Notes from the Shadows of Cooperstown
Observations From Outside the Lines |
Carney's newest book,
Burying the Black Sox: How
Baseball's Cover-up of the
1919 World Series Fix Almost Succeeded, will be available soon.
Pre-order your copy today.
Click to subscribe to 1919BlackSox Yahoo Discussion Group
NOTES FROM THE SHADOWS OF COOPERSTOWN
Observations from Outside the Lines
By Two Finger Carney (carneya6@adelphia.net)
#372 APRIL 10, 2006
BONDS ON BONDS
Usually with the title of an issue, I try to sum up its contents. Not this time. There is some reference below to the ESPN program devoted to letting Barry have his way with the media. But to be honest, I chose this headline to bring Notes to the attention of Googlers. Because over recent weeks, I've been fascinated by the way the Bonds expose' book has been seized upon by the media, while another new book -- also about a scandal, a cover-up, and a star left-fielder waylaid on his way to Cooperstown -- has not. Well, at least not yet.
If last issue was Notes on the Run, so is this one. In fact, I am carving most of this issue out of what I've been sending out in my e-mail. I've done this from time to time, to give readers of Notes a look at what they are missing by not subscribing to the Yahoo B-Sox group (there's a link at the Notes home page).
As you'll see, the posts range all over the place, like Notes used to do before I started down the B-Sox trail with issue #268.
A COUPLE NEWS NOTES
First, a public thanx to Dick Hunt for arranging a book signing and then an evening reception at his school's terrific Performing Arts Center. That made April 1 one fun day, no fooling.
Next, congratulations to the Pittsburgh Pirates, for capping the first week of the new season with a win -- their first, in seven tries. I'm not intending this as sarcasm. They were IN most of those losses, and I do not feel discouraged about their prospects for 2006. No need to panic.
Next -- thanx to those who have purchased Burying the Black Sox. I am really looking forward to more reviews, and have been encouraging everyone to post their feedback at Amazon.com.
Next, some good news, it looks like I'll be speaking at the annual Cooperstown Symposium in June after all. Thanx due to Potomac, my publisher, for sending me. Stay tuned for details.
Finally, circle June 3 on your calendars, it will be Hooks Wiltse Day here in the shadows of Cooperstown. I'm helping Rich Cohen plan the event, with my main contribution being a poem for the occasion. Notes once teemed with my baseball poems, but not so much since the Strike of 1994-95. So when Rich asked me to compose one for good old Hooks, I had to reach deep and see if I could still pull it off. I think I did OK, and I'll end this issue with Hooks.
FROM MY "SENT" (E-MAIL) BOX: MORE NOTES ON THE RUN
Over-documentation? (March 23)
Just a note to respond to Jim's post on the B-Sox group today, on Literary License ... after reading it, I'm really anxious to see your review of my book. No invented conversation among players ... but I *almost* included, in an appendix, an imaginary conversation between Joe Jackson & Alfred Austrian -- how his coaching (before Jackson visited the grand jury) might have gone. I almost hope I'm accused of too much documentation and not enough opinion. Because my aim was to present what I found, and let the readers decide ... although I think readers will figure out my opinions ... but maybe not!
When I read Eight Men Out these days, I can see the sources behind the imagined dialog -- in most cases. Where the sources are not evident -- well, there's the rub. I see no problem citing "fiction" that is based on research -- readers will know it's an interpretation or a guess, and not a primary source.
Anyway, thanks for your post, you made some excellent points. It would be great if old ballplayers had perfect recall, but they do not -- and it's not just AGE, just a few years after hitting the only HR in the 1919 Series, Joe Jackson recalled it as if there were men on base -- the way he surely wished it happened.
B-Sox ¼
The Musical? (March 23)
Some of us have joked about doing a musical, very research-based (of course!), with parodies of the songs we all know from famous Broadway shows ... but today I received a query from a friend (and some of you know Jane from the excellent Toronto national SABR convention she chaired), asking if I had heard of a B-Sox musical composed by Dave Frishberg (of "Van Lingle Mungo" and other fame) ... it's title is "The Catbird Seat" and the plot is that someone time-travels back to 1919 to un-fix things.
Historic Baseball Archive (March 23)
My name is Greg Hollingsworth, and I represent NewspaperARCHIVE. We have 35 million pages of historic newspapers dating from 1753-2006 online. We index the full text.
I wanted to take just a minute of your time to make you aware of some of the new resources we have recently made available to the public for free. One of our most recent additions is ProBaseballArchive.com. This is a collection of 50,000 newspaper pages completely dedicated to baseball. The archive includes pages covering many of the greatest moments in the history of the game.
