratting out your teammates might be a "noble" thing to do, but how is it fair to all the fans and straight betters to allow the sox to throw the series.

I agree with you say, but from Buck's standpoint, what if he rats out his teamates, in the long run, how will that sit with his future teamates? Some might not be too receptive of him.

illinibk
06-09-2004, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
2) We do know that he did try to take himself out of the lineup before the Series started. We also know that when it was over, Cicotte tried to give him the money, and Jackson refused to take it. IIRC, Cicotte ended up throwing the money on Jackson's bed or some such thing.

Actually it was Lefty Williams who tried to give Jackson the money, one of Jackson's best friends on the team.

TornLabrum
06-09-2004, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by illinibk
Actually it was Lefty Williams who tried to give Jackson the money, one of Jackson's best friends on the team.

Right...I was thinking Williams and typed Cicotte.

vegyrex
06-09-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Guys like Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson really got the shaft .

Yes they did.

batmanZoSo
06-10-2004, 01:14 AM
As far as Buck Weaver, not ratting out your teammates might be a "noble" thing to do, but how is it fair to all the fans and straight betters to allow the sox to throw the series. Also how can you expect Buck to give 100% if he knows in advance the series is going to the reds? It's almost as though he's throwing it himself by allowing it to be thrown.

That makes sense in theory, but as the story went, the whole thing was kind of ambiguous. At least that's how the movie played out. Weaver wasn't "sure" they were gonna go through with it. And they almost won the series as it is, they pushed it to an eighth game.

Originally posted by fquaye149


As far as joe jackson: If your boss in real life is underpaying you and is a miser does that make it right to steal out of the till? Bob Carrol says no. You might quit your job, but if you don't want to quit, it doesn't give you the right to break the law to secure more money.





I guess our boys had a little Milton in them...

http://www.gothamist.com/images/milton_looks.jpg
"I'll show that Comiskey...and I'm getting back my stapler."

PaulDrake
06-10-2004, 08:54 AM
Weaver didn't live in a touchy feely tabloid age. He was like most other males of his generation, more in the Gary Cooper strong but silent mold. Weaver came from Pennsylvania coal mining country. In that part of the world ratting on your friends could easily get you killed. As the movie relates, Weaver tried to air his side of the story, to no avail. He kept trying to clear his name until his death of a sudden heart attack on a south side street in 1956. If any one of the Black Sox deserved a better fate it was Buck Weaver.

jackbrohamer
06-10-2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Two points regarding Jackson:

1) There is no evidence, other than the confession that he was advised to make by Comiskey's lawyer (under the ruse that he was acting in Jackson's interest) that Jackson actually agreed to throw games.

2) We do know that he did try to take himself out of the lineup before the Series started. We also know that when it was over, Cicotte tried to give him the money, and Jackson refused to take it. IIRC, Cicotte ended up throwing the money on Jackson's bed or some such thing.

Jackson's immediate response was to go to Comiskey, but Harry Grabiner told him, "We know all about it," and then told him to keep the money.

Two more points about Jackson: (1) the State's Attorney induced him to sign a "confession" in exchange for promises that they would not prosecute him. He wasn't represented by an attorney, didn't write the confession and -- depending on the source of information -- may have been unable to read. That type of confession is completely unreliable and would almost certainly be inadmissible; (2) he and the other Sox players were acquitted of conspiracy charges afterwards, say what you want about the charges but it was the only time any of them had their day in court & they won.

jackbrohamer
06-10-2004, 09:16 AM
Also, jerks like Jerome Holtzman persist in claiming that Jackson didn't play all-out because he went hitless in some of the WS games. Even though he batted .375 with an OPS of .959 during the Series.

Guess he should have hit .600 or .700 just to prove his innocence.

illinibk
06-10-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by jackbrohamer
(2) he and the other Sox players were acquitted of conspiracy charges afterwards, say what you want about the charges but it was the only time any of them had their day in court & they won.

True, they did, but weren't they acquitted because the signed confessions and other evidence suspiciously "disappear" during the trial?

illinibk
06-10-2004, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by jackbrohamer
Also, jerks like Jerome Holtzman persist in claiming that Jackson didn't play all-out because he went hitless in some of the WS games. Even though he batted .375 with an OPS of .959 during the Series.

