PDA

View Full Version : Selig on Joe Jackson...probably not


Fenway
04-25-2005, 02:15 PM
Bud Selig was on WEEI this morning talking about issues like fan security etc

Selig was asked about Pete Rose and Selig said he was still troubled by the way Rose handled the release of his book.

Then he was asked about Joe Jackson

Selig replied "Until a few years ago I was inclined to revisit the Black Sox incident but then I read a detailed account by Jerome Holtzman in a book called Baseball-Chicago Style where the author shows that while Jackson's overall numbers in the 1919 World Series look excellent, a closer look shows that Jackson's numbers exploded in the later games after the fix was declared off."

mweflen
04-25-2005, 02:18 PM
oh. so he was "only" playing well before the fix was off, but then really pulled out the stops once it was nixed.

Spoken like a man who has never picked up a glove or a bat in his life.

Baby Fisk
04-25-2005, 02:19 PM
Then he was asked about Joe Jackson

Selig replied "Until a few years ago I was inclined to revisit the Black Sox incident but then I read a detailed account by Jerome Holtzman in a book called Baseball-Chicago Style where the author shows that Jackson's while overall numbers in the 1919 World Series look excellent, a closer look shows that Jackson's numbers exploded in the later games after the fix was declared off."

I read that book, and all the information is presented anecdotally. If Selig is making those comments based on a reporter's interpretation of the numbers, without looking at the numbers themselves, his statement is laughable. Then again, everything about Selig is laughable! :rolleyes:

Fenway
04-25-2005, 02:26 PM
I read that book, and all the information is presented anecdotally. If Selig is making those comments based on a reporter's interpretation of the numbers, without looking at the numbers themselves, his statement is laughable. Then again, everything about Selig is laughable! :rolleyes:

Selig didn't mention this tidbit

Holtzman is the OFFICIAL historian of MLB

Jerome Holtzman is the official historian for Major League Baseball. He was the recipient of the J.G. Taylor Spink Award in 1989, and is honored at the National Baseball Hall of Fame. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20040209&content_id=635818&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp

illinibk
04-25-2005, 02:35 PM
oh. so he was "only" playing well before the fix was off, but then really pulled out the stops once it was nixed.
I have to agree with Selig on this one. As I have said in previous threads (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=412779&postcount=28) about this topic, Jackson's "poor" play extended to his defnse as well:

From the book Shoeless: The Life and Times of Joe Jackson by David L. Fleitz (2001), page 186, pertaining to Game 2:
"Joe Jackson decided to play close to the line in left field, despite the fact that Neale was a left-handed hitter, and Neale lifted a pop fly that fell for a double. Joe 'had time to catch the ball' wrote Henry Edwards in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 5, 1919, page 2-A) the next day. 'He ran circles before getting one mitt under it, only to let it drop.'"

But just because he had a good series (well last three games at least), doesn't mean he wasn't throwing games. Hal Chase, perhaps the biggest thrower of games in baseball history was the best at throwing games while it looked like he was playing on the level so to speak. (I have read this in several sources, but for the life of me, I cannot think of them, perahps they will come to me later on this afternoon). I am not saying this is what happened with Jackson, that he was great at making it look like he was playing on the level only to actually be throwing the game; I'm just saying it might be a possibility.

Baby Fisk
04-25-2005, 02:45 PM
Selig didn't mention this tidbit

Holtzman is the OFFICIAL historian of MLB

Jerome Holtzman is the official historian for Major League Baseball. He was the recipient of the J.G. Taylor Spink Award in 1989, and is honored at the National Baseball Hall of Fame. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20040209&content_id=635818&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp


:o:

Yeah... but... still... [*sputtering*] Selig sucks. :redface:

tebman
04-25-2005, 03:05 PM
(re: Selig) Spoken like a man who has never picked up a glove or a bat in his life.
Under definition of "weasel" is a picture of Bud. Read Bill Veeck's "Veeck As In Wreck" book to learn what a fine fellow Selig is -- he was the one leading the owners' subcommittee trying to prevent Veeck from buying the Sox. Read about his machinations to bring the Seattle Pilots to Milwaukee. Read his bumbling quotes from a couple of years ago about the need to contract the Twins. Remember his stellar performance at the steroid hearings.

He's The Weasel King -- I wish we had a picture to illustrate that.

mikehuff
04-25-2005, 03:16 PM
Do people on this board just support Joe Jackson because we are Sox fans?

I know the argument about his average being ober .343 or whatever it was, but if I read and understood correctly, he did accept money to throw the game and he did have full knowledge of what was going on. I'm not trying to start an argument here, but if I understand this correctly, then I don't see any reason why he should be admitted in the hall of fame.

Is this information correct?

