PDA

View Full Version : Steroids & gambling, Buck Weaver & Commissioner Landis. Compare & Contrast, please.


Yorke97
03-02-2005, 10:46 PM
A sad figure in White Sox history, Buck Weaver was kicked out of baseball in 1921 because of his knowledge and failure to report the fix of the 1919 World Series to officials. He tried to reinstate himself back into the game several times before his death, each unsucessfully. He was starting to become a prominent third baseman, all of his batting statistics were rising at the time he was kicked out and had a career .937 fielding percentage at third and shortstop. Ty Cobb claimed that Weaver was the only third baseman he would not bunt against. It is generally believed that Buck Weaver was on his way to a Hall of Fame Career prior to his banishment.

What makes this relevant today?

As the hysteria surrounding steroids is unnavoidable, more is learned everyday: who was on the juice, who injected who, who knew what was going on behind the scenes.

So how come is it that somebody like Buck Weaver is any different than somebody like Sandy Alderson or Dusty Baker?

I hope that MLB can reconsider their stance regarding Buck Weaver and reinstate him and put him in his place among the greats of the era.

illinibk
03-02-2005, 11:32 PM
A sad figure in White Sox history, Buck Weaver was kicked out of baseball in 1921 because of his knowledge and failure to report the fix of the 1919 World Series to officials. He tried to reinstate himself back into the game several times before his death, each unsucessfully. He was starting to become a prominent third baseman, all of his batting statistics were rising at the time he was kicked out and had a career .937 fielding percentage at third and shortstop. Ty Cobb claimed that Weaver was the only third baseman he would not bunt against. It is generally believed that Buck Weaver was on his way to a Hall of Fame Career prior to his banishment.

What makes this relevant today?

As the hysteria surrounding steroids is unnavoidable, more is learned everyday: who was on the juice, who injected who, who knew what was going on behind the scenes.

So how come is it that somebody like Buck Weaver is any different than somebody like Sandy Alderson or Dusty Baker?

I hope that MLB can reconsider their stance regarding Buck Weaver and reinstate him and put him in his place among the greats of the era.

.937 fielding percentage? Are you sure that is correct? If so, that is pretty bad.

MisterB
03-03-2005, 12:03 AM
.937 fielding percentage? Are you sure that is correct? If so, that is pretty bad.

In the early part of the 1900's, the fields were in relatively poor condition and the official scorers were harsher in their handing out of errors. For example, the AL average in fielding % for shortstops was .942 in 1919, and .972 in 2004. Actually, over the time and positions Weaver played, his fld% was dead league average, although his range factor was above average.

Mohoney
03-03-2005, 10:32 AM
In the early part of the 1900's, the fields were in relatively poor condition and the official scorers were harsher in their handing out of errors. For example, the AL average in fielding % for shortstops was .942 in 1919, and .972 in 2004. Actually, over the time and positions Weaver played, his fld% was dead league average, although his range factor was above average.

Yup. How many errors do you think guys like Buck Weaver got charged with when the ball hit an old furnace door or something similar buried under the dirt?

voodoochile
03-03-2005, 10:48 AM
Yup. How many errors do you think guys like Buck Weaver got charged with when the ball hit an old furnace door or something similar buried under the dirt?

And have you seen the size of their mitts? People wear mittens bigger than those things today.

owensmouth
03-03-2005, 12:55 PM
It is generally believed that Buck Weaver was on his way to a Hall of Fame Career prior to his banishment.



Prior to his banishment there was no Hall of Fame.

He was a lifetime .272 hitter, he was an average to above average fielder. There's no way he'd have been in the HOF with those figures.

There were a couple of banned players that probably would've made it into the Hall of Fame, Weaver wasn't one of them.

It's time to quit rewriting history. Weaver was an accomplice. He knew what was going to happen but chose to remain silent. He made his bed, he should sleep in it.

MIgrenade
03-03-2005, 01:02 PM
I think Shoeless Joe should be back before Buck Weaver. Unless he is, which would make this comment moot.

owensmouth
03-03-2005, 01:05 PM
I think Shoeless Joe should be back before Buck Weaver. Unless he is, which would make this comment moot.

Why? He was an active participant who was paid to help throw the games.

The Racehorse
03-04-2005, 04:33 AM
It's known in the most general sense that during baseball's pre-Black Sox years, some ball players could be bought by gamblers to make an extra wad of cash.
To bad we'll never know the extent of "thrown games" during baseball's early years...

... kind of like baseball's present situtation, where it's known in the most general sense that baseball players used illegal drugs to enhance their abilities on the field. To bad we'll never know the extent of that, too.

idseer
03-04-2005, 09:59 AM
all my life i've heard 'sox fans' talk about how buck weaver was a shoo in for the hall.
BULL HOCKEY!
buck weaver was a good (not great) fielder. he also had a .272 lifetime average and knocked in less than 70 runs a year ... and he had NO power.
this is not a guy who ever makes the hall imo.
not no way; not no how!

fuzzy_patters
03-04-2005, 12:09 PM
all my life i've heard 'sox fans' talk about how buck weaver was a shoo in for the hall.
BULL HOCKEY!
buck weaver was a good (not great) fielder. he also had a .272 lifetime average and knocked in less than 70 runs a year ... and he had NO power.
this is not a guy who ever makes the hall imo.
not no way; not no how!

Of course he had no power. It was the deadball era.

As for Weaver's career statistics, his career ended at age 29 so his numbers from his early 20s skewed the numbers from showing him as the player he became. Here are his numbers versus the league average from age 26:

1917 .284 AVE .257 LGAVE .332 OBP .329 LGOBP .362 SLG .333 LGSLG
1918 .300 AVE .262 LGAVE .323 OBP .333 LGOBP .352 SLG .344 LGSLG
1919 .296 AVE .276 LGAVE .315 OBP .342 LGOBP .401 SLG .371 LGSLG
1920 .331 AVE .291 LGAVE .365 OBP .356 LGOBP .420 SLG .400 LGSLG

In the moneyball era, some are probably not impressed with the OBP's versus the average. However, the Hall would have been more likely to look at the batting averages, which were very impressive considering the time period.

As for having no power, he was above the league average for slugging every year from 1917-1920.

TDog
03-04-2005, 12:21 PM
Buck Weaver played in the dead-ball era. I've heard some people compare him statistically to Rabbit Maranville, who began his career at about the same time as Weaver and played into era of big hitting. Maranville once hit as many as five home runs in the season. He had a lifetime batting average of .258. He was mainly a shortstop, with a fielding average of .940 in more than 2,100 games. He never made an error in his four games at third base.

Rabbit Maranville is in the Hall of Fame.

Whether Maranville should be there may be a matter of debate. He was voted in by the Veterans Committee in 1954, a year after Buck Weaver died of a heart attack on a Chicago street.

I'm not saying Buck Weaver should be elected into the Hall of Fame. But I do consider him is one of the great tragic figures in baseball history.

Dadawg_77
03-04-2005, 12:34 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/weavebu01.shtml

Look at OPS+ which is park and league adjusted. Not that great.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jacksjo01.shtml Now Joe was.

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 01:06 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/weavebu01.shtml

Look at OPS+ which is park and league adjusted. Not that great.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jacksjo01.shtml Now Joe was.Sorry, but using OPS for a player in that era is just ridiculous. It's one thing to be able to calculate all these numbers. Knowing what to do with them is quite another.

idseer
03-04-2005, 02:25 PM
Of course he had no power. It was the deadball era.

As for Weaver's career statistics, his career ended at age 29 so his numbers from his early 20s skewed the numbers from showing him as the player he became. Here are his numbers versus the league average from age 26:

1917 .284 AVE .257 LGAVE .332 OBP .329 LGOBP .362 SLG .333 LGSLG
1918 .300 AVE .262 LGAVE .323 OBP .333 LGOBP .352 SLG .344 LGSLG
1919 .296 AVE .276 LGAVE .315 OBP .342 LGOBP .401 SLG .371 LGSLG
1920 .331 AVE .291 LGAVE .365 OBP .356 LGOBP .420 SLG .400 LGSLG

In the moneyball era, some are probably not impressed with the OBP's versus the average. However, the Hall would have been more likely to look at the batting averages, which were very impressive considering the time period.

As for having no power, he was above the league average for slugging every year from 1917-1920.

not sure what your point is here. ok he was an above avg hitting 3rd basmen for a few years. so what? is that the new standard for the hall of fame now? above average?
he never came close to leading the league in ANY offensive catagory.
his biggest claim to fame was probably in 1914 when he came in 7th in mvp!
he did nothing distinguishable as far as i can see.

true about the hr's and dead ball era. tho even so he finished tied with 6 other for 11th in hr's in '16 and wasn't in the top 25 in '18, '19, or '20.

so let's see. about average in the field. never scared anyone with his bat .... hall of fame?
i don't think so.

owensmouth
03-04-2005, 03:22 PM
Keep something else in mind: the low fielding averages, which to a great degree were caused by the gloves of the day, should have resulted in considerably higher batting averages.

Not so for Buck Weaver.

MisterB
03-04-2005, 03:45 PM
Keep something else in mind: the low fielding averages, which to a great degree were caused by the gloves of the day, should have resulted in considerably higher batting averages.


But low fldg% means more errors. Errors count as at bats, but not hits. Excessive errors leaguewide should actually depress batting averages.

fuzzy_patters
03-04-2005, 04:13 PM
not sure what your point is here. ok he was an above avg hitting 3rd basmen for a few years. so what? is that the new standard for the hall of fame now? above average?
he never came close to leading the league in ANY offensive catagory.
his biggest claim to fame was probably in 1914 when he came in 7th in mvp!
he did nothing distinguishable as far as i can see.

true about the hr's and dead ball era. tho even so he finished tied with 6 other for 11th in hr's in '16 and wasn't in the top 25 in '18, '19, or '20.

so let's see. about average in the field. never scared anyone with his bat .... hall of fame?
i don't think so.

