NOTES
FROM THE SHADOWS OF COOPERSTOWN
Observations
from Outside the Lines
By
Two Finger Carney (carneya6@adelphia.net)
#386 JANUARY
1, 2007
IN WITH
THE OLD
This
is not the Notes it was supposed to be. For the new year, this issue
should be brimming with new material. Instead, it is pretty much an issue that
was stitched together like a quilt, with patches of stuff I've been posting
recently on the internet.
Much
of the material here was posted to the Yahoo Group, and all I want to say about
that is, anyone can join, and get into discussion on the B-Sox pretty much 24/7
(or at least 7 -- I prefer the once-a-day digest). And maybe these excerpts
will pique your interest, and you'll give it a shot. To those Notes
readers who do "double duty" -- who are already Yahoo group members
-- well, I hope you missed a few of the posts below.
The
headline above refers mainly to my welcoming in this Brave New Year --
it promises to be a wild one for me -- with this "old" (but not that
old) stuff. But it could refer also to the Hall of Fame voting. The
results kneel on deck, and all eyes are on Mark McGwire's totals. Will Old Mark
be voted In? It doesn't look that way, but who knows, when it comes to
elections?
In
fact, this issue begins with an open letter to nationally syndicated columnist
Ann Killion, in response to her recent column on McGwire. He'll have to wait
for her vote. But he does have supporters, and somewhere below is a link to
ESPN's Jim Caple's take on things. So the vote reported here is 1-1. Of course,
I don't vote, and likely never will, but that has never prevented me from
sharing my thoughts.
I'll
let the rest of the issue introduce itself. As I said, it's from the Yahoo B-Sox
discussion, so if you'd rather not start 2007 with your head in 1919 -- see you
next issue.
DECEMBER 26: AN OPEN LETTER TO ANN KILLION
In response to her column
(http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/columnists/ann_killion/16271303.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_oakland_athletics)
Dear Ann,
I read your
recent column on McGwire and the Hall of Fame with some interest, having
written on the subject myself earlier this month. [See NOTES #384,
"No Big Macs in Cooperstown?"]
I wonder if
this controversy will again raise the question about who should vote for the
guys (and one gal, so far) who get the Cooperstown
bronze. I haven't seen the
"conflict of interest" treated since Pete Rose was declared
ineligible, or maybe when Steve Carlton's name appeared on the ballot. If more
writers go public with their reasoning, it just might.
You see
yourself and other members of the BBWAA as "entrusted to help pass
judgement on the steroid era's legacy."
Maybe so, but please recall that the players in this era did not set
MLB's policy about what was OK or not, and did not enforce whatever policy
there might have been. If team owners and team management and MLB officials
knew or suspected something shady was going on ‑‑ and it appears
that they did ‑‑ then blaming only the players, using the HOF vote
to punish them, seems unfair.
That was
the point I made in my own column ‑‑ Selig and others should be
stepping forward and explaining their role, instead of letting McGwire &
Co. take all the heat; they sure stepped forward when the country was
applauding them, and making them forget the stupidity of the Strike of 1994‑95.
Baseball
profited from the celebrity of Canseco, McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and perhaps
countless others. Fans enjoyed watching them, and were not that upset when they
learned the players were doing all they could to stay off the DL and build
bigger bodies. Fans knew, intuitively, that steroids by themselves cannot turn
anyone into a superstar, these were already extremely talented athletes with
lots of skills. Fans, when informed of the facts, can be a forgiving bunch;
they know the Hall of Fame is very political, and that if a stiff character
test was applied from the start, membership would be down considerably.
I'm not a
big fan of Mark McGwire, but scapegoating him, or any player, is simply unfair.
If baseball turned a blind eye to the gambling menace for a couple decades (and
they did), the steroid mess is not that shocking. But baseball writers were
part of the problem, then and now, if they could have blown whistles, but
didn't. For better and for worse,
"the media" and baseball are partners, and help sell each other to
fans. Nothing new about this. And it's always created some conflict of
interest, for the media.
By the way,
your plea for Roger Maris' election ‑‑ because McGwire broke his
record ‑‑ would logically put Everett Scott in the Hall, too,
right? Without Everett, Lou Gehrig had no long streak to
break; Cal Ripken might have made Scott more famous. (I think Maris' case can
be made; and could have been made when 61 was still the record.)
You seemed
to dismiss "innocent until proven guilty." Please rethink that.
Finally,
when you acknowledge that the Hall has some "cheaters" (and bums)
already, you say that's not your problem.
But it is, as long as you are a member of the BBWAA, and have the
opportunity to protest, maybe correct the record, or maybe recommend something
be done to make the HOF
voting more fair.
Why not a
column on the BBWAA?
http://www.baseballwriters.org/HOF_rules.html You would think that there might be a
character clause in there somewhere, for the Electors ‑‑ but there
isn't. It's all about numbers. I once tried to get some information from the
BBWAA about its makeup ... I was curious to know if players in New York or Boston
had larger voting blocs. I got a
brochure on the history of the organization, but apparently some information is
top secret.
I know the
steroids issue is difficult, because it is complex, not easy to treat in a
single column or article. But I'd like
to see it presented that way more often.
It's not a players' issue, it's not even a baseball issue, it touches
our culture. Overpaid athletes are competing for millions of dollars, but
risking their health or their lives; that's serious. We have come a long way
since baseball writers worried in print about pitchers who wore glasses (which
no doubt enhanced their performance; but the fear was for a line drive at the
head). Viagra is OK to enhance
performance, when prescribed, because it is safe ... how often does
"safety first" come up in a discussion of steroids?
Ann, I
don't think I've read your column before, and you probably have not heard of
me, either. I don't expect a reply,
partly because I rarely get replies from sports writers, when I disagree with
them. And of course you are busy.
Anyway, I probably made this note twice as long as I should have. But again, it's not an easy subject. Happy voting,
Her response:
"thanks for the email. there is a character
clause in rule 5."
To which I replied:
Ann,
Maybe I wasn't clear about the character clause in
the BBWAA rules ... I meant, there is no character standard for VOTERS (members
of the BBWAA). You are correct, rule 5 does suggest that voters take the
character of PLAYERS into account.
I think I'm going in the direction of "Let s/he
who is without sin cast the first stone" here, rather than "Judge
not, lest ye be judged" ... in other words, if the BBWAA is passing
judgement (a thankless task) on "the steroid era" then perhaps its
membership should also be calling for random testing for the voters ‑‑
would that be fair?