Fenway
04-25-2005, 03:16 PM
http://www.bodog.com/images/guardian/selig-huh.jpghttp://www.nndb.com/people/226/000025151/bud_soda-crop.jpg

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/brew/img/jul02/23game070902.jpg

Charno
04-25-2005, 03:26 PM
Do any of us really care about the 1919 team? :?:

tebman
04-25-2005, 03:27 PM
http://www.bodog.com/images/guardian/selig-huh.jpghttp://www.nndb.com/people/226/000025151/bud_soda-crop.jpg

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/brew/img/jul02/23game070902.jpg

:rolling: Thanks, Fenway! Looks like we need a caption contest!

Foulke29
04-25-2005, 03:28 PM
"Shoeless" Joe does not deserve to be in.

However, the only arguement that I could make that makes him stand out above Rose is that - there were no rules on the books at the time about throwing a game. Landis made those.

When Rose gambled on baseball, he knew what the rules were and chose to disregard those - knowing the consequences should he be caught.

Joe knew no such consequences - and furthermore, he was never convicted - unlike Rose.

So, it's kind of a double standard on Selig's thoughts if you ask me.

Foulke29
04-25-2005, 03:29 PM
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/brew/img/jul02/23game070902.jpg
"You boys look mighty good in blue! What are you doing after the game?"

:bandance:

ma_deuce
04-25-2005, 03:53 PM
http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/sports/brew/img/jul02/23game070902.jpg

"Ok, ok... So when Contreras goes to pitch, I want you to call a ball... no, wait, this is even better... call a balk and score the runner on third. Hah! I can't wait to see the look on his face! Hee, hee! This is gonna be totally awesome!"

PaleHoseGeorge
04-25-2005, 05:16 PM
...
Joe knew no such consequences - and furthermore, he was never convicted - unlike Rose.

Rose was never convicted either, unless you count tax evasion. Last I checked the Racist never pontificated about banning ballplayers for tax evasion... such a thoughtful and introspective man was Judge Landis.
:o:

As for the silly notion Rose reached a sort of "plea bargain" over his alleged gambling on baseball, it would be the first time both sides of a plea bargain were facing jail time. Giamatti had tampered with a federal judge and putting to rest the whole Rose affair may or may not have been in baseball's "best interests," but it was most definitely in Giamatti's best interest.

:cool:

Fenway
04-25-2005, 05:44 PM
The irony of the 1919 scandal is that had word not gotten back to Bill Veeck SENIOR ( president of the Cubs ) that a Cubs/Phillies game to be played in 1920 was in the bag , the events leading up to the 1919 World Series may have been forgotten.

For some reason the grand jury investigating the Cubs suddenly switch gears and started looking at the White Sox. ( PROBABLY because of Ban Johnson who wanted to destroy Comiskey, Frazee (Boston) and Rupert (NY) )

GregoryEtc
04-25-2005, 06:50 PM
The hall should honor the greatest players to play the game. Rose and Jackson were great players who were flawed individuals.

Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for LIFE. His life is over. Put him in the hall.

Same goes for Rose. When he's served out his sentence (i.e. when he's dead), we can start discussing his HOF qualifications. Just my opinion.

TornLabrum
04-25-2005, 07:11 PM
The hall should honor the greatest players to play the game. Rose and Jackson were great players who were flawed individuals.

Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for LIFE. His life is over. Put him in the hall.

Same goes for Rose. When he's served out his sentence (i.e. when he's dead), we can start discussing his HOF qualifications. Just my opinion.

Incorrect. Jackson is on the "Permanently Ineligible" list. Permanently means just that.

OhSoxFan
04-25-2005, 07:19 PM
There are various problems with this post, but the largest must be what Selig said. He is basing his thoughts on Holtzman's book? It is a short chapter and there are no less than 8 (and I believe more) errors in that chapter. It is very poorly done, considering Holtzman is the "official baseball historian".

And did you know that Holtzman once publically stated that there was never a trial?

Holtzman's word on this subject is less than credible, despite his position.

And FWIW, Jackson maintained until the day he died that he did not TAKE the money, it was LEFT for him by Williams, and he tried to take it to Comiskey. What is more, Williams swore under oath that Jackson wasn't in on the fix but his name was used, which is why he left him the money.

nasox
04-25-2005, 08:06 PM
There are various problems with this post, but the largest must be what Selig said. He is basing his thoughts on Holtzman's book? It is a short chapter and there are no less than 8 (and I believe more) errors in that chapter. It is very poorly done, considering Holtzman is the "official baseball historian".

And did you know that Holtzman once publically stated that there was never a trial?

Holtzman's word on this subject is less than credible, despite his position.

And FWIW, Jackson maintained until the day he died that he did not TAKE the money, it was LEFT for him by Williams, and he tried to take it to Comiskey. What is more, Williams swore under oath that Jackson wasn't in on the fix but his name was used, which is why he left him the money.