Most players put up their best years between ages 26-35, and Weaver was robbed of 6 of those season. Do you agree with that? He hit between 20 and 40 points above the league average with above average power for the first 4 of those peak years. Had he been allowed to continue to do that for the next 6 years he would have been in the running for the Hall of Fame.

I think you are taking the numbers out of context and forgetting that they were put up in the dead ball era over a shortened career. If he had been allowed to play in the live ball 1920s, he probably would have been a .330 hitter during his early 30s, which he showed when he hit .338 in 1920.

DaleJRFan
03-04-2005, 04:19 PM
But low fldg% means more errors. Errors count as at bats, but not hits. Excessive errors leaguewide should actually depress batting averages.

Well, realistically... a 3B booting a groundball has the same effect on the hitter's BA as if the 3B made the play. An error counts the same against your BA as an out if the error resulted in your reaching base. So really there isn't much difference unless the official scorers of the time handed out a lot of errors on calls that could go either way. Is this correct? Maybe I am wrong (correct me if so in terms of "official scoring"), but this was how I had always understood it.

Dadawg_77
03-04-2005, 04:25 PM
Sorry, but using OPS for a player in that era is just ridiculous. It's one thing to be able to calculate all these numbers. Knowing what to do with them is quite another.

Did you see that + at the end of OPS? OPS+ is different that OPS. OPS calculates the value of a player compared to league average with park affects. 100 is an average player thus Weaver best season at 107, he was 7% better then a average player that year. Where as Joe's best season was 212, thus he was 112% better the average player. Thus before one makes a judgment one should know what they are judging.

owensmouth
03-04-2005, 04:30 PM
Most players put up their best years between ages 26-35, and Weaver was robbed of 6 of those season. Do you agree with that? He hit between 20 and 40 points above the league average with above average power for the first 4 of those peak years. Had he been allowed to continue to do that for the next 6 years he would have been in the running for the Hall of Fame.

I think you are taking the numbers out of context and forgetting that they were put up in the dead ball era over a shortened career. If he had been allowed to play in the live ball 1920s, he probably would have been a .330 hitter during his early 30s, which he showed when he hit .338 in 1920.

No, I don't agree that he was robbed of 6 seasons. He conspired with several others to rob all White Sox fans of a World Series Championship. That is what I agree with.

idseer
03-04-2005, 04:35 PM
Most players put up their best years between ages 26-35, and Weaver was robbed of 6 of those season. Do you agree with that? He hit between 20 and 40 points above the league average with above average power for the first 4 of those peak years. Had he been allowed to continue to do that for the next 6 years he would have been in the running for the Hall of Fame.

I think you are taking the numbers out of context and forgetting that they were put up in the dead ball era over a shortened career. If he had been allowed to play in the live ball 1920s, he probably would have been a .330 hitter during his early 30s, which he showed when he hit .338 in 1920.

i will only agree he didn't get in a full career. he wasn't robbed of anything. and i think you have to be careful when you project what a player would have done. you don't know what would have happened. odds are he would have stayed somewhere around those same numbers
as i said, he stood out in no department that i could see. he was just a very good looking player till he screwed up is all i see.

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 04:36 PM
Did you see that + at the end of OPS? OPS+ is different that OPS. OPS calculates the value of a player compared to league average with park affects. 100 is an average player thus Weaver best season at 107, he was 7% better then a average player that year. Where as Joe's best season was 212, thus he was 112% better the average player. Thus before one makes a judgment one should know what they are judging.The plus has nothing to do with it. OPS, by virtue of the fact that SLG is a much bigger number than OBP, puts a heavy weight on SLG percentage. That's true whether you use the + or not. Comparing players in the dead ball era using a statistic that's heavily weighted by SLG is crazy. Stealing home was comparitively common in those days but you wouldn't compare players today based on that, would you?

Dadawg_77
03-04-2005, 04:46 PM
The plus has nothing to do with it. OPS, by virtue of the fact that SLG is a much bigger number than OBP, puts a heavy weight on SLG percentage. That's true whether you use the + or not. Comparing players in the dead ball era using a statistic that's heavily weighted by SLG is crazy. Stealing home was comparitively common in those days but you wouldn't compare players today based on that, would you?

Man you just don't understand what is being measured here, do you? OPS+ measures a player against his peers. If SLG was low league wide, that that would be reflected in OPS+. If we has SBHM+ which measure a 1919 player stealing of home versus what an average 1919 player did in stealing home, it would be perfectly fine comparison and also a complete waste of time. Also I didn't compare Weaver to anyone current but to Joe Jackson. Jackson was Hall of Fame material and compared to him, Weaver is not.

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 05:09 PM
Man you just don't understand what is being measured here, do you? OPS+ measures a player against his peers. If SLG was low league wide, that that would be reflected in OPS+. If we has SBHM+ which measure a 1919 player stealing of home versus what an average 1919 player did in stealing home, it would be perfectly fine comparison and also a complete waste of time. Also I didn't compare Weaver to anyone current but to Joe Jackson. Jackson was Hall of Fame material and compared to him, Weaver is not.I know EXACTLY what's being compared. Do you? OPS is inherently skewed to heavily weight SLG. For comparing players in a dead ball era, that's ridiculous. The premise is that OPS is a sensible measure for comparing 1919 players. It's not.

Dadawg_77
03-04-2005, 08:42 PM
I know EXACTLY what's being compared. Do you? OPS is inherently skewed to heavily weight SLG. For comparing players in a dead ball era, that's ridiculous. The premise is that OPS is a sensible measure for comparing 1919 players. It's not.

This post proves you don't get what OPS+ is doing. First off you basic premises that comparing hitters in dead ball age with OPS isn't sensible is wrong. It wasn't like nobody ever posted SLG above .450 back then see Ty Cobb. While the league average was low (.348), the great players exceeded that greatly and average players hovered around it. Which leads me to think you miss the entire point of OPS+. It compares players among the players that they played against thus Weaver is being compared to Cobb, Jackson, Ruth, Speaker, Sisler and Wagner not Thomas, Sosa, McGwire and Bonds. While early player's SLG would be low by today's standards, the great players dominated and would have high a OPS+.

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 09:43 PM
This post proves you don't get what OPS+ is doing. First off you basic premises that comparing hitters in dead ball age with OPS isn't sensible is wrong. It wasn't like nobody ever posted SLG above .450 back then see Ty Cobb. While the league average was low (.348), the great players exceeded that greatly and average players hovered around it. Which leads me to think you miss the entire point of OPS+. It compares players among the players that they played against thus Weaver is being compared to Cobb, Jackson, Ruth, Speaker, Sisler and Wagner not Thomas, Sosa, McGwire and Bonds. While early player's SLG would be low by today's standards, the great players dominated and would have high a OPS+.Here. I'll type slow. OPS (or OPS+) is not a good measure of comparing players in that era. It's not even such a good measure of comparing today's players. Unless you can find it written in tablets handed down from the mountain that OPS is the supreme measure of a ballplayer.

TDog
03-05-2005, 04:03 AM
No, I don't agree that he was robbed of 6 seasons. He conspired with several others to rob all White Sox fans of a World Series Championship. That is what I agree with.

Not even Landis said Weaver conspired.

Dickie Kerr who won two games pitching for he Sox in the 1919 Series would later be banned by Landis.

He wasn't interested in justice.

johnny_mostil
03-05-2005, 10:16 AM
Keep something else in mind: the low fielding averages, which to a great degree were caused by the gloves of the day, should have resulted in considerably higher batting averages.

Not so for Buck Weaver.

Weaver was a shortstop and third baseman. In the teens, third base was considered a defense-first position because of all the bunting. You can't compare Weaver to league average like a modern corner infielder because his peers didn't do that. You have to consider him like a modern middle infielder. In that context, his batting statistics look quite a bit better.

Weaver played in an era when fielder's gloves didn't have a pocket. He, like all of his peers, had to field the ball with two hands, and catch the ball with the palm of his hand. So did first basemen. A throw in the dirt was usually an error.

The ball was often dirty, loose-covered, loose-stitched. It was harder to pick up, harder to hit, harder to drive, and harder to field.

Players bunted for hits several times as often as they do now.

That said, Weaver was a good player but certainly not one of the big stars of the league. Jackson, Collins, and even Felsch were the greater players. Had Weaver not been banned, he wouldn't belong in the HoF anyway.

johnny_mostil
03-05-2005, 10:18 AM
Not even Landis said Weaver conspired.



Exactly. Buck Weaver was banned for "guilty knowledge", that is, failure to report what he knew. Weaver never denied it, he just didn't understand why he was required to be a snitch.

idseer
03-05-2005, 10:26 AM
Exactly. Buck Weaver was banned for "guilty knowledge", that is, failure to report what he knew. Weaver never denied it, he just didn't understand why he was required to be a snitch.

ignorance was never an excuse to the law.

The Racehorse
03-05-2005, 10:27 AM
Weaver was a shortstop and third baseman. In the teens, third base was considered a defense-first position because of all the bunting. You can't compare Weaver to league average like a modern corner infielder because his peers didn't do that. You have to consider him like a modern middle infielder. In that context, his batting statistics look quite a bit better.

Weaver played in an era when fielder's gloves didn't have a pocket. He, like all of his peers, had to field the ball with two hands, and catch the ball with the palm of his hand. So did first basemen. A throw in the dirt was usually an error.

The ball was often dirty, loose-covered, loose-stitched. It was harder to pick up, harder to hit, harder to drive, and harder to field.

Players bunted for hits several times as often as they do now.

That said, Weaver was a good player but certainly not one of the big stars of the league. Jackson, Collins, and even Felsch were the greater players. Had Weaver not been banned, he wouldn't belong in the HoF anyway.

I like what you said about Weaver, though I think if he'd kept improving at the plate and ended up having a long career, he'd been close [to the HOF]... especially with the veterans committee...

... and with regards to Felsch, how many Sox fans know that this guy was one big raw power hitter waiting to happen? He would have at least had the Babe looking over his shoulder.

johnny_mostil
03-05-2005, 10:29 AM
Here. I'll type slow. OPS (or OPS+) is not a good measure of comparing players in that era. It's not even such a good measure of comparing today's players. Unless you can find it written in tablets handed down from the mountain that OPS is the supreme measure of a ballplayer.