It's OK to vote in pitchers who admit they threw
illegal pitches, but NOT OK to vote for players who may have done nothing that
baseball deemed illegal when they were supposed to have done it? OK to vote in players who gobbled
"greenies" (or by some accounts, beat their wives), but not OK to
vote in a player who took steroids because he felt he had to, to stay
competitive, since "everybody else was doing it"? I know, that doesn't make anything
right. But illegal is not the same as
immoral, either.
Your job as a voter ‑‑ from now on ‑‑
will not be easy. But I think whatever
the BBWAA decides with its collective voting, will be a lot more credible to
the degree it is fair and consistent, is not seen as punishing the employees
(closing its eyes to the complicity of management), and upholds standards and
practices that can be applied to other professions ‑‑ including
sportswriting.
For a national column with an opposing view (from
Killion's) on McGwire, see Jim Caple, ESPN,
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/offbase/061129
TO THE B‑SOX YAHOO GROUP:
DECEMBER 21: POOR LEFTY
In response to Jacob P's post yesterday about the Sox
not paying Lefty because be breached his 1918 contract, by leaving the team to
help in the war effort ‑‑
I know the players who got jobs in the shipyards
(AKA, "the paint and putty league," I think ... I'm not up on the
details) were given a hard time by some editors, and hence by some team owners.
I remember reading somewhere that if WW I had not been settled at the end of
1918, these "leagues" were so full of major league talent, that they
would have competed as a kind of "major league." It is easy to dismiss the players who chose
this route as "draft dodgers" of their day, but (like their later
counterparts) they not only did some work that helped in the war effort, but
even when they played ball, it was often to raise money to benefit the war
effort, even if indirectly by helping the Red Cross, etc. The military wasn't dumb, they knew the value
of celebrities, then and now.
But poor Lefty ... his contract stated that the Sox
could cut him loose for no good reason any time they wanted, owing him just ten
days' pay. But leave the team while the
country is at war, without giving proper notice?! (Didn't Lefty follow Joe Jackson's lead? Possibly there was a window of opportunity,
only so many openings ... wait too long, and you end up in the trenches of Europe?
And do the math, Lefty was making $500 a month. The owners were taking a bath at the box
office that summer. The magnates fought
with Ban Johnson (MLB's czar) to keep playing, as long as possible ... they
appealed the "work or fight" ruling until the govt had to spell it
out, baseball was NOT an essential industry (sorry, Commy) ... then they
appealed and got the OK to keep the parks open until after one last big Labor
Day weekend crowd. And, of course, the
Series must go on. What did the owners
do to cut their losses? They released
their players after Labor Day ‑‑ to save the money that the players
had coming due for September! They also
had an understanding that no team would steal a player from any other team,
even tho everyone was a "free agent" during this time. Where was Marvin Miller when the players
REALLY needed protection against collusion?!
Again, I'm not an expert in this area, so if I have
anything wrong here, please correct me.
When the scandal broke in 1920, Judge McDonald had
the most sympathy for Lefty ... he was by far the most woefully underpaid ...
one of the top lefties in the league, now a steady 20‑game winner, getting
$2,500 or so, and big $500 bonuses for winning 15 or 20. You do find some reporters in 1920 and 1921
(during the B‑Sox trial) expressing shock or anger or amazement when the
salaries of the eight Sox players were made public. But most sportswriters were on the side of
the teams ... some critics said they might as well have been on the teams'
payrolls, for all the perks (food, travel and maybe most importantly during
Prohibition ‑‑ free booze).
So THAT scandal never broke quite as big as the other one.
DECEMBER 22: 80‑PROOF REPORTERS
Yesterday, I wrote:
"But most sportswriters were on the side of the
teams ... some critics said they might as well have been on the teams'
payrolls, for all the perks (food, travel and maybe most importantly during
Prohibition ‑‑ free booze). So THAT scandal never broke quite as
big as the other one."
My main source for this is Hugh Fullerton, arguably
the reporter closest to the scandal, and perhaps to Comiskey. I'm sure there are some citations from Hughie
in my book, but it's also an overall impression from reading so much from Fullerton. But this is
also supported by other writers, on both the far left (Nelson Algren) and the
right (Westbrook Pegler) ... and by down‑the‑middle Eliot Asinof,
and here I recall the opening scene in the film "Eight Men Out"
(which is more Sayles than Asinof, but Eliot was present as an advisor), where
a gathering of reporters are lapping up Comiskey's booze and his bubbly
confidence in his Sox.
I agree about alcohol being easy to obtain during
Prohibition. What is amusing is how the
reporters "covered" this ‑‑ or rather, covered up what
everybody knew was going on. They used different words, but everyone knew what
they meant. In the 1935 Sporting News
memoir of the 1919 Series, by Hugh Fullerton, which is reproduced in its
entirety in my book, Hughie talks very casually about arriving in Cincinnati for the Series
and dropping into a speakeasy for an eye‑opener. And I agree about the "safety"
issue, too ‑‑ Commy's booze served up for the press at the ballpark
was regarded as "the good stuff" ‑‑ not risky bathtub
gin.
DECEMBER 25:
STOCKING STUFFERS
Prohibition was phased in, with some states and
cities becoming "dry" well ahead of others. The manufacture of
whiskey was halted first, then beer (May 1919?), then intoxicants were no
longer sold in saloons. (World Book
Encyclopedia) But speakeasies were all
over. I'm not certain about Chicago in October 1919, but I'm pretty sure Cincinnati was a dry town
from July 1919 on. The "Ohio Dry
Campaign" had succeeded in 1918.
http://prohibition.osu.edu/ASL/ohiodry.htm for those interested. I believe saloons or "roadhouses"
were still operating right across the river, in Kentucky, during the 1919
Series ... that is where Ring Lardner and friends may have debuted "I'm
Forever Blowing Ballgames" (they also may have sung it on a train, and in
hotel lobbies).
