PDA

View Full Version : Downey: Time to Pardon Buck Weaver


Hitmen77
10-20-2005, 10:44 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-051019downey,1,591249.column?page=1&coll=cs-home-headlines

Jerko
10-20-2005, 11:10 AM
Nice read, but right now I'm only worried about the 2005 White Sox. Let 1919 and 1959 take care of themselves AFTER a White Sox World Series winner.

credefan24
10-20-2005, 12:38 PM
I am probably going to get flamed for this, but there is strong evidence that both Weaver and Jackson were at least complicit in the Series.

While Jackson had the Series' only HR, and hit about .350, with no errors, it is important to remember that the players did not throw every game. The game in which Jackson hit his home run, was on of the games that was not fixed. In game 1, which was thrown, he went 0-4, or 1-4, and did not play that well in the field. I wish I were wrong, I wish Weaver and Jackson were in the Hall of Fame, but history, unfortunately, has judged them otherwise.
If anyone has a different version, or other facts to contradict me, please, show me. I would love to be proven wrong (no teal here).

But as the last poster said, maybe we should lay off this talk until AFTER the 2005 World Series.

But a very interesting topic, nonetheless.

Uncle_Patrick
10-20-2005, 12:49 PM
I am probably going to get flamed for this, but there is strong evidence that both Weaver and Jackson were at least complicit in the Series.

While Jackson had the Series' only HR, and hit about .350, with no errors, it is important to remember that the players did not throw every game. The game in which Jackson hit his home run, was on of the games that was not fixed. In game 1, which was thrown, he went 0-4, or 1-4, and did not play that well in the field. I wish I were wrong, I wish Weaver and Jackson were in the Hall of Fame, but history, unfortunately, has judged them otherwise.
If anyone has a different version, or other facts to contradict me, please, show me. I would love to be proven wrong (no teal here).

But as the last poster said, maybe we should lay off this talk until AFTER the 2005 World Series.

But a very interesting topic, nonetheless.

There is evidence that Jackson was complicit, but I don't believe there was any evidence that Weaver was involved. He knew about it; everyone knows that. But he chose not to rat out his teammates. That's all I've heard about Weaver's involvement.

DenverSock
10-20-2005, 01:07 PM
Look, the man is a tool.

PaulDrake
10-20-2005, 01:37 PM
There is evidence that Jackson was complicit, but I don't believe there was any evidence that Weaver was involved. He knew about it; everyone knows that. But he chose not to rat out his teammates. That's all I've heard about Weaver's involvement. Weaver grew up in Pennsylvania coal mining country. In that environment you NEVER ratted out your friends. In fact, if the stakes were high enough it just could get you killed. Weaver is the only one of the Black Sox I would pardon. In fact it's long overdue.

Baby Fisk
10-20-2005, 01:49 PM
Weaver biography:

The Ginger Kid: The Buck Weaver Story - Irving M. Stein, 1992.

DenverSock
10-20-2005, 01:58 PM
Weaver biography:

The Ginger Kid: The Buck Weaver Story - Irving M. Stein, 1992.

Is this still in print?

Baby Fisk
10-20-2005, 02:03 PM
Is this still in print?I have been unable to find a copy. There's one on eBay right now if you want to grab it (they will only ship within the USA :(: ).

jackbrohamer
10-20-2005, 02:06 PM
While Jackson had the Series' only HR, and hit about .350, with no errors, it is important to remember that the players did not throw every game. The game in which Jackson hit his home run, was on of the games that was not fixed. In game 1, which was thrown, he went 0-4, or 1-4, and did not play that well in the field.

This argument is often used against Jackson but does not make sense to me. The notion is that although he hit .375 (.956 OPS) in the 1919 WS, he didn't do it the "right way" so he must have been on the take.

It presupposes that he had the ability to hit .750 or 1.000 (or whatever) and that, but for his participation in the scheme, he would have done so. He hit only .304 in the 1917 World Series and only .356 lifetime, does that mean he was on the take in 1917 and throughout his career as well?

DenverSock
10-20-2005, 02:08 PM
I have been unable to find a copy. There's one on eBay right now if you want to grab it (they will only ship within the USA :(: ).
Denver is in the USA:D:

(Now don't get upset, I am only needling you a little.)

credefan24
10-20-2005, 02:14 PM
This argument is often used against Jackson but does not make sense to me. The notion is that although he hit .375 (.956 OPS) in the 1919 WS, he didn't do it the "right way" so he must have been on the take.