I'll pile on even slower. OPS is a shorthand measure and popular because it is easy to compute. I don't like it either, because it underweights OBP, overweights SLG, and ignores at least significant attributes of offense (GiDP propensity, baserunning ability, and situational context). Given that those three attributes were critically important in the deadball era, it is very difficult to take OPS seriously as an analytical tool for a player from 90 years ago.

Consider also that a 1915 manager was much more likely to order a good player to get himself out to play for one run than a manager is in 2005. The player was much more likely to do it because his pay depended far more on his manager's subjective opinion of him than on any of his batting numbers -- especially OPS, which nobody computed because, in 1915, walks were considered to be pitcher mistakes and nothing else.

Any attempt to reduce a player to a single number (VORP, RC, LWTS, whatever) is questionable because people aren't really numbers. It's popular because players are ultimately evaluated by another single number -- salary -- and baseball keeps looking for the holy grail of statistics to point us to economic justice. It's far more valid today (when players are not asked to play situationally as often as they were in 1915) but still some players will always be misevaluated.

Finally, does anybody else get sick of the hairsplitting -- pretending that "20 points of OPS" means anything other than a lucky streak?

johnny_mostil
03-05-2005, 10:31 AM
ignorance was never an excuse to the law.

What ignorance? He didn't report a non-criminal conspiracy (throwing ballgames for money wasn't clearly illegal in 1919)? You lost me.

Landis made up a principle to make an example of a player.

fquaye149
03-05-2005, 10:31 AM
Prior to his banishment there was no Hall of Fame.

He was a lifetime .272 hitter, he was an average to above average fielder. There's no way he'd have been in the HOF with those figures.

There were a couple of banned players that probably would've made it into the Hall of Fame, Weaver wasn't one of them.

It's time to quit rewriting history. Weaver was an accomplice. He knew what was going to happen but chose to remain silent. He made his bed, he should sleep in it.

exactly - i'm not sure what steroids has to do with collusion?

unless they changed the equation and now 2 wrongs suddenly do in fact make a right.

johnny_mostil
03-05-2005, 10:36 AM
... and with regards to Felsch, how many Sox fans know that this guy was one big raw power hitter waiting to happen? He would have at least had the Babe looking over his shoulder.

Not in that ballpark... but Felsch and Jackson and Collins were excellent hitters. Had the ban not come down, by 1922 or so Johnny Mostil would have joined them, and maybe Willie Kamm pushes Weaver back to SS, and Earl Sheely at first, and Lyons added to the rotation -- that team wins the league a few times.

Talent collection in the age of the reserve clause was harder. Banning one third of the Yankees in 1921 would have ended that dynasty before it got started. By picking on Comiskey so blatantly, Landis (who was a fan!) injured the org for at least 10 years.

johnny_mostil
03-05-2005, 10:37 AM
exactly - i'm not sure what steroids has to do with collusion?

unless they changed the equation and now 2 wrongs suddenly do in fact make a right.

I think he means if Weaver could be banned for "guilty knowledge" of cheating, then 100s of present day ballplayers should get banned.

fquaye149
03-05-2005, 10:44 AM
I think he means if Weaver could be banned for "guilty knowledge" of cheating, then 100s of present day ballplayers should get banned.

sure. i'll drink to that. just prove who knows what.

Dadawg_77
03-05-2005, 10:59 AM
Here. I'll type slow. OPS (or OPS+) is not a good measure of comparing players in that era. It's not even such a good measure of comparing today's players. Unless you can find it written in tablets handed down from the mountain that OPS is the supreme measure of a ballplayer.

Well you are completely wrong, but ok. OPS regression to runs scored is the highest of any of the average stats. So you can believe what ever you want, but you are wrong.

idseer
03-05-2005, 11:05 AM
What ignorance? He didn't report a non-criminal conspiracy (throwing ballgames for money wasn't clearly illegal in 1919)? You lost me.

Landis made up a principle to make an example of a player.

throwing the ws for money was not breaking any laws? you are :kukoo:.

Dadawg_77
03-05-2005, 11:08 AM
I'll pile on even slower. OPS is a shorthand measure and popular because it is easy to compute. I don't like it either, because it underweights OBP, overweights SLG, and ignores at least significant attributes of offense (GiDP propensity, baserunning ability, and situational context). Given that those three attributes were critically important in the deadball era, it is very difficult to take OPS seriously as an analytical tool for a player from 90 years ago.

Consider also that a 1915 manager was much more likely to order a good player to get himself out to play for one run than a manager is in 2005. The player was much more likely to do it because his pay depended far more on his manager's subjective opinion of him than on any of his batting numbers -- especially OPS, which nobody computed because, in 1915, walks were considered to be pitcher mistakes and nothing else.

Any attempt to reduce a player to a single number (VORP, RC, LWTS, whatever) is questionable because people aren't really numbers. It's popular because players are ultimately evaluated by another single number -- salary -- and baseball keeps looking for the holy grail of statistics to point us to economic justice. It's far more valid today (when players are not asked to play situationally as often as they were in 1915) but still some players will always be misevaluated.

Finally, does anybody else get sick of the hairsplitting -- pretending that "20 points of OPS" means anything other than a lucky streak?

Yeah OPB*1.8+SLG is the best method out there. But to dismiss OPS based on the fact it isn't perfect, is wrong. Also no where was I comparing 1915 players to 2005 players but rather to 1915 players. Your concerns about OPS are entirely dismissed because of adding that context. Thus it is completely valid to compare Weavers numbers to Cobb's. I used OPS+ because it is one of the better stats to compare players from different eras.

The question of this thread is whether or not Weaver should be a hall of famer. The Hall of Fame is about excellence thus Weaver numbers need to be compared to the greats of his time. I would bet that none of us ever seen him play thus the only valid method of comparison is the numbers.

Ol' No. 2
03-05-2005, 11:36 AM
Well you are completely wrong, but ok. OPS regression to runs scored is the highest of any of the average stats. So you can believe what ever you want, but you are wrong."And The Lord sayeth to the multitude, 'Verily I say unto you, whenever thou shalt comparest ballplayers, thou shalt use one measure and one measure only. And that measure shalt be OPS+'"
-Gospel according to St. Bill


Say, Hallelujah, brother!

Dadawg_77
03-05-2005, 11:45 AM
"And The Lord sayeth to the multitude, 'Verily I say unto you, whenever thou shalt comparest ballplayers, thou shalt use one measure and one measure only. And that measure shalt be OPS+'"
-Gospel according to St. Bill


Say, Hallelujah, brother!

LOL, I am being mock by Ol', man I'll never be the same. So who would you compare Weaver to Cobb, Ruth and Sisler? You just knock my way without ever offering a different approach, so can you criticize with out stepping out and saying how you would do it?

Ol' No. 2
03-05-2005, 12:23 PM
LOL, I am being mock by Ol', man I'll never be the same. So who would you compare Weaver to Cobb, Ruth and Sisler? You just knock my way without ever offering a different approach, so can you criticize with out stepping out and saying how you would do it?There are lots of valid statistical measures which can be used. The point was there isn't just ONE. That was true then and it's true today. And in a completely different era, you would weight each measure entirely differently than you would for today's players. Defense was much more important in those days, as was speed. It was an era of "little ball". OPS (or OPS+) puts a heavy weight on SLG over OBP, but in that era especially, the emphasis should be reversed.

owensmouth
03-05-2005, 03:45 PM
Buck Weaver is to the Black Sox what Michael Fortier is to the Oklahoma City bombing. Fortier, who failed to warn officials of the planned massacre, got up to 23 years in prison.

TDog
03-05-2005, 05:05 PM
Using statistics with 21st century sensibilities to argue whether a player with a shortened career ending just before juiced baseballs started flying out of ballparks is fruitless. Baseball in the first two decades of the 20th century was a different game than it was in the the next two decades.

Obviously, if the 1919 White Sox had played out his careers naturally, Joe Jackson would have had more support than Buck Weaver. As it was, Joe Jackson got two write-in votes in the first Hall of Fame ballot. Weaver never got any that I can find.

Players often look different to people who only know them from their numbers. That is one of the reasons why Baseball has a Hall of Fame.
Consider that Dickie Kerr, despite having a short career in which his team's owner and the commissioner shafted him, got one vote for the Hall of Fame in 1939. That was as many voted as Hack Wilson got, from people who saw him play. After years of Jack Brickhouse screaming about how it will always be a Hall of Shame until Hack Wilson gets in, he won election in 1979.

Buck Weaver might have been a Hall of Famer if he hadn't been with the wrong team at the wrong time.

The Racehorse
03-05-2005, 05:27 PM
Using statistics with 21st century sensibilities to argue whether a player with a shortened career ending just before juiced baseballs started flying out of ballparks is fruitless. Baseball in the first two decades of the 20th century was a different game than it was in the the next two decades.

Obviously, if the 1919 White Sox had played out his careers naturally, Joe Jackson would have had more support than Buck Weaver. As it was, Joe Jackson got two write-in votes in the first Hall of Fame ballot. Weaver never got any that I can find.

Players often look different to people who only know them from their numbers. That is one of the reasons why Baseball has a Hall of Fame.
Consider that Dickie Kerr, despite having a short career in which his team's owner and the commissioner shafted him, got one vote for the Hall of Fame in 1939. That was as many voted as Hack Wilson got, from people who saw him play. After years of Jack Brickhouse screaming about how it will always be a Hall of Shame until Hack Wilson gets in, he won election in 1979.

Buck Weaver might have been a Hall of Famer if he hadn't been with the wrong team at the wrong time.

Nice post. :cool:

------------

We've got sidetracked from Yorke97's original post... does Buck Weaver deserve reinstatement into baseball's good graces because of the parallels between his situation [knowledge of gambling/collusion] and today's steroid scandal [knowledge of illegal drugs/'roid users]? ...

... we've somehow got into a discussion about Buck being worthy of the HOF...