There are a couple different comments by Westbrook
Pegler (pg 35 in my book) on Comiskey's "wining and dining"
reporters. "The players got almost
no hearing, and some of them thought the writers silenced their grievances in
print for free drinks." But I'm
sure my impression of writers and their relationships to the teams they
covered, is shaped much more by Hugh Fullerton. Just recently, in our last days
with ProQuest, I've found more by Hughie on this subject. Example, 9/20/21
Atlanta Constitution, he begins his column by noting that a writer covering the
events at a racetrack got into a fight with a trainer for printing something
about "changes in form" of several horse; the writer was then fined
by the racing association. Hughie
defended the writer, of course, and his right to print things critical, and he
then immediately applies this to baseball. And he takes to task the owners who
regard sportswriters as "press agents for the club."
Fullerton was very sensitive to the fact that teams
and newspapers were too often on "too friendly" terms, and at
different times he seemed to prefer that papers print the bare facts or scores,
instead of giving baseball (and other sports) so much space, which in effect
was free advertising. Baseball sold
papers, and papers sold baseball, and Hughie didn't seem at all satisfied about
that.
Fullerton covered the inauguration of the President and VP
early in 1921, and wrote about it in his March 12 column in the Washington
Post. It's a terrific article for those interested in the history of
sportswriting. Hughie noticed that about
25 of the "leading political writers of the country" present for this
event, had gotten their start in sports. (They were now "highbrows"
while Hughie called himself a "congenital lowbrow".) He doesn't mention drinking, or being under
the influence of the team, but he lists dozens of names including O. Henry, Heywood
Broun, Ring Lardner, and others I think most of us would recognize.
The scene where Comiskey addresses the sportswriters
at the beginning of "Eight Men Out" takes place in the Woodland Bards
room at Comiskey Park, where much of the wining &
dining of Commy's friends took place. I have several pages on the Bards in my
book (pgs 31‑35 + footnotes) and mention that the membership included
writers, but only have one named (Ring Lardner, as a "quasi‑member");
I think a couple folks in the group have seen the Bards' plaque ‑‑
are there more reporters listed there?
Maybe Dryden or Phair?
When I mentioned the 1935 Fullerton
memoir, it was only to show how casually a reporter in Cincinnati in October 1919 could walk into a
speakeasy for an "eyeopener" ... not as an example of how they
disguised their writing about alcohol during prohibition. And that is probably the least interesting
detail in that column!
DECEMBER 26: POSTSCRIPT ON WRITERS AND TEAMS
I think this discussion has gotten overly complicated
by the Prohibition factor. Reporters
were winded and dined by some clubs way before Prohibition, and after. Free food and drink might be more appreciated
if the real cost is higher, but a perk is a perk. And before we think the teams
were "bribing" the press, in exchange for longer or more favorable
coverage, let's not rule out the possibility that some clubs & owners just
might have been very generous, and enjoyed treating their friends. Yesterday I asked what writers were among the
Woodland Bards; even if they numbered a dozen, they were still a definite
minority. And the Bards was a group that would naturally attract writers, as
its members were prominent citizens, community leaders, celebrities (Jack
Dempsey & his trainer come to mind), as well as baseball movers &
shakers like Ban Johnson, Garry Herrmann, Harry Frazee & others.
If you are focusing on how the press participated in
the cover‑up of the Fix, then you are looking at 1919‑20, starting with
the days before the Series began, and the "swirling rumors" begged
for investigation; and ending with (I
think) Cicotte's confession, on September 28, 1920, almost exactly a year
later. The coverage in "Collyer's Eye" is significant because it
shows what there was to investigate and report, if a publication, editor &
reporter was genuinely interested in bringing the Fix to light. Fullerton and
Frank Klein (of The Eye) were NOT the only reporters who gave it their best
whistle‑blowing shot, there were some others ... but their attempts dried
up once the owners' winter meetings ended. (To be fair, there were other
baseball matters to cover, as three AL
teams came close to bolting from Johnson and forming a new 12‑team league
with the NL. I think it is fair to say that the BB industry was in a real
crisis of authority, and this certainly put the Fix on the back burner.)
Another facet of the Writers‑Teams issue has to
be noted. Some writers were just plain
LOYAL to their cities and teams. This
was seen with radio broadcasters, too. I
grew up listening to Harry Caray, Bob Prince, and other voices who shamelessly
rooted for the teams they covered. I
think writers & broadcasters ‑‑ employed by newspapers and
TV/radio stations, but with the blessings of the local team ‑‑ were
always in an awkward position ‑‑ whether they were "winded and
dined" or not. If they were too
critical, their job was at risk, and maybe that's who so many moved on.
I think it's still an issue. Sports reporters can
think of themselves, like the players, as entertainers ... hired to give
readers what they want to read, cheery news about long balls by Babe Ruth (or
Mark McGwire) ... NOT to dig into "muck" ... leave that to the
Woodward & Bernsteins (or those SF Chronicle guys who leaked grand jury
testimony) ... and there are lots of fans who would rather NOT read about
salaries and steroids and labor issues on the sports pages. This is not at all an original observation,
anyone familiar with what Babe Ruth (for example) DID off the field, and what
was or was not reported, knows that journalism then is not what it became later
and is today. I think it's a complex and
tough question.
DECEMBER 26: "... WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN
CONSENT ... "
I read a couple articles at the Pittsburgh Pirates'
web site tonite and couldn't help but notice that at the bottom of each was the
name of the author, along with the note XXX "is a reporter for MLB.com.
This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs."
I want to recall one of the least famous but maybe
most important allegations of censorship here, mainly to make it more widely
known, and thus increase the chance that the missing series of articles penned
by Hugh Fullerton, but vetoed by the Sox, is discovered. What follows is in my book, but possibly in a
somewhat different form, this excerpt is from the manuscript. Keep in mind that Fullerton and Comiskey were very close
friends ‑‑ so close that Hughie protected Commy, and called for an
investigation of the Fix rumors with the worry that it could wreck their long
relationship. He waiting until Commy had passed away, before penning that
memoir for the Sporting News in 1935, in which he recalls discussing the Fix
with Commy and Ban Johnson before Game 1 even started.
In fairness to Comiskey and Grabiner, they were
likely advised by their lawyers to kill this series, because there were
lawsuits in progress (Felsch, Jackson & Risberg; not sure of the dates of
Weaver's) and this information could have provided ammunition for Ray Cannon,
the players' lawyer.
*********
Steve Klein, whose assistance with Hugh Fullerton's
part in this story has been invaluable, has noted how Fullerton "experienced the frustration
of trying to serve two masters: organized baseball and his conscience."