Given your interest in baseball research I felt that you might be interested in the site and the information it contains. The links below will take you to the baseball site, or to our flagship site, NewspaperARCHIVE.com, which is a pay site.
www.probaseballarchive.com
www.newspaperarchive.com
A subscription to NewspaperARCHIVE.com is $6.95 per month or $29.95 for a year. Additionally, we are in discussions with SABR to offer the service to SABR members, so keep an eye out for that hopefully in the near future.
The Gambling Side of the Story (March 24)
Jacob's comments on the first real telling of "the Cincinnati connection" to the gambling side of The Big Fix -- in Susan Dellinger's Red Legs & Black Sox -- prompt this.
First, I want to compliment Susan for digging out Cal Crim and a whole sub-plot in the B-Sox tale ... she found this simply because she had clues that it was there, so she went looking.
I was just in Tucson at a conference where John Thorn was the keynote speaker, and we got talking about how today's technology is making possible all kinds of new discoveries. And folks are finding things no one ever thought to look for, never knew existed. John is almost constantly pushing back the date of the first games of baseball, or of documented bat-and-ball games. It's just amazing.
I think I commented recently just to Susan, that I think others might be able to do in other cities, something like what she's done in Cincinnati -- carve a book out of the material related to the Fix. Even light research into the grand jury of 1920 shows that the gambling side was very complicated. To think it was just Rothstein, Attell & Sullivan, with Maharg & Burns as point men, is foolish. The St Louis & Des Moines boys were indicted, but whole syndicates escaped, for lack of evidence. Or maybe because if baseball really tried to round up all the suspects -- from Cincy, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Chicago, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and probably most cities with a MLB franchise (not to mention Havana and Montreal) -- well, hey, it might look like gambling was bigger than baseball (it was), strangling baseball (it was), and the focus on eight White Sox might start to look a bit strange.
There was a day when I really didn't want to look too deep into the gambling side of this story ... and I still recall the point where the question shifted from "how many gamblers" to "how many syndicates were involved?" Over the past few years, I have also realized that for many people, the gambling side is the MOST interesting side. When I was looking for an agent, I ran into one who insisted that THAT was the aspect of the book that would sell best. (8MO did well with gamblers, Asinof has said. And I noticed that my book is practically featured at a couple web sites devoted to gambling!!)
All that said, "the Fixers" (the title of that chapter in my book) are the hardest folks to pin down ... this is the darkest, murkiest side. These guys were real pros, the smartest ones didn't even use their own names, and vanished from the newspaper accounts. The ballplayers couldn't do that, they had to stand out in the sunlight. If the players clammed up -- either because "thou shalt not squeal" or for other reasons -- the underworld guys were even more silent. (Just think of Rothstein, taking with him the name of his murderer, rather than giving it up to the lawmen. What a guy.)
Gambling and baseball, so close in 1919, have been divorced a long time ... that makes many fans uneasy as they explore "the dark side" (as if the baseball side was lily white!) I found that it helps to keep in mind how gambling-crazy the country was (and is -- did you do your brackets this month?) ... and how blurred the lines were between athletes and gamblers and reporters and fans. There are books -- many books, some of them thick -- on crime in Chicago, and other cities ... the Big Fix is a kind of non-violent footnote in that world. To tell the story, you really can't ignore the Fixers -- as I once hoped. But I suspect their own story will fill a book much bigger than mine.
Reds (March 26)
I'd have to check my copy of "Bleeding Between the Lines" to be sure, but my recollection is that Dutch Reuther sued Eliot Asinof for suggesting that he had been out drinking the night before a game he piched in the 1919 WS -- and won. A couple years ago, I was in touch with a Walter Reuther, Dutch's grandson (the e-mail address I had for him stopped working long ago), and he confirmed that story ... he actually was joking about it, not taking it as a serious lawsuit ... and I don't think it went anywhere. What struck me as funny was suing ASINOF, who was just basing his version on what was in the papers. I believe Hugh Fullerton was just as upset -- maybe moreso! -- that gamblers had been "tampering" with Pat Moran's starting pitchers (buying them illegal beer) during the Series, as he was with the fellows who were bribing the Sox!
As for that latter-day Red Rose, I agree with Rod, he deserves his own Yahoo group ... but I do want to note that there is a B-Sox reference in Pete's most recent book ("My Prison Without Bars") ... I think it's in one of the footnotes in my book ... Something Pete got from a relative of Ray Schalk? Rose is on the same ineligible list with the 8MO, so when he is in the news, so is Joe Jackson, but comparing them is really apples & oranges. And if we ban Pete from this discussion, I guess we have to ban Barry Bonds, too, a left-fielder with HOF credentials, condemned by leaked grand jury testimony? Barry is a hot topic these days on the SABR-L, as some of you know. Pretty interesting, how in 1919, in Rose's case, and now in the steroid controversy, how the media focuses on the ballplayers ... not on what the owners knew, and when, and what they didn't do about it.