... with that said, Buck Weaver should be reinstated, imo.

owensmouth
03-05-2005, 06:36 PM
Nice post. :cool:

------------

We've got sidetracked from Yorke97's original post... does was Buck Weaver deserve reinstatement into baseball's good graces because of the parallels between his situation [knowledge of gambling/collusion] and today's steroid scandal [knowledge of illegal drugs/'roid users]... we've somehow got into a discussion about Buck being worthy of the HOF...

... with that said, Buck Weaver should be reinstated, imo.

The original post said that he should be in the HOF. I disagree with you and with the original post.

He's where he belongs

The Racehorse
03-05-2005, 06:53 PM
The original post said that he should be in the HOF. I disagree with you and with the original post.

He's where he belongs

It is generally believed that Buck Weaver was on his way to a Hall of Fame Career prior to his banishment.

The original post doesn't say that he should be in th HOF.

Buck Weaver deserves reinstatement. Is he worthy of the HOF? Of course not... his numbers were truncated by the tyrant who never had to worry about an appellate process overturning his ham-handed decisions.

The Racehorse
03-05-2005, 08:02 PM
Buck Weaver is to the Black Sox what Michael Fortier is to the Oklahoma City bombing. Fortier, who failed to warn officials of the planned massacre, got up to 23 years in prison.

Is that analogy really necessary?

TDog
03-05-2005, 08:08 PM
Buck Weaver was in a no-win situation in 1919. He was working class, coming from coal-mining country in Pennsylvania. Him choosing to be "a snitch" would have been like a good union man crossing a picket line.

He was unjustly banished. He should be reinstated. With an apology.

duke of dorwood
03-05-2005, 08:32 PM
The moment of truth will be if Pete Rose gets reinstated. Today EVERY sports event is bet on. Gambling just doesnt have the same sting as drug use to me.

owensmouth
03-05-2005, 09:31 PM
Is that analogy really necessary?

Yes, I think so. They were dealing with criminals.

The Racehorse
03-06-2005, 05:52 AM
Yes, I think so. They were dealing with criminals.

So what your telling me is that every MLB player that has used an illegal substance such as steroids or ephedra, is on the same level as Fortier. No offense, but that's extreme.

wassagstdu
03-06-2005, 09:37 AM
In another thread there is a discussion of whether Buck Weaver would have made it to the HOF if he had not been banned by Judge Landis. Weaver did not participate in the fix of the WS but knew about it and did not blow the whistle. As one poster put it, Weaver was banned because “Landis was not interested in justice.” Correct. What he was interested in was saving the game. He made a clear statement and set a clear example that settled the issue. Imagine if he had handled it the same way the steroid issue is being handled today.


It is often said that Babe Ruth and the home run saved the game after the stain of 1919. Maybe so, but Landis made that possible. Fast forward to 1995 and the perceived need to save the game after the stain of the 1994 strike. It is now said that the game was saved by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and the home run. Baseball needed another Babe Ruth and looked the other way when some players used steroids to fill that need.


So now we have come full circle. From gambling to Ruth to Sosa to steroids. Net process: gambling to steroids. I think steroids is just as big a problem for the game and what the game needs is a Judge Landis who will put a clear end to the problem, will save the game and be less interested in justice. Remember that playing the game is a privilege and none of the Black Sox went to jail.


I think the upcoming Congressional hearing may be the beginning of a clean-up. Maybe this time the game will be saved by the squeeze bunt and hitting the cutoff man . . . by Ozzie-ball and the likes of Ichiro.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2005, 10:00 AM
In another thread there is a discussion of whether Buck Weaver would have made it to the HOF if he had not been banned by Judge Landis. Weaver did not participate in the fix of the WS but knew about it and did not blow the whistle. As one poster put it, Weaver was banned because “Landis was not interested in justice.” Correct. What he was interested in was saving the game. He made a clear statement and set a clear example that settled the issue. Imagine if he had handled it the same way the steroid issue is being handled today.


It is often said that Babe Ruth and the home run saved the game after the stain of 1919. Maybe so, but Landis made that possible. Fast forward to 1995 and the perceived need to save the game after the stain of the 1994 strike. It is now said that the game was saved by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and the home run. Baseball needed another Babe Ruth and looked the other way when some players used steroids to fill that need.


So now we have come full circle. From gambling to Ruth to Sosa to steroids. Net process: gambling to steroids. I think steroids is just as big a problem for the game and what the game needs is a Judge Landis who will put a clear end to the problem, will save the game and be less interested in justice. Remember that playing the game is a privilege and none of the Black Sox went to jail.


I think the upcoming Congressional hearing may be the beginning of a clean-up. Maybe this time the game will be saved by the squeeze bunt and hitting the cutoff man . . . by Ozzie-ball and the likes of Ichiro.

I think Commissioner Landis was running what any rational person could only describe as a kangaroo court when he banished somebody like Buck Weaver from baseball. I'll leave it to others here to defend whether operating a kangaroo court is ever a positive thing. I have serious doubts...

As for the theoretical question of Landis's fitness to defend baseball from the fallout of the new steroids scandal, I'll only note this is the same RACIST who kept some of the greatest ballplayers to ever step onto a diamond from playing major league baseball in the 20's, 30's, and 40's. His "judgment" was for ****. We can't separate the man from his actions.

The real problem baseball faces is the 85 years of twisted "justice" that started with Commissioner Landis and distorts what we baseball fans think is right and proper today.

johnny_mostil
03-06-2005, 12:25 PM
throwing the ws for money was not breaking any laws? you are :kukoo:.

One of the big legal controversies was what to prosecute them for. They were (eventually) prosecuted for defrauding the ticketholders by pretending to play baseball. That was the only thing the prosecution could find.

johnny_mostil
03-06-2005, 12:43 PM
Yeah OPB*1.8+SLG is the best method out there. But to dismiss OPS based on the fact it isn't perfect, is wrong. Also no where was I comparing 1915 players to 2005 players but rather to 1915 players. Your concerns about OPS are entirely dismissed because of adding that context. Thus it is completely valid to compare Weavers numbers to Cobb's. I used OPS+ because it is one of the better stats to compare players from different eras.


All I'm saying it, you're entering into an area of land mines comparing deadball-era players. Comparing Weaver to Cobb is like comparing Walter Payton and Mike Ditka. Not only did they play different positions, they occupied different roles in a game played in a way we no longer intuitively understand. Let me explain my position:

Weaver was a third baseman and shortstop. In 1915, third base was considered a far more criticial defensive position than center field or even second base, and it was usually occupied by a player we'd think of a shortstop type today. Second basemen were HITTERS then. You can't compare Weaver to Cobb any more than you could compare Luke Appling to DiMaggio.

Also, hitters were expected to follow orders in a game universally considered to be athletic chess. In 1915, if a manager told you to hit the ball to the second baseman to move the runner, that's exactly what you did. We now believe this was sub-optimal, but offenses in the dead ball era did a lot of things that were less than optimal. Players were evaluated based on how well they executed their orders, not based on statistics nobody bothered to compile. In a sense, 1915 baseball was more like modern football in the roles players were asked to play.

Yes, Weaver's OPS+ was usually about 105 in his good years. But think of him as being a middle infielder and that starts to look a lot better. Consider that his peers highly respected him. No, he wasn't a Hall of Famer -- Collins and Jackson were clearly the feared hitters on the team -- but Buck followed orders and did what he was asked, even if it did hurt his statistical evaluation by us 21st century observers. Consider that he was probably the fourth best hitter -- on a championship team.

When evaluating his career, consider that farm systems didn't exist and players were often brought to the majors early (21 in Weaver's case) just to get them. They couldn't be hidden on somewhat shallower rosters.

Now, go compare Weaver with Nellie Fox. Fox was better, but they just aren't all that different. And don't say "but Fox was a 2B". Weaver would have been, too, had 1955's standards been in place in 1915.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-06-2005, 01:49 PM
I think Commissioner Landis was running what any rational person could only describe as a kangaroo court when he banished somebody like Buck Weaver from baseball. I'll leave it to others here to defend whether operating a kangaroo court is ever a positive thing. I have serious doubts...

As for the theoretical question of Landis's fitness to defend baseball from the fallout of the new steroids scandal, I'll only note this is the same RACIST who kept some of the greatest ballplayers to ever step onto a diamond from playing major league baseball in the 20's, 30's, and 40's. His "judgment" was for ****. We can't separate the man from his actions.

The real problem baseball faces is the 85 years of twisted "justice" that started with Commissioner Landis and distorts what we baseball fans think is right and proper today.
Landis wasn't a perfect man, but he was probably the right man for the job. Landis was offered the job as Commissioner because he ruled favorably for the owners at the time. Those owners were just as racist as the Commissioner they hired, and many of the players they employed. When Landis was hired, the National Commission was in tatters, and unable to operate effectively. Ban Johnson was consumed with his mighty ego, and was alienating most of the club owners. Landis was hired to restore integrity in the game. He acted with a " terrible swift sword ". In a very high profile case, he operated in a very high profile manner. PHG, when you look at racism, with hindsight one can say that Landis had the opportunity to be a visionary, but he wasn't a visionary to begin with. He was an autocrat, who was sympathetic to the owners. Now if Branch Rickey was hired as Commisioner in 1919, you'd have a better arguement.
I'll ramble a bit more, some of the players would have been open to integration, and at least one manager--McGraw. McGraw tried to bring in a black player, I don't recall his name, he tried to pass him off as an Indian, but it just didn't fly. Heck, I've read in a thread in Baseballpower, that Cobb was remembered in pleasant terms by a black player that met him. Remember also, that the KKK was at it's zenith in the 1920's and 1930's. Landis was a man of his time, he failed to rise above it, like countless others.

TDog
03-06-2005, 01:58 PM
...
The real problem baseball faces is the 85 years of twisted "justice" that started with Commissioner Landis and distorts what we baseball fans think is right and proper today.

Excellent point.

