View Full Version : What About Shoeless Joe?

10-30-2005, 04:44 AM
One of the things that bothers me about this ceaseless (but well deserved)
Sox lovefest is that no one (at least that I've seen, other than some South
Carolina congressman) has dedicated this win to the memory of the best
White Sox player of all time, Joe Jackson. Don Oswaldo (deservedly) thanked
Venezuela, Hawk (again deservedly) told the mainstream press "Screw You!"
for consistently pissing on the Sox, but no one said "This one's for Joe

IMHO Joe's ghost hung out in the Juice Box grandstand and handed that fly
ball to Juan Uribe, instead of giving it to an Astros fan.

This has to happen , a national redemption for Joe, whose only error was
not ratting on teammates. In the 1919 World Series, he batted .375, hitting
greaseballs, spitballs and whatever crap pitchers threwback then.
If Konerko had batted .375 he'd be asking for (Yankees choker) A-Rod

Reinsdorf needs to have a Shoeless Joe Day at the Cell just to pressure
MLB. Sox fans need to holler , too, lest Pete Rose gets in the Hall Of Fame
before Joe Jackson does. To paraphrase Lloyd Benton, I've seen Pete Rose,
he was a great hitter, but he ain't no Joe Jackson. If you tossed greased
up "dead balls" at Pete Rose, would he bat .375? Would he have a 1.000
fielding average grabbing balls with a 1919 size mitt?

10-30-2005, 07:14 AM
I think the stupid Fox intro before Game 1 made any further mention of Shoeless Joe impossible.


10-30-2005, 07:40 AM
Dear Bugs,

As much attention as the "curse" nonsense has recieved, I still think this is a question that people are going to be asking. Now that there is some attention on the Black Sox again, people are going to be wondering if it's time to pardon Joe.

While I appreciate the sentiment, there is a problem with it. Joe Jackson's only sin was NOT that he didn't rat on his teammates. He did, in fact, take the money. He was offered $20,000 and recieved five of that.

As for his play, it is quite obvious that he didn't follow through with it at the plate. You don't hit .375 with a homer when you are trying to lose. But many of the observers claim that Jackson, while he was never charged with an error, did not hustle for plays in the field. That he seemed to slow down approaching fly balls.

Do I think he was duped? Of course. Do I think Comiskey was a huge part of the problem? Certainly. But there is no denying that Jackson took the money. He confessed to it himself. We need to collectively realize that Joe Jackson was not an angelic presence (as we have made him out to be with our modern baseball mythology). He was just an enormously talented, and probably very decent guy who made a horrible decision that affected the rest of his life. But it was his decision.

To my mind, if there is one person on that team who does deserve to be re-instated, it's Buck Weaver. Weaver is the only one who both never took any money and has no damning evidence about his play. While Jackson went back home and lived out his days in South Carolina (happily, it should be noted), Weaver spent the rest of his life trying to clear his own name. He was still working on this when died of a heart attack on a Chicago street. To my mind, we shouldn't even discuss re-instating Jackson until Weaver is re-instated.

You'll find a lot of support for your position out there. I'm sentimental enough (and I have enough of a problem with Comiskey) to want him re-instated myself. But don't say his only sin was "not ratting on his friends". It hurts your argument to deny the facts. Jackson might deserve to be re-instated and he might not, but he did take the money. So if you're going to argue for it, you're going to need to find a way to reconcile that.

10-30-2005, 08:08 AM
It's S. Res. 289, passed by the Senate Thursday night.

S Res 291 congratulates the White Sox.

10-30-2005, 10:03 AM
I totally agree. I feel that this was and still is a shame to baseball. The Sox organization is now redeemed. I've always been a Sox fan and very sympathetic to JJ's cause. I even named my son Joe Jackson....

10-30-2005, 10:11 AM
Frank Thomas is the best White Sox player of all time. Not Shoeless Joe.

10-30-2005, 10:16 AM
I'm just tired of dealing with this subject. My goodness, doesn't the news media understand that what happened in 1919 has nothing to do with today? And also, for those of you who may have read Eight Men Out, you'll recall that throwing games for money was not uncommon in this era (not that this fact is ever mentioned). I'm not excusing what the White Sox players did, but this is about as relevant to our lives as the debate on whether Ruth called his shot.

I would much rather have a productive and intense debate on the designated hitter rule. The media needs to let this 1919 thing go.