Bill James' take, and other Shoeless stuff (March 28)
Thanks, Jeff, for that excerpt from Bill James (not the one on the 1919 Sox) ... he has info on the B-Sox in his 1990 and 1991 Baseball Books, too, and his 2001 New Historical Abstract ... not all his, though ...in 1990, Rob Neyer debunks the Cicotte bonus ... also in that issue (pg 255), James inserts a comment from his friend Lloyd Johnson, who gives a list of 7 "facts" pertinent to Joe Jackson's performance in the World Series.
I thought of the latter list today when I came across an article written just last October by David Fleitz, which we can all read, if interested, at www.wcnet.org/~dlfleitz/sjoe.htm -- "The Curse of Shoeless Joe." I don't know why it took so long for me to find this -- but hey, I missed the Bill James 1986 piece!
Regarding Lloyd Johnson's 7 facts -- and I believe I discussed this with him, long ago now, it seems -- his first fact does not stand up to scrutiny -- to Johnson, three triples to LF by the Reds in the 1919 Series weighs against Jackson's playing on the level; but I have multiple descriptions of all of those triples (and more) in the appendix of my book, thanx to Jim Sandoval, and none of them seem like Jackson's fault. I could be wrong, but I think Lloyd eventually agreed with me about this.
Another NOT fact: Jackson did not sign a confession, only a waiver of immunity ... or if he DID sign a confession, it's doubtful he knew what he signed, and immediately after he spoke to the grand jury, when leaked testimony (sound familiar?) had him confessing to throwing games, he strongly denied that he confessed to THAT -- he did admit taking $5,000 from Lefty Wms, of course.
To me, 1986 and 1990 both seem like lights years in the past, in terms of B-Sox knowledge. But David Fleitz was writing just last October, and I think he's in this group. Now I respect David Fleitz, and I rate his biography of Jackson as probably the best-researched of them all, including Gropman's. That said, we differ on the Joe Jackson question. That's one reason I invited David to join me on the panel I pulled together for the 2004 SABR convention, on the 1919 Series. Alas, there was just too little time for the panelists to argue with each other much. We could have used a couple more hours. (Jim Sandoval and Dan Nathan were the other panelists; Eliot Asinof was the first to be invited, but he declined.)
Last October, David was writing in response to the Keith Olbermann program during the World Series. Joe Jackson wasn't KO's lead story, as David had it, nor am I a blogger, but that's OK. What I want to correct most in David's article, is the statement that I tried to give the impression that the B-Sox Scandal never happened at all. Of course it did! So did "the Big Fix" (the scandal is what broke in Sept 1920, the Fix is what happened before and/or during October 1919). I do have my doubts about whether all the games that are commonly believed to have been tossed (1,2,4,5,8) were indeed all tossed, and I'd love to argue with David about Game 4 -- my personal favorite. Anyway, now I can't wait for David's review of my book (as I reviewed his), to see if any of my research made him rethink anything, or feel less certain about any of his views regarding Jackson & the others.
David included in his Oct 2005 article, an open letter to Keith Olbermann, and that's where he included the list that reminded me of Lloyd Johnson's. David has just five "indisputable facts" -- I'll comment just briefly on them, and invite others to join in, pro or con. The hot stove doesn't need much fuel these days, with Opening Day kneeling on deck, but this was too good to pass up.
1) Joe admitted to the grand jury on 9/29/20 that he helped throw the Series. Well, it was 9/28, but this is "fact" far from indisputable. When asked if he played to win thruout the Series, he replied that he did, and that's not spin, that's the way the grand jury foreman heard it, too. And Comiskey agreed, for what that is worth. It's what Jackson always maintained. It is not what was leaked from the GJ, however.
2) He received $5,000 and took it to the bank. "Why would the fixers give him any money if he was not involved?" Well, he got the "dirty envelope" from his pal Lefty, who had used his name with the fixers, without Joe's knowledge or permission (the Arnold Rothstein defense, I realize that). Harold Seymour, who spoke with Jackson himself and is a major league historian, had a good explanation. So did Jackson himself, at his 1924 trial, and 11 of 12 jurors took his 1924 word over the testimony he gave in 1920, coached by Austrian and later repudiated. I don't know what happened, either, but to say that it is clear that he EARNED bribe money by tossing games is just over-simplifying the interpretation of the evidence we have.
3) He batted .375 but drove in no runs in the first 5 games. Well, the fact is that he could have batted .900 and driven in six runs in those games, and it wouldn't prove anything.
4) He hit the only HR of the WS, when the Sox were behind. (Ditto #3.)