Banishing Pete Rose was an extension of Landis. I don't believe Pete Rose should be reinstated because he violated he written rule that Rose had long been aware of, and Rose knew what the penalty would be.

Landis must have thought he was acting in the best interests of baseball in keeping Josh Gibson from being eligible to play major league baseball. Imagine the damage race mixing could have done to the game. I can't imagine it, but Landis obviously did.

Landis was new when he banned the eight White Sox. The problem that drove owners to create his job also gave him an immediate opportunity to establish his authority. There had been rumors of other fixed World Series (including the Cubs' loss in 1918) and other players were known to be throwing games, but these players would get a punishment no one knew was possible for violating a rule that wasn't explicitly stated or enforced.

The steroids situation is similar. Baseball winked at it for years. Unlike gambling (which may have had some the advantage of generating interest in the games), steroids generated wide interest in the game.

To the point of the original question, Buck Weaver is different from people who knew about steroid use and didn't say anything about it. Buck Weaver is the only player banned for guilty knowledge of gambling issues. Reportedly, the offer was pitched to him and he rejected it without telling his team. That is different from the players on the team who could infer from evidence that individual players were using throwing games. The Buck Weaver-precedent requires conspiracy. Steroids use is an individual thing.

Unless you have players distributing but not using steroids, you don't meet the Buck Weaver criteria. I don't believe this precedent, established out of whole cloth by a single man with no judicial review, should exist, but there it is.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-06-2005, 02:21 PM
.... PHG, when you look at racism, with hindsight one can say that Landis had the opportunity to be a visionary, but he wasn't a visionary to begin with. He was an autocrat, who was sympathetic to the owners. Now if Branch Rickey was hired as Commisioner in 1919, you'd have a better arguement....

Pfft... forget about Rickey. Let's talk about Veeck. He attempted to buy the Phillies back in the 30's when they were the National League's doormat and planned to stock the team with stars from the Negro Leagues. Landis blocked him. Nobody dared cross Landis, not even that self-promoter Branch Rickey.

Just forget about explaining away Landis's lack of vision. "Landis" and "vision" shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. He was a reactionary, and baseball is still paying the price for his demented sense of justice, gambling and segregation being the two most obvious manifestations of his unfitness for the job even back in 1920. Buck Weaver and Josh Gibson would loooove a piece of you for suggesting anything to the contrary.

Landis wasn't a man of the 20th century. Hell, he wasn't even a man of the 19th century. His "vision" of racial superiority goes back at least as far as the 16th century... and he ruined baseball for his twisted views on the subject.

Now we're being asked whether the rulings of a reactionary dope the size of Landis would well-serve as the precedent-setting means of applying justice for a 21st century problem like the steroids scandal? Don't make me laugh...

eastchicagosoxfan
03-06-2005, 06:52 PM
Pfft... forget about Rickey. Let's talk about Veeck. He attempted to buy the Phillies back in the 30's when they were the National League's doormat and planned to stock the team with stars from the Negro Leagues. Landis blocked him. Nobody dared cross Landis, not even that self-promoter Branch Rickey.

Just forget about explaining away Landis's lack of vision. "Landis" and "vision" shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. He was a reactionary, and baseball is still paying the price for his demented sense of justice, gambling and segregation being the two most obvious manifestations of his unfitness for the job even back in 1920. Buck Weaver and Josh Gibson would loooove a piece of you for suggesting anything to the contrary.

Landis wasn't a man of the 20th century. Hell, he wasn't even a man of the 19th century. His "vision" of racial superiority goes back at least as far as the 16th century... and he ruined baseball for his twisted views on the subject.

Now we're being asked whether the rulings of a reactionary dope the size of Landis would well-serve as the precedent-setting means of applying justice for a 21st century problem like the steroids scandal? Don't make me laugh...
Landis wasn't alone in his theories of racial superiority. Many Americans of that day shared them. Concerning gambling, the Black Sox raised the suspicion that the game was tainted. What were the other options? A suspension, and another suspension, and so on. A policy similar to Selig's for steriods? The punishment was severe, but it left no doubt, especially amongst the public. Gambling on the game is a death sentence. PHG says that 1920's type justice won't work in 2005, but I think he's applying 2005 morals to people of the 1920's. The Civil War ended less than 60 years before the age of Landis as Commissioner. I never claimed Landis had vision, he was a man of his time. That time included racism on a massive scale. Josh Gibson and others were the victims, as far as baseball was concerned. Had Veeck had the financial resources ( which he didn't ) he could have fought Landis, and the other owners in court. I don't recall hearing about a large number of players clamoring for integration. As far as Weaver, and the other Black Sox, "you got caught ", plain and simple. In the 1880's the Louisville franchise was rocked by gambling, I think those players were also banned from MLB.

Ol' No. 2
03-06-2005, 07:01 PM
All I'm saying it, you're entering into an area of land mines comparing deadball-era players. Comparing Weaver to Cobb is like comparing Walter Payton and Mike Ditka. Not only did they play different positions, they occupied different roles in a game played in a way we no longer intuitively understand. Let me explain my position:

Weaver was a third baseman and shortstop. In 1915, third base was considered a far more criticial defensive position than center field or even second base, and it was usually occupied by a player we'd think of a shortstop type today. Second basemen were HITTERS then. You can't compare Weaver to Cobb any more than you could compare Luke Appling to DiMaggio.

Also, hitters were expected to follow orders in a game universally considered to be athletic chess. In 1915, if a manager told you to hit the ball to the second baseman to move the runner, that's exactly what you did. We now believe this was sub-optimal, but offenses in the dead ball era did a lot of things that were less than optimal. Players were evaluated based on how well they executed their orders, not based on statistics nobody bothered to compile. In a sense, 1915 baseball was more like modern football in the roles players were asked to play.

Yes, Weaver's OPS+ was usually about 105 in his good years. But think of him as being a middle infielder and that starts to look a lot better. Consider that his peers highly respected him. No, he wasn't a Hall of Famer -- Collins and Jackson were clearly the feared hitters on the team -- but Buck followed orders and did what he was asked, even if it did hurt his statistical evaluation by us 21st century observers. Consider that he was probably the fourth best hitter -- on a championship team.

When evaluating his career, consider that farm systems didn't exist and players were often brought to the majors early (21 in Weaver's case) just to get them. They couldn't be hidden on somewhat shallower rosters.

Now, go compare Weaver with Nellie Fox. Fox was better, but they just aren't all that different. And don't say "but Fox was a 2B". Weaver would have been, too, had 1955's standards been in place in 1915.OUTSTANDING analysis of the situation. Comparing today's players even to 1960's era players is fraught with difficulty. Comparing to dead-ball era players is almost impossible.

Wsoxmike59
03-06-2005, 09:18 PM
He's where he belongs

Owensmouth you're 100% wrong concerning Buck Weaver. He was wrongfully lumped in with the conspirators that "fixed" the World Series. It has NEVER been proven that Buck Weaver took any of the gambler's dirty money. Plus his play in the World Series led me to believe he played those World Series games to win. (Whereas Joe Jackson's courtroom testimony in a lawsuit against Chas. Comiskey for his back World Series pay, admitted on the stand and under oath he received $5,000 from the gamblers)

Buck Weaver deserves his reinstatement in good standing with the game, and an apology from MLB.

idseer
03-06-2005, 10:43 PM
Owensmouth you're 100% wrong concerning Buck Weaver. He was wrongfully lumped in with the conspirators that "fixed" the World Series. It has NEVER been proven that Buck Weaver took any of the gambler's dirty money. Plus his play in the World Series led me to believe he played those World Series games to win. (Whereas Joe Jackson's courtroom testimony in a lawsuit against Chas. Comiskey for his back World Series pay, admitted on the stand and under oath he received $5,000 from the gamblers)

Buck Weaver deserves his reinstatement in good standing with the game, and an apology from MLB.


he's dead. an apology won't mean a thing to him anymore.

no one here can look at something that happened 85 years ago and know what from what. this discussion is an exercise in futility. let the guy rest already.

Ol' No. 2
03-06-2005, 10:52 PM
he's dead. an apology won't mean a thing to him anymore.

no one here can look at something that happened 85 years ago and know what from what. this discussion is an exercise in futility. let the guy rest already.There's a pretty large group trying to get MLB to reinstate Weaver, and I think some of his family is involved. I think it would mean a lot to them.

At the time, the problem of gambling was a serious and widespread one and Landis needed strong action. If he'd banished all those who were thought to be involved they might have had a hard time finding enough remaining players to fill out all the rosters. So he decided to come down hard on the Black Sox. Even at the time no one accused Weaver of taking money or throwing any games. He got lumped in because he knew and didn't say anything and Landis needed to make an example out of them. IMO, a lifetime ban for just knowing about it is pretty excessive. I think he should be reinstated.

TDog
03-07-2005, 12:45 AM
he's dead. an apology won't mean a thing to him anymore.

no one here can look at something that happened 85 years ago and know what from what. this discussion is an exercise in futility. let the guy rest already.

Long after Buck Weaver was too old to play baseball, and even after the man who banished him from baseball was dead, he sought to have his name cleared. He has descendants carrying on the fight.

An apology would mean something.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-07-2005, 09:13 AM
Landis wasn't alone in his theories of racial superiority. Many Americans of that day shared them. Concerning gambling, the Black Sox raised the suspicion that the game was tainted. What were the other options? A suspension, and another suspension, and so on. A policy similar to Selig's for steriods? The punishment was severe, but it left no doubt, especially amongst the public. Gambling on the game is a death sentence. PHG says that 1920's type justice won't work in 2005, but I think he's applying 2005 morals to people of the 1920's. The Civil War ended less than 60 years before the age of Landis as Commissioner. I never claimed Landis had vision, he was a man of his time. That time included racism on a massive scale. Josh Gibson and others were the victims, as far as baseball was concerned. Had Veeck had the financial resources ( which he didn't ) he could have fought Landis, and the other owners in court. I don't recall hearing about a large number of players clamoring for integration. As far as Weaver, and the other Black Sox, "you got caught ", plain and simple. In the 1880's the Louisville franchise was rocked by gambling, I think those players were also banned from MLB.