Klein's research has turned up a letter Fullerton
wrote to the owner of the Chicago Tribune in 1923 which illustrates this.162
The
letter recalled that after the 1922 season, Fullerton tried to write a series of
articles, "64 separate pieces by his count," on Comiskey for the
Tribune. But the newspaper insisted that Fullerton
clear the articles with Comiskey. Four of the articles dealt with the World
Series of 1919, and Harry Grabiner, Comiskey's secretary, "laid [them]
aside entirely." Fullerton
and Grabiner worked on the rest of the articles for five hours, with Comiskey
present and being "extremely entertaining."
We
had another morning and revised the stuff. When we reached the crooked worlds
series both Commy and Grabiner warned me that we must be careful in dealing
with it. We took the four articles I had written and literally revised them to
pieces ‑‑ and they still were not satisfactory.
On
the same day Fullerton
was writing to Patterson, the sports editor of the Tribune sent a note to the
newspaper's attorney, informing him that the articles would not be printed.
"Mr. Comiskey has informed me today that he would not under any
circumstances permit the series of articles written by Mr. Fullerton to go out,
even with the corrections he has tried to make in them so that they would be
truthful and readable." The next day, the Trib's lawyer wrote Patterson:
"I saw Grabiner today and there is no doubt that the series as written by Fullerton could never be
approved by Comiskey. Fullerton
was not accurate in anything from all reports."163
Patterson
killed the series. The next time Fullerton wrote
about the 1919 Series was for Liberty
magazine in 1927, four years later. Steve Klein believes, and I hope, that the Fullerton series vetoed
by Comiskey in January 1923 may yet be found.164
*************
162
Letter from Hugh Fullerton to Captain Joseph Medill Patterson, January 10,
1923.
163
Klein, Steve. "Hugh S. Fullerton, the Black Sox Scandal, and the Ethical
Impulse in Sports Writing." Masters Thesis, Michigan State
University, 1997.
164 The missing articles with Fullerton's own version of "the crooked
world series" may yet turn up someday. Steve Klein found letters that have
Fullerton
giving to Tribune sports editor Frank Smith, a "typewritten copy of
Comiskey's dictated account of his connection with the series," which
Smith took for safe‑keeping. "I won't let it out of my hands."
He may have kept the 64 articles of Fullerton,
too. Finding these documents would be as exciting to baseball historians as
Bill Veeck's discovery of Harry Grabiner's diary in the early sixties, or the
1920 grand jury transcripts turning up in 1988.
DECEMBER 27: [JACKSON]
GUILTY AS CHARGED
I think we can say with absolute certainty (!) that
Shoeless Joe Jackson was guilty of a bunch of things in 1919‑20. The trouble is, we can't say with similar
certainty, exactly what they are.
Is he guilty of trying to warn his team about the Fix
before the Series started? Of asking to
be benched before Game 1, so no one could say he did anything to help the Reds
win? Was he guilty of taking the $500 he
received from Lefty Williams to his team right after the Series, as hard
evidence that there had indeed been bribery?
Was he guilty of offering to come to Chicago to tell his team what he knew of the
Fix, in the Fall of 1919? There is some
evidence that he was guilty of all these things, but nothing that could
convince a sympathetic (Milwaukee)
jury to be unanimous in their opinion; but they did vote 11‑1 ‑‑
not exactly on the items I mention, but on most of them. But even if they were unanimous ‑‑
they were not infallible.
On the other hand ‑‑ was he guilty of
sitting in on meetings with the fixers/gamblers? (Apparently not.) Was he
guilty of allowing his name to be used in the Fix, without his knowledge or
permission? (11‑1 again.) Was he guilty of accepting $5,000 from Lefty
Williams, money which originated with the gamblers/fixers? YES, and he never denied this. Was he guilty of going to the 1920 grand
jury, on his own, to tell them that from what he knew, the Fix had indeed been
in? YES.
Did he ever confess to throwing games?
Well, you have to interpret some of his grand jury statements to answer
YES to this one, but when the papers reported that he had "confessed to
throwing games," Jackson immediately denied it, and was
consistent about that for the rest of his life.
But again, there is no certainty here, just his word (supported by Harry
Brigham, the foreman of the grand jury, and Charles Comiskey) ... credible to
that Milwaukee
jury 11‑1.
A long comment, but somehow I feel that I've
oversimplified. Jackson's case is so very complicated. To be fair and accurate, we probably should
be asking rather about degrees of guilt and innocence on some of these
issues. And maybe in the end, it comes
down to what kind of person we think Joe Jackson was ‑‑ all things
considered.
DEC 28: JACKSON:
TAKE THE MONEY AND PLAY?
This is mainly in
response to Jim T's latest (on the Digest) note:
Jim:
"Evidence suggests Jackson
took the money. We don't really know." I think there is no dispute at all
about this, Jackson
never denied taking the $5,000 from Lefty; his wife Kate deposited it in a
bank, and much or most of it went to pay the hospital bills for Joe's
sister. What is NOT certain is when he received the money, and (more
importantly) if he did ANYthing at all to earn it.
Jim: "But
sorting through the lies, there seems to be enough truth rattling around that
if you did a mock trial it's likely that a jury would decide he took the money
-- not that taking some money from someone would be illegal."
Jackson has fared
pretty well in the mock trials I know of, but it the real trial (Milwaukee
1924) it was understood that he took the money; the jury was asked to weigh in
on when he did that, and if he played to win. They favored Jackson's version of
things over that of Comiskey, Grabiner and Austrian, by 11-1. Yes, the
verdict was overturned because the judge recognized significant
differences between Jackson's
1924 version (coached by his own lawyer) and the 1920 grand jury statement
(coached by Austrian, Commy's lawyer, the fellow who advised him to waive
immunity).
Jim:
"Evidence could suggest he threw Game 1. Only Jackson knows for sure if he threw any of the
games, of course. Most certainly you have no proof one way or the other.
Guilty? Not guilty? That's billable hours for some attorneys. Although Gene
invokes 'degrees' of guilt, you're either guilty or not. It's like
pregnancy."