5) Several teammates insisted that he & Felsch played out of position "many times, letting fly balls drop in for hits." Well, others testified that Jackson did NOT play out of position, and he was absolved of perhaps his greatest "misplay" in the field by the guy who hit the ball, Greasy Neale ... who said Jackson was right to play him shallow, that he was strictly a singles hitter. But again, no one played perfect ball, and Jackson played better ball in the field than many others not under suspicion. So with all due respect to Red Faber & Dickie Kerr, this point is not indisputable.
If this kind of debate is of interest to anyone, my book is chock full of such stuff. I do not defend Joe Jackson, nor attack him -- I try to pull together everything I can find, from critics and supporters, and look at the arguments, and make readers think.
Jackson's case is simple, only to those who have not read enough. I believe it to be very complicated, even without the layer of politics (the Commy-Johnson feud, Fullerton's loyalties, the cover-ups). I really tried hard to be unbiased about Jackson in my book, pro or con, and found that to be very difficult. After all, sooner or later, I form an opinion; and I'm not exactly an agnostic, I just find there's a lot of uncertainty about what really happened. The slogan for this story turned out to be "Say it ain't so, Joe" -- but it really should have been "It ain't necessarily so."
Reinstatement (March 30)
Mike N wrote: "... but you can't reinstate a dead man, only been done once to my knowledge. Besides, unless you believe in that "Field of Dreams" thing ... it's not like Weaver or Jackson are going to come back and play ball somewhere....even if they were "reinstated."
Well, if something HAS been done, even if just once, then it CAN be done. And this is MLB we are talking about here, which is immune from so much that bogs down the rest of the world. Is it hard to imagine Kenesaw Mt Landis saying, "Baseball can do whatever Baseball wants to do!" If that includes banishment without due process, so be it.
Of course Mike is right, reinstatement is not exactly as urgent today, as it was in 1921 or 1922. I don't see it happening unless pressure builds, and MLB concludes that it will be better PR to "reinstate" than to keep these players (and any deceased players) on the ineligible list. A list which does not, I believe, include Hal Chase -- which proves that you can go down in BB history as a poster boy for tossing games, AND still be eligible for Cooperstown.
But I think most in this group are aware of the push to repair the reputations of Weaver and/or Jackson. If someone feels an injustice was done, the quest for justice goes on, even after the sentence is served, or (as Hollywood likes to remind us) an execution is carried out.
Dan H wrote: "I have held that none of the triples were Jackson's fault. In addition, there would have been less triples in Cincinnati if not for the roped off area."
I think that just one of the Reds' triples (Daubert, 7th inning, Game One) was a "ground-rule 3B." I had guessed there were more. By the way, I have observed a couple pro baseball games as a member of the crowd behind a rope stretching along the warning track, from left field to right ... it's really fun ... you would think that those games would produce bunches of ground-rule doubles, but that doesn't always happen, I know in at least one I saw, no player got a ball past the outfielders. Maybe they were trying too hard? (At one point, I was pretty much alone, as a kind of back-up to the left-fielder, and I suddenly felt a lot of pressure ... after all, I had no glove, but a hit out my way, I'd be expected to go for, right? And you thought official-scoring in a no-hitter was tough!)
Dan also wrote, about the $5,000 Jackson received from Lefty Wms: "Lefty himself said it was given to Joe because he used his name. NOTHING with this case is as simple as it looks!"
Amen, about the nothing-is-simple thing. But it doesn't help Jackson's case much that Lefty took full responsibility for Jackson's name being mixed up in the meetings, hence the rumors, and hence the indictments (yes, that oversimplifies). Because that's what friends are for, and Williams and Jackson were close friends. Because Lefty was SO implicated, that works against Jackson -- "If Lefty was in on it, like he says he was, he MUST have told Jackson." And he did, but when? Better for Joe if Lefty was as distant as Eddie Collins.
Finally, from Dan: "BTW, Gene, I've already read 50 pages and it is fabulous. (And so much more polished than the early versions I proofread!)"
Thanx. Many in this group helped proof chapters, early on, and later. I hope you all find your name in the acknowledgements. The result is, I am happy to say, very few typos ... and I really think the book faced its toughest critics before it was accepted by a publisher. The biggest improvement in how it reads came when I removed all the tangents and anecdotes (etc) to 700+ footnotes. I think it is still a tough read in places (my brother, not so familiar with the 8MO, said that it went much better once he knew who was a player and who was a gambler). I hope the "Roster" I provided up front helps -- wish you could cut it out & keep it as a reference as you go along! Maybe for the paperback, I'll suggest perforations on that page.