It's one thing to THINK it's okay to discriminate against the most skilled ballplayers of your time simply based on race. Reasonable people debated this issue for many years (centuries even) before Landis was born. You might know we fought quite a war over the matter, too. The bloodiest in American history as I recall...

However it is quite another thing to ENFORCE that same viewpoint even over the objections of other baseball people who just as reasonably completely disagreed with you. Veeck couldn't integrate the Phillies and Branch Rickey didn't dare attempt it until after Landis was gone and Chandler was commissioner.

Again, you can't separate the man from his actions. Landis was perfectly suited for being a backwater cracker. Perfectly suited as baseball commissioner? No way.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-07-2005, 08:12 PM
It's one thing to THINK it's okay to discriminate against the most skilled ballplayers of your time simply based on race. Reasonable people debated this issue for many years (centuries even) before Landis was born. You might know we fought quite a war over the matter, too. The bloodiest in American history as I recall...

However it is quite another thing to ENFORCE that same viewpoint even over the objections of other baseball people who just as reasonably completely disagreed with you. Veeck couldn't integrate the Phillies and Branch Rickey didn't dare attempt it until after Landis was gone and Chandler was commissioner.

Again, you can't separate the man from his actions. Landis was perfectly suited for being a backwater cracker. Perfectly suited as baseball commissioner? No way.
I'm well aware of the Civil War. You needn't insult my intelligence. I'm not agreeing with Landis, but he wasn't alone. Mack was against integration, as was Clark Griffith. Veeck's dream of buying a team and stocking it is more myth than anything else. He was never close. ( it's alluded to and cited in Brad Snyder's Beyond the Shadow of the Senators, the untold story of the Homestead rays and the integration of baseball ) Landis was hired to restore the integrity of the game as the result of a gambling scandal. He was hired because he was sympathetic to the baseball's ownership. Landis always claimed he was not against integration. That certainly wasn't true, but why didn't anyone other than a broke Bill Veeck, take him to task on the matter? People will stand up to an autocrat, but where were the players, and the owners? Could Landis have integrated baseball, use his power and force of will to make it happen? Maybe, but I think he would have been replaced before he could have pulled it off.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-07-2005, 09:07 PM
I'm well aware of the Civil War. You needn't insult my intelligence. I'm not agreeing with Landis, but he wasn't alone.

Look, you're the one suggesting the whole point of the war was still somehow in doubt over 50 years after Lee surrendered. There wasn't a single major league baseball team anywhere in the old Confederacy until 1966, ECF!

What is this ****?

I don't have to insult your intelligence. You're doing a fine job all by yourself.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-08-2005, 06:41 AM
Look, you're the one suggesting the whole point of the war was still somehow in doubt over 50 years after Lee surrendered. There wasn't a single major league baseball team anywhere in the old Confederacy until 1966, ECF!

What is this ****?

I don't have to insult your intelligence. You're doing a fine job all by yourself.

No teams in the old Confedaracy until 1966, and Landis, who died in 1944, was responsible? Slavery ended with the Civil War. Segregation didn't. Plessy vs Fergusson established separate but equal in 1896. It wasn't until 1954, and Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka that segregation was declared illegal. Prior to 1947, seven years before Brown, baseball was segregated. My whole point has been that Landis was a man of his time, nothing more. His time did not have slavery, but segregation was well established.

Dadawg_77
03-09-2005, 02:38 PM
All I'm saying it, you're entering into an area of land mines comparing deadball-era players. Comparing Weaver to Cobb is like comparing Walter Payton and Mike Ditka. Not only did they play different positions, they occupied different roles in a game played in a way we no longer intuitively understand. Let me explain my position:

Weaver was a third baseman and shortstop. In 1915, third base was considered a far more criticial defensive position than center field or even second base, and it was usually occupied by a player we'd think of a shortstop type today. Second basemen were HITTERS then. You can't compare Weaver to Cobb any more than you could compare Luke Appling to DiMaggio.

Also, hitters were expected to follow orders in a game universally considered to be athletic chess. In 1915, if a manager told you to hit the ball to the second baseman to move the runner, that's exactly what you did. We now believe this was sub-optimal, but offenses in the dead ball era did a lot of things that were less than optimal. Players were evaluated based on how well they executed their orders, not based on statistics nobody bothered to compile. In a sense, 1915 baseball was more like modern football in the roles players were asked to play.

Yes, Weaver's OPS+ was usually about 105 in his good years. But think of him as being a middle infielder and that starts to look a lot better. Consider that his peers highly respected him. No, he wasn't a Hall of Famer -- Collins and Jackson were clearly the feared hitters on the team -- but Buck followed orders and did what he was asked, even if it did hurt his statistical evaluation by us 21st century observers. Consider that he was probably the fourth best hitter -- on a championship team.

When evaluating his career, consider that farm systems didn't exist and players were often brought to the majors early (21 in Weaver's case) just to get them. They couldn't be hidden on somewhat shallower rosters.

Now, go compare Weaver with Nellie Fox. Fox was better, but they just aren't all that different. And don't say "but Fox was a 2B". Weaver would have been, too, had 1955's standards been in place in 1915.

Ok, so then compare him to Baker and Collins, Weaver still comes up short. I used Cobb and Ruth since they were the standardbearers of the hall of fame. The Hall of Fame has always been about offensive numbers with defense coming in distant second in importance. So when arguing if a player should be in, you need to argue offensive numbers. To avoid as many landmines as you can, you need to compare a players to his peers. Thus stats like OPS+, Win Shares among others are better then your normal rate and counting stats since they provide that context.

As for Fox a good solid player, but I really not sure if he belongs in the Hall.

Dadawg_77
03-09-2005, 02:39 PM
OUTSTANDING analysis of the situation. Comparing today's players even to 1960's era players is fraught with difficulty. Comparing to dead-ball era players is almost impossible.

Other then the fact you keep harping on this but yet no one has done that. Good points.

Dadawg_77
03-09-2005, 02:46 PM
Look, you're the one suggesting the whole point of the war was still somehow in doubt over 50 years after Lee surrendered. There wasn't a single major league baseball team anywhere in the old Confederacy until 1966, ECF!

What is this ****?

I don't have to insult your intelligence. You're doing a fine job all by yourself.

I think he was saying it took a long time for public opinion to sway from that of the Civil War to what it was in the 60's. Also I think we can all agree that Landis wasn't the main culprit in segregation of baseball but Cap Anson's cemented practice in Baseball while he was running the Cubs.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 02:56 PM
Ok, so then compare him to Baker and Collins, Weaver still comes up short. I used Cobb and Ruth since they were the standardbearers of the hall of fame. The Hall of Fame has always been about offensive numbers with defense coming in distant second in importance. So when arguing if a player should be in, you need to argue offensive numbers. To avoid as many landmines as you can, you need to compare a players to his peers. Thus stats like OPS+, Win Shares among others are better then your normal rate and counting stats since they provide that context.

As for Fox a good solid player, but I really not sure if he belongs in the Hall.First of all, I'd agree that Weaver is probably not HOF material. It's the reasons you give that I disagree with. If you're going to compare him to his peers, you still need to use something that's not so heavily influenced by slugging. If you're looking at offensive stats, I would use OBP. This was an era of very high OBP. .350-.400 was not at all unusual for good players. Tris Speaker had a career OBP of .428. Ty Cobb was .433. Ruth .474. Weaver: .307.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-09-2005, 06:43 PM
...Also I think we can all agree that Landis wasn't the main culprit in segregation of baseball but Cap Anson's cemented practice in Baseball while he was running the Cubs.

I think you've got it backwards. Anson (and others) cemented the practice back in the 19th century. Landis was the main culprit for continuing the practice -- beyond any reason and all contempt -- well into the 20th century.

Dadawg_77
03-09-2005, 09:44 PM
I think you've got it backwards. Anson (and others) cemented the practice back in the 19th century. Landis was the main culprit for continuing the practice -- beyond any reason and all contempt -- well into the 20th century.

I know but was trying to find some common ground and cub hating usually works.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 10:15 PM
I think you've got it backwards. Anson (and others) cemented the practice back in the 19th century. Landis was the main culprit for continuing the practice -- beyond any reason and all contempt -- well into the 20th century.You can't lay all the blame on Landis. He couldn't do it without the complicity of a majority of owners. There may have been a few owners who wanted to integrate, but not many.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-09-2005, 10:18 PM
You can't lay all the blame on Landis.

Oh, I can't? I just did.

Landis used his position as baseball commissioner to further his own twisted notions about fairness and equality. His contract was ironclad and no commissioner since Landis has ever been given that same authority, a direct result of the twisted and demented beliefs you apologize for and futilely attempt to defend.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-09-2005, 11:00 PM
Oh, I can't? I just did.

Landis used his position as baseball commissioner to further his own twisted notions about fairness and equality. His contract was ironclad and no commissioner since Landis has ever been given that same authority, a direct result of the twisted and demented beliefs you apologize for and futilely attempt to defend.
Connie Mack had awful teams for several years. He never attempted to bring in a black player. Why? Landis? No. Mack didn't want integration. Griffith? No. McPhail? No. Name an owner who did? Had an owner wanted too, he'd would have fought Landis in court. Landis was representative of the segregationist society he lived in. So was Mack. So was Comiskey. The players were too. Were there exceptions? Yes. Were any of them owners? I doubt it. And just because you said you just laid all the blame on Landis, hardly makes it right.

TommyJohn
03-10-2005, 09:16 AM
Connie Mack had awful teams for several years. He never attempted to bring in a black player. Why? Landis? No. Mack didn't want integration. Griffith? No. McPhail? No. Name an owner who did? Had an owner wanted too, he'd would have fought Landis in court. Landis was representative of the segregationist society he lived in. So was Mack. So was Comiskey. The players were too. Were there exceptions? Yes. Were any of them owners? I doubt it. And just because you said you just laid all the blame on Landis, hardly makes it right.

