Farewell Jim Leyland

Y'all really ought to read this article by Ron Cobb (no relation) in SABR's "The National Pastime" dispelling the many myths perpetrated by Al Stump:

http://sabr.org/research/georgia-peach-stumped-storyteller

 

So it's a baseball judgment, then?

 

Ty Cobb was an asshole. There are plenty of assholes in the HOF.

Pete Rose broke, by his own admission -- actually by his own proclamation -- the one bold-black-ink rule which has been posted on the walls of every MLB clubhouse since 1878 -- any player betting on ANY MLB games will be banned for life.

This is fact. There is no debate.

Pete Rose must never be admitted to the HOF, unless the joint is burned to the ground at the same time.

 

The HOF ban wasn't implemented until after the MLB ban of Rose in 1989.

 

And that's when they made Joe Jackson and the other "Black Sox" ineligible for the Hall of Fame as well. Prior to that, such a rule wasn't necessary to protect the BBWAA from itself. (Jackson got two whole votes on the initial HOF ballot in 1936, then was re-nominated in 1946 and got two votes again).

Then came Field of Dreams and other revisionism, which made a generation of fans, former players and Congressmen believe Jackson didn't actually take money to throw the World Series, or if he did, he didn't really mean it.

As for Rose, I firmly believe he will be reinstated soon after his death (assuming it comes after Selig is out of office). He's not been reinstated thus far both because of Selig's respect for Bart Giamatti and because of the very real fear some stupid team will hire Rose as manager.

 

I highly doubt Joe Jackson took money from any gamblers for the 1919 World Series. And if he did, it didn't impact his play on the field. Jackson hit .375 with a home run in that eight-game series.

 

You're right. He only confessed doing so to a grand jury.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/24/sports/sports-of-the-times-the-signed-confession-of-shoeless-joe.html

 

Nobody's ever lied to a grand jury?

 

Who in the hell would lie to incriminate himself?

 

Players are not free to willy-nilly break rules without consequences. I am undecided as to whether PEDs are actually morally wrong. It depends on whether they are truly dangerous or not. Until then, in the closed universe of sports, their use is largely disqualifying. I don't think running out of the baseline is morally wrong, either. But you do it, you're out.

 

1. Jackson did accept $5,000 from gamblers, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Not only did Joe testify to that, but the bank president in Savannah testified that Katie Jackson made the deposit at his bank and showed the deposit slips at trial. And we even know what happened to the money: Joe and Katie paid for Gertrude Jackson's hospital bills; Joe's little sister confirmed that fact many times over before she died in 2000.

Did Joe play his best/play to win? I think so, at least without seeing some 21st-century HD video replays of what happened on the field.

2. There is no "signed confession" from Jackson or anyone else. Grand jury witnesses do not sign their testimony transcripts, and never have. Leland's auction house made a big splash this summer (click the link) offering $1 million to anyone who could produce the signed confession, but it was a publicity stunt. No such document exists.

 

So it IS a moral judgment.

I don't really care, one way or the other. I just want to know what the justification is for voters who don't vote for the single best all-around player I've ever seen in my lifetime.