Exactly what is
the evidence that Jackson
gave less than his best in Game 1? Was everyone who was hitless in that
game in on the Fix? Of course not. Anyone who made an error? Part
of the game. Jackson
could have gone 4-for-4 and still been more lucky than motivated to give his
best. Still, it's a good question, because stepping back and looking at the
whole series, if ANY game was thrown, Game 1 is the most likely (Game 2 next,
and Game 8 hinges on the death threat to Lefty). Of those 3 most
suspicious games, Joe did worst in Game 1, but it was a 9-1 blowout ... it was
Dutch Reuther's day ... the home team's day ... lots of ways of looking at
it. (Maybe a better question is, was CICOTTE pitching to win, after he
put the leadoff batter on base? And then there's the ever-unpopular
question, should this game have been played at all, if the baseball authorities
knew that bribes had been offered?)
The evidence
that Jackson
played Game One to win? He said he played every game to win, said it to
the grand jury in 1920 and ever after. Comiskey said the same thing
(under oath in 1924). That's the way the grand jury foreman heard it,
too. The evidence that he asked to be benched before Game One -- to
prevent people from analyzing this to death 87 years later, I guess -- is not
conclusive, but it seems credible to me, and more evidence has come to light on
this since my book went to press, a statement from Jackson himself, long before
he could have picked up the idea from reading -- oops, from watching -- Eight
Men Out.
Jim: "Jackson started Game 1
fresh off being told the boys were gonna throw the game after getting some
money. It would be fair to suggest if Jackson had some of that ching in his wallet
that he decided to tank it. This is because Jackson would know full well his gonads were
on the line. Yo olde stories of 8 men out rarely illustrate just how bad it
would get for people who crossed mobsters and gamblers -- the Lefty Williams
pre-Series finale scene notwithstanding."
By all accounts --
all -- Jackson
did not attend any meetings where the Fix was discussed. He knew there was
bribe money out there because Gandil had offered him $10 G, then $20 G (and
Jackson said later that he tried to warn Comiskey about the tampering, well
before Game 1; that's not corroborated). It's hard to believe that he
didn't know about the Fix, after Gandil's offers, from Lefty, yet he also testified
to being very much in the dark on the details, when Bill Burns tried to discuss
it with him the morning of Game 1.
There is no
evidence or testimony that any player except Cicotte received money up front,
before Game 1. None. Jackson and then Williams told the
grand jury that they split $10 G after game 4 or 5 ... in 1924, that was moved
back to after the Series, but in any case, the $5 G that they each received,
and kept, came well after Game 1, it seems -- I know of no one who argues otherwise,
Jim.
Jim: "So it's
fair to assume that Jackson
and many ballplayers knew the gambling element well enough to know they meant
business."
I am not going to
assume that every player knew just what they had gotten themselves into.
The go-betweens were ex-ballplayers who were in some cases former teammates
(Bill Burns a former Sox; Hal Chase, Joe Gedeon, just boys from California). I
think Attell's job of convincing the players that "Arnie means
business" was NOT easy; to borrow a stereotype, these guys were
BALLplayers, not educated, sharp thinkers, altho I think Cicotte & Gandil
were far from dumb). The players were apparently worried about
repercussions -- BUT, I think that was only after the promised cash did not
flow, after Game 1, and then Game 2. That's why so many people believe
the Fix was called OFF, early on ... and maybe we can credit Kid Gleason with
an assist (threatening the players with HIS gun) ... and maybe Buck Weaver (if
he tried to point out the folly of the fix in the meetings he attended -- yes,
I know the evidence for that is thin as a dollar bill).
Jim: "Not
trying, or not hitting? Or maybe a little a-skeert of those old mobsters?"
Well, hitting and
pitching are both very mental as well as physical, so the "state of
mind" of a player who didn't want to play would be a factor. Victor Luhrs
argues that this was Cicotte's problem in Game 1 -- he was so upset, he was
TRYING TOO HARD, and we have all heard of players "pressing" and
ending up goats in a series (or playoffs -- look up Barry Bonds, October
1990-92).
Jim: "I don't
really see much evidence that Jackson
threw this game [Game 1]. Others are welcome to review these facts, correct the
errors if there are any, add FACTS that aren't included, and proceed from
here."
Thanks to Jim
for the very good analysis of Jackson
vs Reuther, and vs lefties (too bad he couldn't lay off Lefty Williams'
delivery!) I can't add to that, or disagree with the conclusion: it's
impossible to prove Jackson
played Game One to win -- or to lose. We can't see into his heart, his
motives. In my book, I tried to pull together all the evidence and
testimony and opinions I could find, in as unbiased a way as I could -- that
was really challenging, and I had help. I'm pleased that almost all reviewers
think I treated the issues regarding Jackson
fairly.
Let's be honest
here, not many people know what the evidence, testimony and facts ARE in Jackson's case. I
think most fans know Jackson
from "Field of Dreams" ... fewer from "Eight Men
Out." He's gone down in history a certain way, so it's very hard to
set aside our views, supported mostly by that history and by baseball lore, and
look at this with fresh eyes. The case is so old, no Commissioner wants
to touch it; and it's so cold, that few think we can learn more that will shed
light on what happened. I think we can, and even though I have called
questions regarding Jackson
"red herrings" -- distracting us from the cover-up -- I obviously
enjoy wrestling with them, too.
DECEMBER 29: SPEAKING OF BUCK
Jacob brought up that "degrees of guilt"
thing, and maybe Jim T is correct, maybe folks are either/or ‑‑
guilty or innocent. But that is too
simple. Guilty or innocent of WHAT?
In Buck's case, he is guilty by his own admission of
attending the meetings with the fixers, and this confirmed the testimony of
Bill Burns & Billy Maharg, the point men for the Attell syndicate.
He is innocent ‑‑ correct me if I'm wrong
‑‑ of accepting any bribe money (and Attell confirmed that, for
what it's worth ... did it really help Buck when Abe went to Landis to try to
clear him?). He is also innocent, by
*almost* all accounts, of playing to lose.
That is, even when the 8MO were "bunched together" (Comiskey's
great phrase, I think) in the rumors, immediately after the Series ‑‑
remember, Commy withheld their WS shares, and when they complained to Commy's
nemesis Ban Johnson, the AL Prez knew the eight players were under suspicion,
too ‑‑ Weaver was never accused of giving less than his best on the
diamond. Collyer's Eye's reporter, Frank Klein, judged Weaver "clean"
in those first post‑Fix months, but ‑‑ perhaps after learning
Buck sat in on the meetings ‑‑ did not exempt him in any way when
the 8MO made headlines together in September 1920.