Lastly, Susan D. wrote: "I did a presentation on Red Legs and Black Sox last night and a federal judge came up and told me that the "Black Sox Trial" was one of the major "cases" they studied in law school.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/blacksox/blacksox.html Is a web site worth visiting ... it's part of a Great Trials collection, of Doug O. Linder, and very early in my research, Doug was helpful in sharing HIS research, posted at this site. (The other trials are great, too. Should the Church reinstate Galileo? Wait a minute, they did -- centuries later!)
Grabiner, Grabbing Headkines (April 1)
soxpark1919 asked about what Harry Grabiner knew, and when he knew it. My impression is that Grabiner & Comiskey were very close; Harry had the title of team secretary, but today that translates to General Manager. One question I had during my research is this: was Grabiner Commy's hatchet-man when it came to contracts, and does Harry deserve the title "cheapest skate on the block" that Bill Veeck Jr gave Commy? But it's a moot point, every owner was in control and could play Scrooge. From the excerpts of Grabiner's 1919-20 diary (in Veeck-Linn's "The Hustler's Handbook" -- which appeared a couple years after 8MO), I'd have to say they learned about the Fix at the same time (probably before the Series).
Grabiner did go on the stand at the 1924 Milwaukee trial, by the way -- so did Alfred Austrian, and, of course, Commy. Harry was a key witness -- Jackson claimed that Grabiner told him that his contract had the "ten days clause" and that he signed it before his wife could inspect it. Grabiner denied it. It doesn't prove Jackson was accurate and Grabiner was lying, but the jury took Jackson's version over Grabiner's 11-1, and some of those folks knew little or nothing about baseball, they were just looking at faces and listening and then giving their opinions in the verdict.
It seems that the headlines about Barry Bonds and steroid use in recent years, has the media turning back for another look at 1919, just as they did last October. What strikes me (besides what I've already written here) is how the media itself -- just newspapers in 1919 -- was/is part of the problem. My book's sub-title suggests Baseball covered up back then, but that was the publisher's decision; my original sub-title just said "Cover-Up" -- because Baseball in fact had the support of the baseball editors of the country. Reporters like Hugh Fullerton could rail all they wanted about the gambling menace -- they first had to get past their editors. And few did. Baseball helped to sell papers, so the papers helped to sell baseball. Toss in gambling, and you had three happy amigos.
Also interesting that Congesssional pressure is forcing an investigation today. Remember in 1920, folks like Cap Anson were disgusted that it took a grand jury to untangle gambling and baseball, when MLB could have, & should have taken the lead (in their view). Fans were not as bothered by the revelations of the gambling ties, as we might think -- many took on a "so what?" attitude and you can find quotes in the papers after the scandal, especially after the trial, from fans who deny that anything crooked really happened. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" in Paul Simon's words, and was he thinking of the average fan, Judge Landis, Bud Selig, or all of the above?
Baseball came off poorly in the hearings of a year ago -- of COURSE they knew about the use of steroids, years before they were pressured to ban them. "Say it ain't so, Mark ... Sammy ... Rafael ... Barry?" ... and how long IS that list? Probably about as long as the list of ballplayers who hung out with gamblers in 1919.
I think Fay Vincent is accurate, that today's mess is more comparable to the gambling mess in 1919, which unfortunately (in my view) went down as "The B-Sox Scandal" ... if today's mess ultimately is labeled "the Bonds Thing" or "Twenty Men Out" (is someone keeping score of that?) -- then baseball will have succeeded again in keeping the focus on the employees, and off their supervisors and owners. This will only be possible if the media cooperates.
A Correction, And a Few Comments (April 2)
I thank Bill Bishop for finding a genuine error in my book and reporting it. It's on Page 219, and the error is that I had cited a Chicago Tribune article from Oct 1, 1920, which had Happy Felsch betting $5,000 on the Reds to win Game 3, at 2-1 odds, and winning. That should have been Game Two.
Re-reading that story again (thanx to ProQuest, it was easy to look up), a couple interesting things were in there. If the Felsch story is true, it means he got $5,000 after game one. The rest of that story has Mrs Felsch being unhappy with Oscar's $15,000 -- at first -- then she made up and took the cash to the bank (presumably so Happy couldn't gamble it away). The Trib, to their credit, note that there were various accounts of this. They also had the money being withdrawn "last Monday" ... and the grand jury, the Trib expected, was going to ask Mrs Felsch about those transactions. I don't believe they ever did that.
The same article -- remember this is RIGHT after the scandal broke, with Cicotte's confession on Sept 28 -- has Abe Attell ("repeatedly named before the grand jury as one of the fixers"), denying any involvement, but claiming that a gambling sydicate made $250,000 on the fix, a syndicate that included to the best of his knowledge, "ten gamblers."