List these "errors" and when did Holtzman "publically state that there never was a trial?" If you had more posts here, you might be credible.

TornLabrum
04-25-2005, 08:24 PM
Holtzman as a baseball historian leaves a lot to be desired. At one of the early SoxFests he was on stage and asked the question, "What other team besides the '71 Orioles had four 20-game winners." It being SoxFest I assumed he'd mention the 1920 White Sox (Cicotte, Faber, Williams, and Kerr). But this was baseball historian Jerome Holtzman. His answer was, "The 1954 Cleveland Indians."

Now tell me about how accurate he might be about Jackson.

Stroker Ace
04-25-2005, 08:52 PM
The only good thing Selig did was plan to contract the twinks, but that never went through.

OhSoxFan
04-25-2005, 09:29 PM
List these "errors" and when did Holtzman "publically state that there never was a trial?" If you had more posts here, you might be credible.

My credibility is based on number of quotes? Hmmm. I'll pass on that bizarre statement. I've been a White Sox fan a lot longer than most on this site, and I've studied the Black Sox for over 25 years.

I'll dig up the errors for you when I get a chance. Gene Carney has listed them, and he has done a LOT of work on the Black Sox issue. He also states categorically the public forum in which Holtzman made his bizarre statement about there never being a trial. I'll get that info for you as well.

Wsoxmike59
04-26-2005, 07:44 AM
I would love to see Shoeless Joe get a pardon from Bud Selig, but I don't think that will ever happen. It's still open for debate over Joe Jackson's guilt or innocence.

My own personal belief is that he was an unwilling or unwitting participant in the fix. I think his teammates included him because they needed him in the fold to ensure the outcome of the fix, and wanted to make sure Joe was included on the big payout.

The most damning evidence against Joe is a few years after the fix was exposed on the witness stand in a Milwaukee courtroom, Joe testified that he took $5000 in cash from a teammate during the 1919 WS.

That information came out during the trial when Joe successfully sued Chas. Comiskey for the remainder of his contract and his back world series pay.

Also the confession that Joe Jackson signed before the start of the Black Sox trial, that mysteriously disappeared before it could be introduced as evidence in that trial....somehow magically reappeared before the Joe Jackson vs Chas. Comiskey salary trial in Milwaukee!

OhSoxFan
04-26-2005, 07:29 PM
Here is a brief list of the errors by Holtzman in the first chapter of Baseball, Chicago Style:

(1) He claims Gropman ignores much of the evidence, which is not true. (Holtzman later admitted to having never read Gropman!)

(2) St. Louis player Joe Gideon -- should be Joe Gedeon

(3) He says when the confessions were lost, the charges were dropped. (This is in keeping with his stating on a national radio program that there was no trial.) This is incorrect, indictments were handed down.

(4) He cites Fullerton's "Say it ain't so Joe" story as fact rather than legend. It is widely known that the story of the little boy is legend and that Joe was taken away after the trial without speaking to anybody.

(5) Holtzman quotes snippets of Jackson's testimony that are damaging but not the rest in which Jackson clearly indicated he wasn't involved and did nothing to throw the Series. It would appear that the further along the confession got, the further Jackson got from Austrian's orders. Amazingly, the questioners didn't follow up on the blatant discrepancies, nor does Holtzman.

(6) He says that the seven got big pay raises after the scandal was exposed, but actually the pay raisees came early in 1920 and the exposure came later, in Sept 1920.

(7) He has Weaver getting a big pay raise, but Stein in The Ginger Kid has Weaver actually getting that raise and a 3-year contract before the 1919 season.

(8) He has McMullin getting a pay raise that is more than doubled, but Grabiner shows McMullin's pay raise being much less, less than $1000

(9) He has Jackson talking to the press on 9/19/1920 but the article in question was on 9/29/1920, after the confession. Several sources state that Jackson did not talk to the press, and Lutz indicates (The Great Baseball Mystery) that the article was probably written based on leaked tidbits to the press. It was very common for the press to write articles in that manner -- embellishing on few "facts", and even to put it in the form of an interview. Jackson denied that such an interview ever took place. None of their guesses in that article about what was really said can be found in Jackson's testimony.

(10) He says in 1924 Jackson sued for back pay for the 1922-23 seasons, when it was actually the 1921-22 seasons.

(11) He has Fullerton writing for the wrong paper. Fullerton wrote for the Herald & Examiner, not the Tribune

(12) He says Fullerton accurately and uncannily predicted that seven wouldn't return with the team the next year. But in fact they did, all but Gandil. They played nearly all of the 1920 season.

Most of these are minor, true. But for the "official historian", one would expect a better command of the details.