Well, there are 3 different issues of guilty or not
guilty ... I guess that's why our system of justice sorts out crimes on various
counts. And why criminals can be found "not guilty" and
"guilty" at the same trial by the same jury ... I think that is a
more accurate way to go, rather than "degrees of guilt."
There is another aspect here, and that is the
punishment ‑‑ habitually, we say it should fit the crime. I really think that one reason the B‑Sox
case lives on, is because so many people feel the punishment was effective ‑‑
but unfair, at least in some cases. And
here I think you HAVE to bring in the cover‑up, because if the players
were all guilty of NOT informing their team ‑‑ but the team already
knew, even before Game 1 started, but said "Play ball, anyway" ‑‑
well, that seems ludicrous. But the
Powers That Were, spoken for by Judge Landis, decided to make examples of these
eight ballplayers ‑‑ and punish "management" only by
depriving them of the services of the 8MO.
Comiskey bristled and fumed when Ban Johnson went public with his
statement (1929?) that the grand jury was considering a higher indictment ‑‑
namely, Commy. But the line was drawn,
between the players and Kid Gleason ‑‑ that is, altho there was
plenty of "guilty knowledge" present, only those below the manager
were punished for possessing it.
Sometimes, the jury finds the accused guilty as
charged ‑‑ but the judge, considering all things, punishes with
only a token fine, or assigns probation instead of jail time, etc. In other words, sometimes "guilty"
really means little else but a moral victory for the prosecution ‑‑
I guess I'm thinking of the Scopes case here, or to stay in the country of
baseball, of the case where the Cincinnati Reds/NL sued Collyer's Eye (in 1922)
for suggesting that the bribery of ballplayers was not come to a halt after the
B‑Sox were banished. When you are being sued for $50,000 and fined $50,
you probably feel like you won.
For Buck Weaver ‑‑ who prompted all this ‑‑
are there other issues besides the three above (attending meetings with fixers;
accepting bribe money; playing to lose)?
Well, one would be "informing his team" ‑‑ but
they knew, so Buck was really guilty of not letting his team know what they
already knew ... but I think it's more likely that Buck refused to tell the Sox
WHICH teammates he thought were in on the Fix.
And THAT drove them nuts, and forced them to punish Buck with the whole
"bunch." Read Weaver's
statements. He says that he really wasn't certain who was in or out ‑‑
heck, he sat in on the meetings, and he knew HE HIMSELF was "out" ‑‑
so how could he be certain that others weren't doing the same? He heard Jackson's
name, from Lefty, but he probably was far from sure that Jackson would go along. So Buck kept quiet and played as hard as he
could. I only want to point out here
that Comiskey used the same "defense" for not doing more, sooner ‑‑
"Wasn't sure, didn't want to accuse anyone who was really innocent, had no
proof." Well, neither did Buck have
proof. Commy's explanation got him off
the hook; the same position got Buck banned.
Fair? You make the call.
Another too‑long post, methinx. But shall we ask 2 more questions? What are the other issues, that we can use to
clarify this "guilty or not guilty" question, for each player (and
others) involved? And if Game One was
the key for assessing Joe Jackson in the Series (because if the Fix was on in
ANY Game, then Game 1 is the most likely) ‑‑ what about Buck
Weaver, in Games 1 & 2?
DECEMBER 29: POSTSCRIPT ON THE ISSUES / ARTHUR
DALEY
In my earlier post today, I came up with 4 issues or
points, that we can look at in sorting out guilt and innocence in the B‑Sox
case. These were:
1) Did this person accept any bribe money?
2) Did they sit in on meetings with the
fixers/gamblers?
3) Did they play the 1919 WS to lose? [Players only]
4) Did they inform the Baseball Authorities of what
they knew?
Related to the above 4 points, I thought of these
questions, related to each:
1A) Did they profit from the World Series in some
way? EG, by placing bets, or sharing in
the profits.
1B) Did they profit from the cover‑up of the
Fix in any way?
2A) Did they know these meetings (between fixers and
players) took place?
2B) If they attended the meetings, did they try to
abort the Fix?
I think these 4 points include the criteria in
"Landis' Edict" ‑‑ with the exception of this one:
5) Did they "entertain proposals or promise to
throw a game"?
Expanding the first point with 1A and 1B enables us
to "judge" baseball authorities, management, and even the press &
editors.
Expanding point 2 enables us to do the same with
2A; but 2B was planted there strictly
for Buck Weaver boosters. We know Buck
attended the meetings. But was he a "facilitator" (as Burns & Maharg
painted him) or did he argue vigorously with his teammates to bring them to
their senses? Yes, there is a shred of
evidence for the latter.
With just a few days with ProQuest left, I've been
reading & re‑reading some B‑Sox reporting. Arthur Daley of the
NY Times was one later writer who was bitten with the B‑Sox bug and
returned to the subject in his column from time to time. He was not really a
researcher (like a Lee Allen), but I thought this group might enjoy his
observation that the topic is truly addictive. Feb 17, 1953, in "A Pattern
of Inconsistency," he calls his fascination "cobra‑like"
... Daley caught the flu, and curled up with Warren Brown's team history of the
Sox, and got hooked on 1919. I think we can all related to his being mystified
by all the twists and turns the story takes.
Jackson & Weaver & Gandil among the top hitters, the Sox deemed
"Clean" failing more often in the clutch. Felsch making terrible
errors, but also great robbing catches. The "whole sordid business"
had "a nightmarish quality" ‑‑ "which both invited
suspicion and lulled it simultaneously."
Just a bad dream ... it'll go away.
His last line: "This skeleton in baseball's
closet holds an unholy fascination for anyone who peeks inside."
DECEMBER 30: EDDIE, COMMY, SHOELESS & MORALITY
PLAY
Eddie Collins was never suspected or accused of
playing any game with less than his best effort, as far as I know. He did admit betting on a game (for the Sox
to win), which he immediately regretted; he was honest enough to tell that to
Judge Landis (years later, right after Landis took office, when Collins was being
questioned about the 1917 Sox‑Tigers "agreement"). The closest thing to a suspicion that I've
seen is the reply Harold Seymour got from Joe Jackson, when he asked Jackson about his role in the Fix, and Jackson
told Seymour to
go talk to Mr Edward T Collins. On the question of "guilty
knowledge," our discussion can keep the stove hot all winter. What did
each player know, when, and what did they do (or not do) about it later?