The same article has Weaver & McMullin ready to tell their stories to the grand jury. Very interesting that after Cicotte and Jackson testified, only one other player (from the Sox) was heard, and Lefty Williams was (I believe) very carefully coached by Austrian, and does anyone know if he did anything on Sept 29 but read his statement to the grand jury? I think that was it.
The same article raised that question we visit from time to time, Were any games in the 1920 season fixed? The example they give, a prominent Chicago gambler (sounds like Mont Tennes to me) thought that the first game between the White Sox and Cleveland in 1920 was "framed" -- the Sox had won 6 straight going into the series. But the rumors went around that betting on Cleveland was "the good thing" ... so much was wagered that the odds swung to Cleveland. The Trib looked up the game -- Red Faber pitched it and Cleveland won it, 3-2, scoring in the ninth. They had tied it in the 8th when Swede Risberg made an errant relay throw, allowing Cleveland to tie it up. For a "good thing," it sure looks like a close, hard-fought contest. But, if you are looking for fixes, you'll find them everywhere.
Cover-Up by Distraction (April 4)
With the media giving so much attention to Barry Bonds, and with the Commissioner naming George Mitchell to head up an investigation (to keep the steroid issue in the news, but with the impression that MLB is DOING something), I've been thinking more about the role of the media in cover-ups.
In my research, I found that the media of 1919 -- the newspapers -- were reluctant to investigate the Fix rumors (Collyer's Eye did, and a few other reporters like Fullerton gave it a shot) ... and also reluctant to charge players. The editors could and did say that they feared libel suits, which would follow without hard evidence. But some writers observed later that the press and baseball had a relationship that was benefitting them both, sports sold newspapers (and were safer to cover than wars), people followed sports fanatically, often gambling on them. In other words, the press was part of the problem.
When the scandal broke, it made bold headlines across the country. But the newspaper accounts show a loyalty to Baseball and its owners. The word cover-up didn't become a "crime" word till Watergate days (and as Asinof noted, that helped sales of "Eight Men Out" considerably). It was expected that businesses NOT air their dirty linen (or sox) in public, and that they control the damage done to their image by events. With the franchises worth around a million dollars in 1920 (I think), every owner had a million reasons to go along with the cover-up of the Fix, if they indeed knew about it.
The Chicago papers may have lined up behind Ban Johnson or Comiskey, but they were all supportive of baseball -- they wanted it to get thru this crisis. When Johnson (years later) said that he helped deflect the grand jury away from charging Comiskey, Commy denied that. In any case, the press gradually focused on the players, and the event went down in history as "the Black Sox scandal."
Hence, the myth of Baseball's Single Sin (Voigt), and "Black Sox amnesia."
So that's where my mind has been, the past week or so -- wondering if the media today will focus on the players who may have taken steroids, letting those who provided them wiggle off the hook (like the gamblers did back in B-Sox days), and giving little attention to those who were and are responsible for running the sport. If Mitchell is appointed by Selig, how likely is it that he will conclude at the end of his investigation that MLB needs a real Commish? Well, I suppose it's possible.
Every so often, I run across writers, in 1920 or 1990 or 2006, who argue that baseball is too great a sport to be left to the "magnates," or the Lords of the Realm (Helyar's name for the owners), to run. The game is fortunately resilient, a survivor, and many have pointed out that if it could survive the B-Sox scandal, it can overcome anything, even strikes & lockouts. And it's a huge industry, big business. It can afford good lawyers, and good spin control. It can buy the media -- but not all the media, not all the time. Not any more.
I don't know if this is appropriate for discussion, as we all enjoy Opening Days ... but I thought I'd toss out these ideas here and see if anyone else sees this particular parallel.
Media and Fans (April 5)
Jim T wrote: "I don't think it's the media's job to hook culprits, real or alleged. Keep in mind that it was Steve Wilstein who first wrote about double-M and androstenedione. It was the fans who then proceeded to roast him in every online chat room in the nation. He was villified by them. I've long believed a nation gets the press it deserves. I claimed fans were as much to blame as anyone a year ago. I still believe that -- although
fans, of course, don't want to hear it. It's always easier to just blame the media."
I agree -- which is why when I start out thinking about the media's role (to report what they find, but also to go looking -- not just to read prepared press releases), I end up asking who is responsible for making the rules and enforcing them. So to clarify, "back then" the press was not responsible for the gambling menance (altho it was more complicated -- the papers encouraged the gambling & baseball connection by printing odds, and boxes with the week's numbers, etc.). But it was timid about calling attention to the problem that was growing -- as the money grew, it became more likely that professional gamblers (not the average fan) would think about bribing players to affect scores.
The other problem Jim brings up is the way fan opinion is shaped by the media, especially TV. I have found myself defending Albert Belle and Marge Schott, when the media was (in my view) piling on, in a very biased way.