It presupposes that he had the ability to hit .750 or 1.000 (or whatever) and that, but for his participation in the scheme, he would have done so. He hit only .304 in the 1917 World Series and only .356 lifetime, does that mean he was on the take in 1917 and throughout his career as well?


Jack,
I see your point. What I am saying is that Jackson ONLY hit well in the games that were not thrown. I believe his average in the games that were fixed was about .196. The difference between the thrown/not thrown game average, and the fact that his HR came in a game that was not on the take, at least gives the presumption that he conspired to throw the Series.
Im not saying the he could have hit .750 or even 1.00, but it appears that he definately tried harder in the games that were not fixed.

Clembasbal
10-20-2005, 03:36 PM
Weaver biography:

The Ginger Kid: The Buck Weaver Story - Irving M. Stein, 1992.

I got that book at home, good read. It is covered with "Friends of Buck Weaver" or "Let Buck in" or whatever they are called, stickers all over it.

antitwins13
10-20-2005, 10:03 PM
Who Cares?

TornLabrum
10-20-2005, 11:34 PM
Jack,
I see your point. What I am saying is that Jackson ONLY hit well in the games that were not thrown. I believe his average in the games that were fixed was about .196. The difference between the thrown/not thrown game average, and the fact that his HR came in a game that was not on the take, at least gives the presumption that he conspired to throw the Series.
Im not saying the he could have hit .750 or even 1.00, but it appears that he definately tried harder in the games that were not fixed.

What was Eddie Collins's average a) in the Series; b) in games that were thrown; and c) in games that were not thrown? How do you know he tried harder in the games that were not fixed? You are assuming that if he hits .375 he's going to have exactly 3 hits in every 8 at bats. It doesn't work that way.

IowaSox1971
10-21-2005, 03:16 AM
What's unfair about all this is that Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker both were implicated in a game-fixing scandal in the mid-1920s, but Judge Landis chose to look the other way for public relations purposes. Cobb and Speaker did something much worse than Buck Weaver did.

Also, it could be argued that they did something much worse than Joe Jackson did, because Cobb and Speaker had seen Joe get a lifetime ban just a few years before that, yet they got implicated in a scandal anyhow.

Weaver definitely should be reinstated.

Hitmen77
11-12-2005, 09:05 PM
Another Mike Downey article on Buck Weaver from today:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-051111downey,1,6205470.column?coll=cs-columnists

TornLabrum
11-12-2005, 10:36 PM
Another Mike Downey article on Buck Weaver from today:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-051111downey,1,6205470.column?coll=cs-columnists

Too bad he got his facts about Jackson wrong. Jackson basically had the money thrown on his bed. He tried to give it to Comiskey and was turned away by Harry Grabiner. And he didn't take twice as much as any other player. Cicotte and Gandil, iirc, each got ten grand.

PaulDrake
11-14-2005, 08:41 PM
Too bad he got his facts about Jackson wrong. Jackson basically had the money thrown on his bed. He tried to give it to Comiskey and was turned away by Harry Grabiner. And he didn't take twice as much as any other player. Cicotte and Gandil, iirc, each got ten grand. It's a complicated, twisted, convoluted story to begin with. Modern day sports journalists make it that much worse. I apparently deluded myself into thinking that Asinof had tied up most of the loose ends. Maybe some day someone will get it all right. The problem is I don't even think the participants were aware of all the behind the scene back stabbing machinations. Like I said very complicated.

TDog
11-15-2005, 02:17 AM
On Sept. 28, 1920, Joe Jackson testified before the grand jury would indict him and seven of his teammates. The transcript is in the appendix to Shoeless Joe and Ragtime Baseball by Harvey Frommer, 1992. Jackson said they promised him $20,000 and game him $5,000. Lefty Williams threw it on the bed and Jackson put it in his pocket. He said he had been paid $6,000 for the the season. Even in 1920 to the grand jury, he said he played to win. But he said he was promised money to throw the World Series and accepted money to throw the World Series. How innocent can he be if he accepted the money?

I agree with Downey about Buck Weaver. Among the eight, he is is the innocent one.