I recall reading an article in Sports Illustrated way back, about Branch Rickey.
He had taken a straw poll of owners to find out how many of them were in
favor of integration. The vote was 15-1 against. Not one owner voted with
him. I believe this happened after Landis was dead and gone and Chandler
was in. Also, even after Landis died, teams didn't exactly rush to the Negro
Leagues to snap up all of the best players. Many continued to fight
integration tooth and nail, including the Yankees and Red Sox who didn't
integrate until well into the '50's.

Ol' No. 2
03-10-2005, 09:33 AM
Oh, I can't? I just did.

Landis used his position as baseball commissioner to further his own twisted notions about fairness and equality. His contract was ironclad and no commissioner since Landis has ever been given that same authority, a direct result of the twisted and demented beliefs you apologize for and futilely attempt to defend.When did I apologize for and/or defend Landis? Lifetime contract or no, I don't believe Landis could have kept baseball segregated without the tacit agreement of the owners. He had a lot of power, but not that much power. This in no way excuses Landis. But let's not pretend he was the sole reason.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-10-2005, 09:38 AM
I recall reading an article in Sports Illustrated way back, about Branch Rickey.
He had taken a straw poll of owners to find out how many of them were in
favor of integration. The vote was 15-1 against. Not one owner voted with
him. I believe this happened after Landis was dead and gone and Chandler
was in. Also, even after Landis died, teams didn't exactly rush to the Negro
Leagues to snap up all of the best players. Many continued to fight
integration tooth and nail, including the Yankees and Red Sox who didn't
integrate until well into the '50's.

This is the result of over 60 years worth of institutionalized racism, the last 25 years of it under direct authority of Kennesaw Landis. He had authority to void any contract he chose to.

Executives in authority must be held to the highest standard for PRECISELY the reasons you noted above. You might know that just this past Sunday the CEO of Boeing was unceremoniously shown the door by the company's board after his personal affair with a female executive was discovered. The president must be beyond any impeachment!

That's why Landis was an abomination as baseball commissioner. Stop trying to blame the assorted idiots who simply followed his racist lead.

The Racehorse
03-10-2005, 10:16 AM
I thought I would throw another log onto the fire. Kenesaw Mountain Landis was a first class, politically charged hypocrite. Just look at how Landis treated the Ty Cobb & Tris Speaker gambling scandal of 1926...


Baseball’s Gambling Scandals (http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2001/0730/1233060.html)
More Gambling Inconsistencies: Cobb & Speaker (http://journals.aol.com/bads85/ManyGoFewUnderstand/entries/314)

... the blogger [second link] did a good job explaining how Landis would simply wet his finger, stick it in the air to ascertain which way the wind was blowing, then issue his non-appellate-reviewable verdicts.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-10-2005, 11:38 AM
He had a lot of power, but not that much power. This in no way excuses Landis. But let's not pretend he was the sole reason.

He had ABSOLUTE power. His contract was lifetime. All of his rulings were beyond review.

Stop pretending? LOL! Physician heel thyself.

Ol' No. 2
03-10-2005, 11:50 AM
He had ABSOLUTE power. His contract was lifetime. All of his rulings were beyond review.

Stop pretending? LOL! Physician heel thyself.He certainly had and exercised power in other areas, but as far as integration was concerned, it wasn't as if the owners were all pleading with Landis to allow them to integrate and Landis stood in the way. Maybe one or two, but the large majority were strongly opposed. If Landis hadn't been there, it's unlikely anything would have been any different.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-10-2005, 12:14 PM
He certainly had and exercised power in other areas, but as far as integration was concerned, it wasn't as if the owners were all pleading with Landis to allow them to integrate and Landis stood in the way. Maybe one or two, but the large majority were strongly opposed. If Landis hadn't been there, it's unlikely anything would have been any different.

WHAT?
Do you have any concept of the management term accountability?
:?:

Authority flows down.
Responsibility flows down.
Accountability flows up!

Landis had absolute authority granted him by the owners. He answered to NOBODY. Thus he has absolute accountability for what happens under him!
:o:

Just forget about it. This is clearly sailing waaaaay over your head. I'm sorry I even bothered to explain it to you.

Done and out.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-10-2005, 07:34 PM
Landis was brought in to restore the game's integrity following a gambling scandal. He was not brought in to move it forward, and certainly not to exercise vision. Had Landis posessed vision, he might have been able to bring about integration. Certain owners, the guys who employed him, would have been vehemently oppossed to integration. My point all along has been that Landis lacked the vision to do something great. That didn't make him a failure as Commissioner. So did Connie Mack, Charlie Comiskey, Colonel Ruppert, Clark Griffith, Babe Ruth, Barney Dreyfus, Woodrow Wilson, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc. The fact was, segregation was legal in the United States at the time. It was a fact of life. Baseball was no different than any other American institution of the day. Why should the man who ran baseball be held soley responsible for a much larger failure? Why, in hindsight, was he expected to do something that wasn't legal in the most school systems, until 1954? The opportunity was there for him, for twenty years, it was also was there for Congress, the players, the owners, and everyone else that influenced the game.

Ol' No. 2
03-11-2005, 10:07 AM
Landis was brought in to restore the game's integrity following a gambling scandal. He was not brought in to move it forward, and certainly not to exercise vision. Had Landis posessed vision, he might have been able to bring about integration. Certain owners, the guys who employed him, would have been vehemently oppossed to integration. My point all along has been that Landis lacked the vision to do something great. That didn't make him a failure as Commissioner. So did Connie Mack, Charlie Comiskey, Colonel Ruppert, Clark Griffith, Babe Ruth, Barney Dreyfus, Woodrow Wilson, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, etc. The fact was, segregation was legal in the United States at the time. It was a fact of life. Baseball was no different than any other American institution of the day. Why should the man who ran baseball be held soley responsible for a much larger failure? Why, in hindsight, was he expected to do something that wasn't legal in the most school systems, until 1954? The opportunity was there for him, for twenty years, it was also was there for Congress, the players, the owners, and everyone else that influenced the game.I think you're being way too easy on Landis. He wasn't just passively going along with segregation. He was adamant in enforcing it. I totally agree with George that he was a racist, a segregationist and a small-minded tyrant. The only place where I disagreed with George was that by assigning all the blame to Landis, you effectively give the owners a free pass that they don't deserve. If they didn't have Landis, they probably would have kept baseball segregated anyway. But this in no way excuses Landis.

Lots of people came from strict segregationist backgrounds and managed to rise above it. Read up on Red Barber, the Dodgers announcer, sometime. He was from Mississippi and was aghast when Jackie Robinson first started playing for the Dodgers, and almost quit in protest. But he had the strength to change and to accept that the worldview that he had grown up with was wrong. And he was man enough to admit it later.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-11-2005, 10:18 PM
I think you're being way too easy on Landis. He wasn't just passively going along with segregation. He was adamant in enforcing it. I totally agree with George that he was a racist, a segregationist and a small-minded tyrant. The only place where I disagreed with George was that by assigning all the blame to Landis, you effectively give the owners a free pass that they don't deserve. If they didn't have Landis, they probably would have kept baseball segregated anyway. But this in no way excuses Landis.

Lots of people came from strict segregationist backgrounds and managed to rise above it. Read up on Red Barber, the Dodgers announcer, sometime. He was from Mississippi and was aghast when Jackie Robinson first started playing for the Dodgers, and almost quit in protest. But he had the strength to change and to accept that the worldview that he had grown up with was wrong. And he was man enough to admit it later.
As opposed to " ...lots of people...managed to rise above it ", a few people managed to rise above it. Once most people realize that change is inevietable, they don't fight it, especially face to face. The bigot in the stands is an easy role to play. I'm not being easy on Landis. He lacked the qualities that separate average men from great men. And as the leader of the National Pastime, perhaps he should have been a great man. As a man who was given absolute power, we expect these men to be great, otherwise why would they be offered such an opportunity. My issue with PHG, is that he expected Landis to transform himself after he was granted absolute power. That somehow he would become an enlightened despot. A Solon or Cincinattus ( sic ). That man is rare in our history. The man Landis was in 1918, determined that he would be the first Commissioner. Why should he suddenly become progressive in his positions on segregation, when those positions had carried him as far as they had? Following Plessy vs Fergusson, in 1896, segregation was legitamized in this country. One had to look no further than the Supreme Court concerning integration. Separate but equal was the law of the land. I wonder if Landis was influenced by that decesion? He was a judge, afterall. Landis had the opportunity to do something great. It stared him right in the face. He didn't grasp the opportunity. And he was never overtly challenged to grab the proverbial brass ring.

Ol' No. 2
03-11-2005, 10:37 PM
As opposed to " ...lots of people...managed to rise above it ", a few people managed to rise above it. Once most people realize that change is inevietable, they don't fight it, especially face to face. The bigot in the stands is an easy role to play. I'm not being easy on Landis. He lacked the qualities that separate average men from great men. And as the leader of the National Pastime, perhaps he should have been a great man. As a man who was given absolute power, we expect these men to be great, otherwise why would they be offered such an opportunity. My issue with PHG, is that he expected Landis to transform himself after he was granted absolute power. That somehow he would become an enlightened despot. A Solon or Cincinattus ( sic ). That man is rare in our history. The man Landis was in 1918, determined that he would be the first Commissioner. Why should he suddenly become progressive in his positions on segregation, when those positions had carried him as far as they had? Following Plessy vs Fergusson, in 1896, segregation was legitamized in this country. One had to look no further than the Supreme Court concerning integration. Separate but equal was the law of the land. I wonder if Landis was influenced by that decesion? He was a judge, afterall. Landis had the opportunity to do something great. It stared him right in the face. He didn't grasp the opportunity. And he was never overtly challenged to grab the proverbial brass ring.You can say much the same thing about the KKK lynch mobs. They were products of their times, too, weren't they? And Landis was not much better. There's a difference between passively accepting segregation and vigorously enforcing it. Landis was in the latter category, NOT the "bigot in the stands". There are no excuses for that.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-12-2005, 06:48 AM
You can say much the same thing about the KKK lynch mobs. They were products of their times, too, weren't they? And Landis was not much better. There's a difference between passively accepting segregation and vigorously enforcing it. Landis was in the latter category, NOT the "bigot in the stands". There are no excuses for that.
I think you are expecting a man from that era, to maintain values that are now common in our era. For Landis to have vigorously enforced segregation, implies that there was widespread opposition to segregation. He never had to enforce segregation, because there was a lack of people calling for integration. There was no " rebellion " to the establishment to put down. Landis represented the views of most of the people in the game. Landis failed to lead, in a situation that we know was a horrendous crime, ( use the strongest terms of condemnation ) yet it was the social norm at the time. Rare was ( is ) the man who will lead on an unpopular issue. Landis was not an exceptional man. An exceptional man would have called for integration. I wonder if the Presidents back then, who threw out the first pitch, ever questioned Landis as to why there were no blacks on the field?