I'll not comment on Barry Bonds, for a change, except to say that I watched the ESPN show last night ... and all I'll add is that if the show becomes a smash hit with high ratings, will George Mitchell's ESPN connection force him to turn over the investigation to someone else? Better stop here, media bias and influence is too much like politics for a group devoted to the clean, wholesome sport of baseball! OK, one more thing, today I heard someone say baseball has "an integrity problem" -- well THAT sure echoes 1919!
More on the Media Thing (April 6)
Comparing the press in 1919 to today's media shows how much that institution has changed. You have to think the editors of S.I. would have squashed the Bonds' expose' back then ... Jim is correct, Fullerton was slaughtered by the baseball mainstreamers (especially BB Magazine), but who (besides Barry & his lawyers) is going after those SF authors today? Poor Hughie ... not run out of town, he was on his way to NY City anyway. But these SF guys are getting wealthy.
Jim: "I don't see the steroid thing as a Watergate: 'This goes all the way to the top.' I don't think anyone at the top was directing this, or even anyone above the players. The owners will come out smelling fine, because they always do."
Well, maybe. Watergate could have stopped with "five burglars caught." But persistence by the media wound up toppling a presidency. The Sunday ESPN crew speculated about this steroid mess happening "on Selig's watch." Fay Vincent (who was unceremoniously dumped, so the owners could try to break the players' union with the Strike of '94-95 -- so he has an axe to grind here) is recalling a memo HE wrote about steroids, back before Selig ... it wasn't exactly a sounding of an alarm, but it shows how long "the top" has known about the problem. Which, Vincent says, baseball regarded as a football problem (baseball players didn't need to bulk up) ... baseball had its own hands full with cocaine anyway.
Jim T: "Steroids seeped into the game similar to gambling pre- and post-1900, and certainly plenty of owners and managers knew about the steroids. But I don't see where anyone besides the players had to be involved. Steroids are readily accessible."
Well, this brings up thatphrase familiar to this group, "guilty knowledge". If the players knew that the owners knew (but tacitly approved, by not intervening) ... well, that might be important to establish. And there will be no Buck Weavers in this modern story, because if the owners & trainers and managers knew, then whom was a "clean" player supposed to tell? Only a Judge Landis would -- wait a minute, the world is full of Landises, or rather, folks who love to Judge.
If you were betting (!) in September 1919 on which player would NOT be banned from baseball forever, in connection with game-fixing -- Hal Chase or Buck Weaver -- you could have won a fortune by putting your money on Prince Hal. Justice, Kenesaw Mt Landis-style, was not that just, but it was darn effective. Don't you wish we could flash forward about 90 years to see how McGwire & Sosa & Bonds & Canseco have gone down in history!?
Barry, Pete & Shoeless (April 10)
Jim T's post introduces yet another complicated story, that of Pete Rose. I think all three players (Bonds, Rose & Joe Jackson) deserve fair hearings, but those have been elusive. Instead, they have had media hearings -- not at all the same thing. Over the years, I've probably written most about Rose, and more recently Jackson, but Bonds is making his move.
Keeping this linked to the B-Sox, two things stick out to me about the Bonds situation, and I'll say up front that I have not read the expose (yet) nor followed his public statements over recent years that closely. One is that -- like Shoeless -- he's been condemned by leaked grand jury testimony, and apparently has been advised by counsel not to respond; in both 1920 and today, the media has not seemed bothered that there were leaks, and what that means for the grand jury process (who will be anxious to testify, if what they say in strict confidence will end up on the covers of magazines, and not just tabloids?); Jackson (without legal advice) DID respond to the leaks that had him telling the grand jury he tossed games, he denied that, and in fact the transcripts and the grand jury foreman both agree -- the leaks had THAT part wrong.
The other thing that strikes me is that Bonds, like Jackson, seems to be discredited, so whatever he may say in his own defense will lack credibility. The "Say it ain't so, Joe" anecdote, however apocryphal, made it difficult going for Jackson the rest of his life -- and beyond. Bonds has had media issues since his Pittsburgh days (I'm a Pirate fan, trust me on that). In my morning paper yesterday is a perfect example of how the media can undermine anyone they choose. Headline: "Rodriguez Represents Everything Bonds Isn't". Peter Abraham (Gannett) goes on to describe Bonds as "wholly unlikeable" as if he hasn't a fan on the planet. But the kicker is, the article has nothing to do with Barry's personality, it's really about A-Rod being the most likely player to surpass 800 HRs. And the assumption is that everyone would prefer that, so Barry can be quickly forgotten.