Exactly when Comiskey communicated his suspicions to
AL Prez & Baseball Czar Ban Johnson, via NL Prez Heydler, is not clear.
Johnson always denied saying (in response) "that's the yelp of a beaten
cur" ‑‑ but the story lingers, in many variations. And you
can't take the story out of its context: the Comiskey‑Johnson feud at
boiling point, 3 AL
owners ready to bolt to join NL, or at least remove Johnson from power. Sifting
it all out, I believe Commy did cover himself by communicating his
"suspicions" early on, and in a way that involved Heydler, who could
be a strong witness. But if Hugh Fullerton is correct (and I believe he is),
there was no need for Commy to do anything ‑‑ the key magnates knew
of the Fix rumors before the Series started, and if Fullerton confirmed that with Commy, Ban, and
Barney Dreyfuss (a senior NL owner from Pgh), then they also knew that the
others knew.
Sometimes I wish this was a real discussion, in
person, and the exchanges with Jim T make this one of those times. But I'll try
to be brief.
First, about objectivity ‑‑ I'm not sure anyone
can be absolutely unbiased. But we can all be open to having others point out
when bias colors our words. I said I tried to be as unbiased as possible in my
book, and I had lots of people helping me with that. When I talk to groups, or when I write here,
I give my opinions more freely.
Second, my experience "on the B‑Sox
trail" (since September 2002) is that they more I learn, the LESS certain
I am about many things. True, I have
more to take into account, when I draw conclusions or form opinions, but the
complexity and mystery of this event ‑‑ there is still SO much
unknown ‑‑ is humbling. I
can live fine with uncertainty, but I also find it hard to resist commenting
when I hear or read a comment from someone who comes off as certain about something
which is (to me) controversial. (This is not aimed at Jim, I'm generalizing.)
OK, let's clarify a point or two. Jim said that Joe Jackson was told before the
Series that the Fix was in. I responded
by saying that he didn't attend any meetings, as far as we know. All that means is that if he was told, it
wasn't by a group, and I think I went on to say I believed he probably heard it
from Lefty, and he certainly knew about if from the propositioning Gandil. And all I want to add is this: the "fact"
that Jackson
attended no planning/plotting meetings doesn't mean much; for all we know, he
hated meetings (every office has a few of these folks, don't they?) And who knows, maybe Weaver was that rare
bird who LOVED meetings and tagged along, even tho he was at odds with the
purposes. Free booze & pretzels?
Where? (I recall commenting long
ago, these plottings were not meetings that were run with Roberts Rules of
Order, nor were "All Those Interested" flyers posted in the hotel
lobbies, inviting players to meet in Eddie's Room at 8 PM (BYOB). In the versions given by Burns & Maharg
in 1922‑23 (I still need to compare these versions to what they said at
the 1921 trial), you really get a feel for how hit‑and‑miss they
were. Never the same players show up, some come in late, maybe one is posted as
a lookout (within earshot?) And alas, no
one took minutes.
I think what Jackson said about his effort in the
Series counts for a lot ‑‑ he always pointed to his performance,
but we agree, I think, that his stats and what he did on the field is not
conclusive proof of his intent.
It was historian Harold Seymour ‑‑ who
spoke with Jackson in person ‑‑ who thought that Jackson's grand
jury statement might have been coached to send a message to the fixers; or those
other attributed statements, "struck out in the clutch, just poked at the
ball" which contradict his "played to win" formal under‑oath
statements. If Jackson
did not feel threatened by gamblers a year later ‑‑ and why should
he, the Reds won ‑‑ he said he was afraid of Risberg (and thus was
given two bailiffs for protection).
I couldn't agree more with Jim about the
"experts" thing. The record of "what really happened" is a
lot like pieces of a puzzle, and the best we can do is collect as many as we can
and see if they fit together. And while we are looking at what happened, let's
also look at what did NOT happen. So much that was known or suspected, was NOT
written down ‑‑ reporters said this later, they just blew it. Fear
of libel, fear of upsetting editors or teams or (later) the Commish. Whistleblowers today can wind up heroes on
the cover of national magazines ‑‑ but look what happened to Fullerton, before the
cover‑up was ended. So yes ‑‑ different times. I guess this is the time to ask, different
morals, too? Do we do our ancestors
wrong by looking back with our own ideas about right and wrong, and expect them
to act according to our standards?
I'll end with this. The more I learn about the
players of 1919, not just the athletes, but the magnates and writers and
politicians and the gamblers, too ‑‑ the more they seem like
ordinary folks. Not exceptionally greedy
or opportunistic, just ordinarily so. I think they knew that accepting bribe
money to toss games was wrong. But I'm also pretty sure that in those days,
this was not the "mortal sin" it became later. They all saw Hal Chase
get away with it for years, and profit from it, and maybe it was not that much
different than buying oil stock from Bill Burns, and hey, it's just a game, the
fans are entertained no matter who wins. The Big Fix was a crime, but not very
organized, and I believe it fell apart very early, maybe even after Cicotte's
second pitch in Game 1. Yet
"8MO" tells us that eight players conspired to toss the Series, and
to that I must respond: It ain't that simple, and maybe it ain't even so.
DECEMBER 31: CONNECTIONS
In reply to Susan:
it's not that hard being "fallibly human," we all make
mistakes. Learning from them is harder, I think.
In reply to Rod's insisting that writers tend to be
drinkers (of alcohol), I think Jim's point about artists in general having
problems with substance (legal or not) abuse is well taken. Athletes, too? But I'm not certain that these groups of
"celebrities" have a higher rate of alcoholism (etc) than that
elusive "average American" ... we read about the rich & famous,
their lives get turned into films, then there's TV. One thing I am certain about, taking heroin
or drinking the finest whiskey cannot turn anyone into a great jazz musician or
a writer. And addictions tend to end or shorten anyone's career, athlete or
banker.
Bringing this back to the B‑Sox, I started
getting questions about today's steroid controversy as soon as I started
talking to groups about the cover‑up of the Fix, well before my book was
released. I got so many that I felt obliged to try to follow the issue in the
news and to read "Game of Shadows" when it was released. I've talked
about parallels, with the authors of that book ‑‑ and many of you
know I like to point out how two superstar left fielders (Jackson & Bonds),
headed for Cooperstown, were similarly derailed from what should have been a
smooth journey to the Hall, by *leaked* grand jury testimony. In the case of Shoeless, the leaks proved to
be off base, not what we find in the transcripts. In 1920, the leaks were regarded as serious
crimes; they still are, but they also have been in a best‑selling book
and much more widely circulated; changing times.
