Black Sox Scandal

Reminded me of The Right Stuff. "Holy Shit, movie's already three hours long and we've only shown three of the astronauts' flights! Hurry up, get Gordo Cooper up there and we'll sign off there!"

 

He also had a relatively-high percentage of his decisions reversed in higher courts, which says something.

Also liked his liquor, more than a little.

Also . . . a Cub fan.

 

Oh, a bitter Cubs fan trying to bring down the Pale Hose? I've seen this thread thousands of times. Take a long walk off a short pier.

 

But isn't that conclusion based on the assumption that Jackson was actually able to decide, every at bat, whether he'd get a hit or not?

"The fix is in, so I'll pop up now."

"The fix is off - I think I'll hit a double."

"The fix is in again - but we're losing ... I guess it's OK to drive in a few meaningless runs."

Could anyone - Hornsby/Williams/Cobb/Ruth - ever actually do that?

 

He could do so by the way he timed his swing. A split second could make all the difference between hitting the ball hard or not.

 

Some links for your viewing pleasure ...

$5,000. Read: http://blackbetsy.com/joejackson-1920-grand-jury-testimony-vhof.pdf

For some people, that's enough. I, personally, happen to think it's a lot more complicated than that.

He didn't recant, because he never "confessed" to throwing games. In 1923-24, he sued not to be reinstated but for the back pay owed to him by the White Sox. He won that case on a jury verdict, but the judge overturned it; said Jackson perjured himself because of discrepancies between his 1920 testimony and his 1924 testimony. Read about the Milwaukee trial (and a lot more): http://www.amazon.com/Burying-Black-Sox-Baseballs-Succeeded/dp/1574889729

Fact is, Jackson actually said, and repeated at least four times in his 1920 testimony, that he played to win at all times. That part of his testimony was not reported at the time, and only revealed in 1988 (when Alf Austrian's old law firm released the document for the first time.)

Not true. Absolutely no evidence supports this, contemporary or after the fact. There is no evidence to support that he paid his players a lower per diem wage, either.

Fact is, Comiskey's payroll was quite possibly the highest in the league, according to league records now accessible at the Hall of Fame. Yes, that figure is skewed by Eddie Collins' salary. And yes, his players were underpaid -- but so were most other players. All salaries were kept down in 1919 because of the war, which is also why the schedule was reduced.

Comiskey was no more of a "Scrooge" than any other owner. And the reserve clause was used by every team.

Asinof did a serious injustice to Comiskey with the perpetuation of this myth.

Not true. Read: http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/2853044/

Not true. Not in 1917, or 1919. Asinof made it up.

Cicotte had a chance to win 30 both years. He was never benched. Read here for the debunking of 1919. Read Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Legends for similar analysis on 1917.

Shoddy baserunning, yes. (Although Jackson wasn't a great baserunner to begin with, if you believe in this sort of stuff. He's got a negative or neutral R-BR value in 7 of his 13 seasons, although most of that is derived from his terrible caught-stealing numbers: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/j/jacksjo01.shtml#batting_value.)

Triples to left? Another myth. Read: http://blackbetsy.com/1919triples.htm

You know I love you, B_H. But if you think "Eight Men Out" was comprehensive -- or definitive -- think again.

Absolutely, it's still a must-read. It got most of us interested in the Black Sox story, and it deserves all the praise it gets for that. I would also agree that it was badly needed; it's a shame baseball was able to sweep the scandal under the rug for so long.

But if you read no other link today, read this: http://www.chicagolawyermagazine.com/Archives/2009/09/01/092009sox.aspx

I've been to the CHM, and gone through Asinof's notes myself. Folder by folder. It's all there.

His interviews with Felsch and Faber revealed nothing. He never talked to Cicotte or Risberg, as he claimed to have. His "interview" with Attell was essentially a pool interview, one time, and full of the usual underworld bluster.

His research, such as, takes up less space than his screenplays.

Asinof dramatized the story, and he did it very, very well. But he didn't report the story all that well. There are major sins of commission, including the aforementioned myths about Comiskey's cheapness and Cicotte's motivation, plus the introduction of at least two admitted fictional characters ("Harry F." was one), and other sins of omission.

So yes, it's still a must-read ... but don't forget your salt shaker. And after you're done, make sure to pick up Carney's book, too.

 

I dig, and I'm always among the first to acknowledge its faults.
But in terms of sustained public focus on the thing, more than a decade
after the Sox emerged from their 30+ years in the wilderness once
they stole Nellie Fox and Billy Pierce, and Minoso first came up, Asinof
provided a legitimate starting point for broad discussion.

Definitive? Of course not. But heaven help the first guy into the breach,
who provides the work everyone else can then build on.

Love you too, guy . . . almost as much as I love Minoso.

 

A couple of things I found fault with that article.

1. The writer claims that Asinoff painted all eight ballplayers with the same guilty brush. Yet in the book, Asinoff wrote that Buck Weaver was innocent, and pointed out the times that Buck had played hard, and his attempts to clear his name.

2. The writer claims how the 1920 Grand jury testimony transcripts appeared during Jackson's 1924 trial from Comiskey's lawyers, and that newspapers should have reported on the contents of the transcripts from the trial. However, as Asinoff wrote it, Jackson's lawyer challenged the transcripts, asking how they happened to have possession of it, and that Comiskey's lawyers thought the shock value would be enough to be introduced. If they weren't introduced, then how could the newspapers have reported on, what should have been, inadmissable evidence.

 

Asinof also posts salaries for a few Reds players ($10,000, $9,000, $8,000, etc.) that are higher than their counterparts on the Sox ($6,000, $6,000, $4,000).

And if Cicotte and Lefty Williams were paid <$6,000 and <$3,000 , and if, as Asinof maintains, "many players of comparable stature on other teams got almost TWICE as much" . . . something is amiss.

Either Asinof's salary figures are just lies . . . or the Sox could not possibly have had a high comparable payroll (even counting for Collins).

I'd like to see those numbers. A player-by-player comparison between the Sox and the Reds. If such a thing exists.

 

Good to see you, Buck.

 

The Harry Grabiner diary excerpts in Bill Veeck's "Hustler's Handbook" corroborate that Comiskey was paying the players remarkably low salaries, except for Eddie Collins.

Which undoubtedly didn't do much to help team harmony, in addition to the "college boy" stuff.