I don't watch "reality shows" but I'm drawn to "Bonds on Bonds" (ESPN, Tues PMs), mostly because I am wondering if this will play out anything like the Shoeless Joe case. There are no doubt many fans rooting that Bonds will wind up in Baseball Purgatory, with Rose and Jackson. This is good for the game only in the sense that it provides lots of fuel for the Hot Stove. But fans are, I think, a forgiving bunch -- if they think players are treated unfairly.
In Jackson's day, players and gamblers mingled freely. Rose had that warning sign posted, but his team knew he hung out with shady characters, even in the Reds clubhouse. What Bonds' team knew -- and what Selig & MLB knew -- remains to be revealed. Let's see if the questions are even asked; they sure weren't in 1920.
The little I have read about the Bonds expose' has his main motive being jealousy -- in the wake of the media frenzy stirred up by McGwire and Sosa in 1998. Bonds has refuted that, noting that he was not just happy for that duo, but congratulated them at the time. If you take away that motive, it doesn't prove anything -- any more than taking away Eddie Cicotte's "revenge" motive (for Commy denying him a big bonus he felt he earned) makes Eddie innocent. It does force to you find other motives; if one for Bonds was "everybody was doing it, and it was no big deal" -- that ought to be known. Let me add at once I'm not suggesting steroid use in MLB was universal, or even widespread, but we simply need to know how common it was, or we repeat "the myth of baseball's single sin" again by focusing on Bonds, Canseco, Palmeiro, and we need five more, don't we?
Jim T: "No player used steroids to please Bud Selig and the owners. Steroid use among pro players is self-motivated, single-minded greed and a quest for personal glory." Very good point. There are millions of dollars at stake with every roster spot. A second-baseman making a mere $3 million a year can double that if he can boost his HR output from 18 to 40. Why not go for it, if no one is stopping you. One thing I'm curious about is when the serious health risks became known. (Would the tobacco industry have a chance at getting started today, knowing what we know? Of course, you find warnings of the health risks back in 1919! Took the surgeon general a while to catch on.)
Greed emerges to me as the main motive in October 1919, too. The players had a scheme to make some easy money. The owners did, too, a nine-game World Series that was going to be played, no matter WHAT the rumors and reporters said. Record receipts. Record payoffs all around. If you dig a little deeper, under the greed, the players wanted job security, for their families' sake, and enough income to keep them out of the mills and mines. They were not that unique. Sometimes they seem like green-eyed monsters, hell-bent on ruining baseball; and sometimes they seem a lot like us. I'll use that line from Pogo again: Either way, it's a mighty soberin' thought.
To Those Who Received Review Copies of BTBS (April 10)
About a month ago, two new baseball books were released. Both deal with scandals, one old, one current. Main characters in both stories are star left-fielders, both with Cooperstown statistics, both of whom have been ambushed by leaked grand jury testimony. In the case of Joe Jackson, what he said to the grand jury -- that he played the 1919 World Series to win -- was not leaked, and his denials about what WAS leaked were discredited by the probably apocryphal "Say it ain't so, Joe" tale. Barry Bonds could point that out to his detractors, that leaks may not match the actual record.
While the Bonds expose' -- based on unproven leaks and testimony from questionable sources -- has shot to the best-sellers list, the book that thoroughly documents an older but more undeniable cover-up has been on the back burner for reviewers.
This note is to offer my time to those who received review copies of "Burying the Black Sox: How Baseball's Cover-Up of the 1919 World Series Fix Almost Succeeded" from Potomac, should you wish to interview me to clarify or comment further on anything in my book.
****************************
HOOKS
For a while,
It looked like no opposing navy could sink
George Wiltse
As he reeled off twelve straight W's
Before getting snagged with an L.
Upstate fingerling took the bait,
Was scooped up on the great
McGraw destroyer.
Judge this fish
By the school in which
His career numbers swim:
Above forty-some 'Famers
In the 60-percent victory boat,
Above thirty-some
In stifling opposition oars,
And in keeping the infield ports clear.
Off to see the world --
A World bigger than a Series.
Eclipsed by the bigger fish --
Mathewson, McGinnity, Marquard --
Hooks lurked in deeper waters,
Only breaking the surface a few times:
Shining leap, 7 K in two (sp)innings;
Saving a big game win for Big Six
With first-base nettings;
Pulling Philly hitless into the tenth
While yielding only a single nibble,
Flashing his own holiday fireworks in '08:
Close to perfection, but no cigar
Except ever after from the angler in blue
Who let that strike wiggle off the hook.
Hooks was a Master and Commander
Of the realm of baseball,
His licorish-stained left hand
Kept his team's rudder
Bound for October's Game.
Like the Old Man and the Sea,
Completed his voyage
With unsung dignity,
A hero on the shores where he lived
When he wasn't sailing through history.