Guess he should have hit .600 or .700 just to prove his innocence.

As I said earlier in this thread: "His numbers were put up after games were out of hand, with the exception of one, that being when the players decided to actually play when they didn't receive their money"

jackbrohamer
06-10-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by illinibk
As I said earlier in this thread: "His numbers were put up after games were out of hand, with the exception of one, that being when the players decided to actually play when they didn't receive their money"


I know that's the argument, but to me it's not logical. A batting average of .375 is good. He hit .375 but he didn't hit it the right way? He was a lifetime .356 hitter. The argument assumes that he had the ability to hit whatever he wanted, 1.000 or.700 or something, and that but for his complicity it fell all the way down to .375. To assume that he should have hit substantially higher than .375 to prove his innocence is not logical.

Jackson's "confession" did disappear, and turned up about 5 years later in Comiskey's possession when Jackson filed a lawsuit against Comiskey for not paying him his salary.

But the "confession" was not taken under reliable circumstances due to among other things questions about whether the man could read. And the disappearance of Jackson's confession doesn't explain for why the remaining Sox players were all aquitted after a full trial. People tend to just assume the trial was crooked, without advancing any factual basis to support the conclusion.

Hangar18
06-10-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Comiskey seemed like a prick to his players.......................Guys like Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson really got the shaft .

Reinsdorf seemed like a prick to his players.........Guys like Carlton Fisk got the shaft.

TornLabrum
06-10-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by jackbrohamer
Also, jerks like Jerome Holtzman persist in claiming that Jackson didn't play all-out because he went hitless in some of the WS games. Even though he batted .375 with an OPS of .959 during the Series.

Guess he should have hit .600 or .700 just to prove his innocence.

Most of the people who criticiize Jackson's lack of timely hitting seem to make the assumption that batters can hit any time they want. This, or course, is utter BS.

For a lot of Jackson's side of the story, a good source is http;//www.blackbetsy.com (http://www.blackbetsy.com).

One of the latest things I've seen put up there is a debunking or the "9 triples (or whatever it was) to left field" myth.

TornLabrum
06-10-2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by illinibk
True, they did, but weren't they acquitted because the signed confessions and other evidence suspiciously "disappear" during the trial?

And when Jackson sued Comiskey for back pay, Comiskey's attorney produced them as evidence.

TornLabrum
06-10-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by illinibk
As I said earlier in this thread: "His numbers were put up after games were out of hand, with the exception of one, that being when the players decided to actually play when they didn't receive their money"

Why do you assume he could have hit any time he wanted to? If that's the case, why didn't Eddie Collins have a better series?

fquaye149
06-10-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Why do you assume he could have hit any time he wanted to? If that's the case, why didn't Eddie Collins have a better series?



Well, maybe he couldn't adjust his at bats so he didn't get hits at proper times and did get hits in garbage time. Maybe he was giving 110% at the plate.


HOWEVER, in the field it is another story, where accounts have him playing grossly out of position at many key times. When W.P. Kinsella remembers fondly that Shoeless Joe "never committed an error," it doesn't take into account balls he would have got to if he was playing hard or in position (royce clayton anyone?)

jackbrohamer
06-10-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
HOWEVER, in the field it is another story, where accounts have him playing grossly out of position at many key times.

I haven't read those accounts, but Labrum's link explains away the "triple" myth.

TornLabrum
06-10-2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
Well, maybe he couldn't adjust his at bats so he didn't get hits at proper times and did get hits in garbage time. Maybe he was giving 110% at the plate.


HOWEVER, in the field it is another story, where accounts have him playing grossly out of position at many key times. When W.P. Kinsella remembers fondly that Shoeless Joe "never committed an error," it doesn't take into account balls he would have got to if he was playing hard or in position (royce clayton anyone?)

This is the first time I've heard the "playing out of position" argument. Exactly what is your source for it?

fquaye149
06-10-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
This is the first time I've heard the "playing out of position" argument. Exactly what is your source for it?