Ol' No. 2
03-12-2005, 01:19 PM
I think you are expecting a man from that era, to maintain values that are now common in our era. For Landis to have vigorously enforced segregation, implies that there was widespread opposition to segregation. He never had to enforce segregation, because there was a lack of people calling for integration. There was no " rebellion " to the establishment to put down. Landis represented the views of most of the people in the game. Landis failed to lead, in a situation that we know was a horrendous crime, ( use the strongest terms of condemnation ) yet it was the social norm at the time. Rare was ( is ) the man who will lead on an unpopular issue. Landis was not an exceptional man. An exceptional man would have called for integration. I wonder if the Presidents back then, who threw out the first pitch, ever questioned Landis as to why there were no blacks on the field?Now you're getting to the point. If what you were saying about the situation was true, I would agree with you. But while there wasn't exactly a "rebellion", there were owners and plenty of others who tried to begin the process of integration, and were summarily slapped down by Landis. It wasn't just that he failed to lead the fight toward integration. He used every means at his disposal to stop it. Big difference.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-12-2005, 02:02 PM
Now you're getting to the point. If what you were saying about the situation was true, I would agree with you. But while there wasn't exactly a "rebellion", there were owners and plenty of others who tried to begin the process of integration, and were summarily slapped down by Landis. It wasn't just that he failed to lead the fight toward integration. He used every means at his disposal to stop it. Big difference.
There were always people who favored integration. But again, you are expecting Landis to to take the lead in an area that America as a whole lacked in. Why do you have greater expectations for Landis, than the United States Army? I'm sure people pushed for integration there too. Integration was widely opposed in the country. Landis could have been a man ahead of his times had he pushd for, or integrated baseball. He did not. He was a man of his times. Nothing more, but nothing less.
I will again emphasize that as a result of Plessy vs Fergusson, in 1896, segregation, as a result of the seperate but equal ruling, was legalized. I don't know how Landis viewed the Court's ruling. Rube Foster established his league in 1920. There was a league for blacks and whites. As a jurist, did Landis believe that it was legal to maintain segregation? In his mind, and many minds throughout history, if something is legal it is also moral. Segregation itself wasn't Constitutionally overturned until 1954, with Brown vs Board of Education. MLB was seven years ahead of most of society.
Anyway, as result of these discussions, I've ordered David Pietrusza's book about Judge Landis. It was critically aclaimed and won an award for being a great baseball book. It ought to shed some more light on the subject.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-12-2005, 02:09 PM
Long-renowned as baseball's first real commissioner, Landis had earlier been the strong-minded judge who fined John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Co. $29 million. Pietrusza, past president of the Society for American Baseball Research, portrays a harsh if occasionally lenient baseball czar who banned the 1919 Black Sox, among others, for gambling but spared some players. Unlike Jerome Holtzman, who recently labeled Landis "a bigoted curmudgeon" in his The Commissioners (Total Sports, 1998), Pietrusza says that owners, not Landis, blocked the game's integration. This warm but fair biography belongs on most sports shelves.?Morey Berger, St. Joseph's Hosp. Medical Lib., Tucson, AZ
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.
A review of the aforementioned book. I hope I'm not infringing on anyone's copyright.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-12-2005, 02:24 PM
....Unlike Jerome Holtzman, who recently labeled Landis "a bigoted curmudgeon" in his The Commissioners (Total Sports, 1998), Pietrusza says that owners, not Landis, blocked the game's integration. This warm but fair biography belongs on most sports shelves.?Morey Berger, St. Joseph's Hosp. Medical Lib., Tucson, AZ

Well if Morey Berger of Tucson, Arizona says so then it must be true.
:kukoo:

voodoochile
03-12-2005, 02:27 PM
Well if Morey Berger of Tucson, Arizona says so then it must be true.
:kukoo:

You beat me to it. I was going to ask... Who the **** is Morey Berger? Probably some guy who spent a week in St Joe's hospital and read the book because he was bored. :wink:

eastchicagosoxfan
03-12-2005, 02:42 PM
I don't know who Morey Berger is either, I posted it because it may be indicative of what the book's about. Has anyone read it?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-12-2005, 02:53 PM
I don't know who Morey Berger is either, I posted it because it may be indicative of what the book's about. Has anyone read it?

Well I haven't read it, but Amazon's website offers a "criminal two-pack", buy this Landis book along with another about Arnold Rothstein for one low price.

:o:

eastchicagosoxfan
03-12-2005, 03:13 PM
Well I haven't read it, but Amazon's website offers a "criminal two-pack", buy this Landis book along with another about Arnold Rothstein for one low price.

:o:
I almost went for it too. Another site offers a review that says the book glosses over integration.

Ol' No. 2
03-12-2005, 03:47 PM
There were always people who favored integration. But again, you are expecting Landis to to take the lead in an area that America as a whole lacked in. Why do you have greater expectations for Landis, than the United States Army? I'm sure people pushed for integration there too. Integration was widely opposed in the country. Landis could have been a man ahead of his times had he pushd for, or integrated baseball. He did not. He was a man of his times. Nothing more, but nothing less.
I will again emphasize that as a result of Plessy vs Fergusson, in 1896, segregation, as a result of the seperate but equal ruling, was legalized. I don't know how Landis viewed the Court's ruling. Rube Foster established his league in 1920. There was a league for blacks and whites. As a jurist, did Landis believe that it was legal to maintain segregation? In his mind, and many minds throughout history, if something is legal it is also moral. Segregation itself wasn't Constitutionally overturned until 1954, with Brown vs Board of Education. MLB was seven years ahead of most of society.
Anyway, as result of these discussions, I've ordered David Pietrusza's book about Judge Landis. It was critically aclaimed and won an award for being a great baseball book. It ought to shed some more light on the subject.You're not listening at all, are you? I don't expect Landis to "take the lead" in championing integration. But what he did was "take the lead" in championing SEGREGATION. He was not "a man of his times. Nothing more, but nothing less." He was less...a lot less.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-12-2005, 04:14 PM
You're not listening at all, are you? I don't expect Landis to "take the lead" in championing integration. But what he did was "take the lead" in championing SEGREGATION. He was not "a man of his times. Nothing more, but nothing less." He was less...a lot less.
You're not listening. Where were others, of greater importance than the first Commissioner of baseball? The President? The Supreme Court? Congress? The ballplayers? The owners? Did any of those institutions or people champion segregation? Landis had a chance. He failed. So did lot's of other people. when there is an obvious injustice, yet the leaders of the time do nothing to right the wrong, how do you characterize the time, and the people who lived in it?

Fenway
03-12-2005, 04:45 PM
Judge Landis made his views of intergration very clear when he found Jack Johnson guilty of violating the Mann white slavery act.

There was another reason the owners were in no hurry to intergrate their stadiums as many of them rented out to the Negro Leagues for a nice piece of income when their team was on the road. Some owners felt ( and were proven correct ) that the Negro leagues would fail if MLB intergrated.

BTW how come Congress didn't ask Babe Ruth to testify in the late 1920's about his taking an illegal substance. ALCOHOL :cool:

Ol' No. 2
03-12-2005, 05:05 PM
You're not listening. Where were others, of greater importance than the first Commissioner of baseball? The President? The Supreme Court? Congress? The ballplayers? The owners? Did any of those institutions or people champion segregation? Landis had a chance. He failed. So did lot's of other people. when there is an obvious injustice, yet the leaders of the time do nothing to right the wrong, how do you characterize the time, and the people who lived in it?I see. It's the "everyone else was doing it" excuse. That makes it all clear. I guess we shouldn't be too hard on Himmler for sending millions of Jews to the gas chamber, either. He was just a man of his era, too.

eastchicagosoxfan
03-12-2005, 05:55 PM
I see. It's the "everyone else was doing it" excuse. That makes it all clear. I guess we shouldn't be too hard on Himmler for sending millions of Jews to the gas chamber, either. He was just a man of his era, too.

Yea, that's it. And the guys who devised the three fifths compromise were immorral racists too.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-12-2005, 08:27 PM
Yea, that's it. And the guys who devised the three fifths compromise were immorral racists too.

I'm not sure this constitutes progress, but perhaps we're finally getting through to you. Yes, they were immoral racists and Abraham Lincoln addressed this very point in his second inaugural.

"If God will that it continue [the Civil War] until all the wealth piled by the bondsmen’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’'

Lincoln was talking about the NORTH'S blood, ECF. The North must pay with its own blood for the immoral compromises it made in 1787.

Do you have anything else to say or shall we let the wisdom of Lincoln have the last word on a subject you're in way over your head to discuss?

eastchicagosoxfan
03-12-2005, 08:54 PM
I'm not sure this constitutes progress, but perhaps we're finally getting through to you. Yes, they were immoral racists and Abraham Lincolnn addressed this very point in his second inaugural.



Lincoln was talking about the NORTH'S blood, ECF. The North must pay with its own blood for the immoral compromises it made in 1787.

Do you have anything else to say or shall we let the wisdom of Lincoln have the last word on a subject you're in way over your head to discuss?
PHG I'm not in over my head. I'm very familiar with Lincoln's second innagural. i've enjoyed the debate. Lincoln will have the last word. " With malice towards none...."