With Mark McGwire on the HOF
ballot, the steroid issue is front burner again, and this will peak in the next
month, as HOF
voters fail to vote McGwire in. And I've done a little sparring with some
national columnists about this. As they focus on the "character"
standards for persons they vote into Cooperstown,
their own membership (the BBWAA) has no such standards. Ironically, as the
writers who are "forced" to judge the ballplayers now tainted by the
broad and vague charges of steroid use; as they insist the Hall is not just
about numbers (300 wins, 3,000 hits, 550 HRs, etc) ‑‑ it seems
BBWAA voting eligibility is ALL about numbers (10 years of active writing, 10
years of BBWAA membership before getting to vote) ‑‑ see
http://www.baseballwriters.org/HOF_rules.html. No drug testing? OK for the writers to fill out their ballot
at the newspaper Xmas party? (I'm just
teasing here, but wasn't there a time when bars/saloons were closed on election
days, to help a more sober consideration of the candidates?)
In my last hours with ProQuest, I've been browsing some
in 1998. Before McGwire got close to 70 HRs, and before baseball had any policy
about creatine or "andro."
McGwire spoke freely then about taking various substances (they were
keeping him off the DL), and the heat was on baseball, as much as or maybe MORE
than on McGwire, for NOT having standards like the NFL and the Olympics. But clearly some writers were as upset then
(mid‑summer 1998) as they are today, as they ponder their HOF vote.
And as I read on, the issue sounded a LOT like
baseball's grappling with gambling in the first decades of last century. McGwire being "caught" with these
LEGAL substances raised eyebrows, and raised the issue, and baseball slowly
responded (yes, the players being unionized was a factor) over the next several
years ... well, they are still responding, I guess.
We discuss in this group, quite often, the fairness
of the "Eight Men Out" decision.
We don't often view it as a kind of amnesty for all the players NOT
banished, who had gambled, tossed or "framed" games, and who knows
what else. Cobb & Speaker? Say it
ain't so! The myth of baseball's single
sin ... instant integrity restored? And
now McGwire, Canseco and others will be on the spot. The voters will likely not go out of their
way to explore the way the players of the previous couple of decades may have
enhanced their performances (or maybe just their body‑building workouts)
with various pills, prescribed or not.
They won't ask which players they have already voted in, without
requiring blood testing, x‑rays of their bats, or full disclosure before
a congressional hearing. Does anyone
else believe that for all its respect for history, baseball and its fans sure
have short memories?
My posts this week have been 'way too long, I
think. I hope this one gets more of us
into the discussion.
DECEMBER 31: A VERY SHORT PS (CONNECTIONS)
http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/
As the name suggests, the above link is to what seems
to be a watchdog web site on Baseball & Steroids. It has news of the past week or so, including
the Yahoo News story about the discovery of the source of the grand jury leaks
in the BALCO investigation.
Posted 2 days ago, December 29: "The Major
League Baseball Players Association will fight the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals' ruling that gives investigators access to the names and urine samples
of 80‑100 players who tested positive for performance‑enhancing
drugs anonymously in 2003....
"Fehr also placed the issue in a larger context.
"In his dissent, Judge Thomas said that under
this ruling 'no laboratory, hospital or health care facility could guarantee
the confidentiality of records.' That is something which should be of serious
concern to all Americans."
One more way this story connects with all of us. (Ouch!
I have to deal with HIPAA and confidentiality in my F/T job every day
... now it's on the sports pages, too?
Say it ain't so!)
JANUARY 1: MORE CONNECTIONS!
Jim T: "Technically under HIPAA, teams would be
forbidden to release reasons players are placed on the disabled list. When
HIPAA was enacted, I asked an attorney in the field about that, and he said it
would never extend to that degree."
I don't think I ever considered how HIPAA might
affect the injury reports that teams supply the media all season long (and in
the off season). Reminds me that one
reason that gamblers mixed so freely with ballplayers (and reporters) ‑‑
sometimes over a drink ‑‑ was to glean health information about
today's or tomorrow's pitchers, that might improve their betting. I have to believe that's a big factor still,
especially in football ‑‑ I mean the newspaper reports that help
fans fill our their pools.
Both my grandfathers are Irish, so I have mixed
feelings about gambling and sports. I'm sure much of it is harmless, and some
of it is poison ‑‑ I'm thinking of those who are addicted, and need
help as surely as any alcoholic. But as a fan, I think I can live without the
reasons why players are on the DL ... and I thank the players for not snooping
into why I might have called in sick, even if it was the same day I went to the
ball game. I feel the same way about
salaries ‑‑ I think we would all enjoy baseball more if this info
was confidential ‑‑ like we want our own financial info to be kept
out of the papers. And I'll tie THAT in
here by recalling the shock among some, when the salaries of the 8MO were
divulged in the B‑Sox trial ... before that, Judge McDonald was
"scandalized" by learning how much Lefty Williams was being
paid. Wow, when was the last time anyone
we know was shocked to hear how obviously underpaid an athlete was?!
And remember how the "explanation" of why
the odds before Game 1 in the 1919 WS were swinging away from the favorite Sox,
to the underdog Reds, was Cicotte's sore arm?
That turned out to be either a cover story (for the Fix), or a red
herring to lead gamblers astray ‑‑ that happened in those days,
too. The odds favoring the Yankees
vanished once, when there was a false report that Babe Ruth was injured in a
train wreck. And from Fullerton,
I think, we know there were times when managers deliberately thwarted gamblers
by switching starters or waiting until the last minute to announce them. Dickie
Kerr thought he was a last‑minute replacement for Cicotte in Game 3, but
I couldn't confirm that from any newspaper accounts ‑‑ has anyone
else tried to do that?
NEXT TIME
ProQuest is gone, but it has left behind a marvelous paper
trail. Next time, I'll share some of the stuff I looked up in the last month or
so with PQ.
And maybe,
just maybe, I'll come through with more from my Milwaukee re-visit to the 1924
trial material ... and compare the detailed "play by play" of the Fix
-- from the Burns-Maharg side -- with the version those two guys sent down in
history at the 1921 B-Sox trial.
HAPPY 2007 TO ALL.