I have found the tome

it is called BASEBALL BETWEEN THE LIES: The Hype, Hokum, and Humbug of America's Favorite Pastime by Bob Carroll

I believe it's out of print, published in 1993 by Perigee books. It's a great book, but anyway, here's an excerpt from Chapter 9: If it Ain't Broke - Fix It!


The point has been raised that having someone like Hal Chase get away with his fixes for years may have encouraged other players (i.e., those in Chicago) to think they might do the same. If so, they should have checked their SAT scores first. Chase was evil but smart. The Black Sox were just dumb.

In the first place, they told at least three different groups of gamblers and God knows who else about their plans. . .They not only made it certain theat the odds on the games would plummet and that the word would eventually get out to someone who counted, they also got themselves to the point where they didn't even know who was supposed to pay them off. . .

Finally, they were stupidly obvious. Hal Chase could fix a game and come out looking like a hero. The Black Sox might as well have worn signs: pitcher Eddie Cicotte, one of the best fielding mounds men of his day, made critical errors, control artist Lefty Williams walked everybody but the umpire, outfielder Joe Jackson played out of position like a raw kid just up from Tacoma. . .

On any given day, you can get a goodly crowd together that favors letting Joe Jackson off the hook. . . The naysayers will tell you that Jackson and the boys were tried and acquitted in court. That's true, but it was in the same Cook County court that couldn't convict Capone of littering even though he kept discarding bodies on street corners. The reason the Black Sox were acquitted was that evidence mysteriously disappeared - evidence like Joe Jackson's confession. . .

The Jackson crowd trumpets that Shoeless Joe hit .375 and knocked out twelve hits in the Series. How could he have been cheating, they ask? The next sound you hear will be gales of laughter coming from Hal Chase. It ain't what you do, it's when you do it.

Ah, but Jackson wasn't smart enough to fake it, say his fans. They paint him as some sort of walking cipher who could hit, field, and throw but never think. Well, he was illiterate, but no one ever said he couldn't count. Like, up to five thousand, which is the number of dollars he found under his pillow, and up to twenty thousand, which is what he told the boys he wanted.

TornLabrum
06-10-2004, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
I have found the tome

it is called BASEBALL BETWEEN THE LIES: The Hype, Hokum, and Humbug of America's Favorite Pastime by Bob Carroll

I believe it's out of print, published in 1993 by Perigee books. It's a great book, but anyway, here's an excerpt from Chapter 9: If it Ain't Broke - Fix It!

Okay, now how about a primary source? Like an article from the time period that states that he was out of position in key situations?

The book "Eight Men Out" is still the most thorough (if not the most accurate) retelling of the Black Sox story, and I don't recall Asinof making any comments about Jackson playing out of position.

I also notice in your quote, the author forgets to mention the meeting between Jackson and Grabiner in which Grabiner tells Jackson, "We know all about that," and tells him to keep the money, and that Mr. Comiskey would not be seeing him that day.

Pretty important stuff to be neglecting...and pretty important accusations to make without listing primary sources.

Railsplitter
06-11-2004, 09:16 AM
I heard somewhere (don't recall exactly) that if the Black Sox had any sense, they would have gone all-out in Game One and started the slide in Game 2. Whether or not that would have doused any rumors is debatable.

jackbrohamer
06-11-2004, 10:37 AM
I think Mr. Rothstein, or his spokesmen, insisted that they show their intentions during the first game.

illinibk
06-11-2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
This is the first time I've heard the "playing out of position" argument. Exactly what is your source for it?

From the book Shoeless: The Life and Times of Joe Jackson by David L. Fleitz (2001), page 186, pertaining to Game 2:


"Joe Jackson decided to play close to the line in left field, despite the fact that Neale was a left-handed hitter, and Neale lifted a pop fly that fell for a double. Joe 'had time to catch the ball' wrote Henry Edwards in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 5, 1919, page 2-A) the next day. 'He ran circles before getting one mitt under it, only to let it drop.'"


And in relation to the hitting, from the same book, page 192:

"Joe Jackson led all Chicago batters in the Series with a .375 average, and also led the team with five runs scored and six runs batted in. Still, all of his six runs batted in came in the last three games, and half of them came in the last game when all was already lost. For all his gaudy statistics, Jackson utterly failed to hit in the clutch, especially in the first five games of the Series."

And in terms of Jackson's ultimate fate (pages 284-5):

"However the bulk of the blame for the tragedy of Joe Jackson rests with Jackson himself....Joe Jackson agreed to help throw the World Series for $20,000 because he had a weakness for money, and, at at that point in his life, his athletic talent far outstripped his judgement and maturity. Joe Jackson's fascination with money led him into a scheme that ended his baseball career. One could hardly imagine Eddie Collins, Napoleoon Lajoie, or Walter Johnson, making such a deal with the devil."

fquaye149
06-11-2004, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum

I also notice in your quote, the author forgets to mention the meeting between Jackson and Grabiner in which Grabiner tells Jackson, "We know all about that," and tells him to keep the money, and that Mr. Comiskey would not be seeing him that day.



I'm not sure what difference that makes. My friend works at a tourist attraction. The gate doesn't have counters on it to keep track of how many people come in. He could very well take half the people's money himself and never get caught. If his supervisor (not the owner) told him it was ok to do this, does that make it "all right"?

TornLabrum
06-11-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by fquaye149
I'm not sure what difference that makes. My friend works at a tourist attraction. The gate doesn't have counters on it to keep track of how many people come in. He could very well take half the people's money himself and never get caught. If his supervisor (not the owner) told him it was ok to do this, does that make it "all right"?

Well, he went to Comiskey to tell him about the money (and perhaps to give it to him). Since there had never been any prosecutions for throwing ball games up to that point (the Cubs grand jury investigation that lead to the exposing of the Black Sox scandal didn't happen until 1920), he did what he was supposed to do under the circumstances.

There are two possible explanations:

1) Guilty conscience.
2) He wasn't involved and wanted to distance himself from the fixers.

illinibk
06-11-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Okay, now how about a primary source? Like an article from the time period that states that he was out of position in key situations?


Originally posted by illinibk


From the book Shoeless: The Life and Times of Joe Jackson by David L. Fleitz (2001), page 186, pertaining to Game 2:


"Joe Jackson decided to play close to the line in left field, despite the fact that Neale was a left-handed hitter, and Neale lifted a pop fly that fell for a double. Joe 'had time to catch the ball' wrote Henry Edwards in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 5, 1919, page 2-A) the next day. 'He ran circles before getting one mitt under it, only to let it drop.'"

Another example of the fielding (page 188):

"Eller, the pitcher, led off the Cincinnati sixth with a fly ball between Jackson and Felsch in left. Joe got a late start on the ball; according to the summary of the series in the 1920 Reach Guide, 'Jackson seemed to be daydreaming when Eller's fly was hit in his direction.' ...Eller wound up on third with a triple."

duke of dorwood
06-11-2004, 11:40 PM
Too bad Collins and Schalk had to be involved. There were stars on that team for sure.

Anyone know if Shoeless Joe really ended up in Hoboken, as it shows at the end of the film?

MisterB
06-12-2004, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
Anyone know if Shoeless Joe really ended up in Hoboken, as it shows at the end of the film?

Jackson played for a semipro team in Philadelphia for part of 1932 at the age of 44. Most of his 'outlaw league' playing was done in Waycross, GA and Greenville, SC. Apparently he didn't play under an assumed name (he didn't for those 2 teams, anyway).

http://www.blackbetsy.com/imagefarm/smilejj4.jpg
Joe Jackson c. 1932, from www.blackbetsy.com (http://www.blackbetsy.com/)

TornLabrum
06-12-2004, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
Too bad Collins and Schalk had to be involved. There were stars on that team for sure.

Anyone know if Shoeless Joe really ended up in Hoboken, as it shows at the end of the film?

Jackson barnstormed well into his 40s before retiring to Greensville, SC.

As for Schalk and Collins, ironically Jackson performed better than either of them in the 1919 Series.

nasox
06-12-2004, 03:31 AM
did 8 men out win any awards?