BATTER UP!

[Ghostsoldier]

I would want Joe in for the sake of his abilities, not his moral standards. Inclusion in the HOF should be about abilities and accomplishments, and nothing else.

There's no 'morality' in professional baseball, and there never has been, imho. The HOF is full of "fallen angels", and if we're judging them on moral standards, a good many shouldn't be in there because of that.

Rob

 

[HudsonHawk]

I would want Joe in for the sake of his abilities, not his moral standards. Inclusion in the HOF should be about abilities and accomplishments, and nothing else.

There's no 'morality' in professional baseball, and there never has been, imho. The HOF is full of "fallen angels", and if we're judging them on moral standards, a good many shouldn't be in there because of that.

Rob

Well, like it or not it *is* about more than just ability and accomplishment. Sportsmanship, integrity, and character are specified criteria to be evaluated for induction into the HOF. No they are not all angels. But I don't buy into the philosophy of "if one guy got away with something, we can't punish anyone else for doing it".

 

[Ghostsoldier]

We can agree to disagree on this, Hawk.

I'm not so sure those judging "integrity and character" are necessarily competent to be doing so.

Rob

 

[HudsonHawk]

We can agree to disagree on this, Hawk.

Absolutely. I think this is one of those issues where people are on one side or the other. I don't see many people on the fence on this one.

I'm not so sure those judging "integrity and character" are necessarily competent to be doing so.

Rob

Well that's a fair point, but it's what the voters are asked to do. Which brings up another point about the competency of the BBWAA. A lot of people get on them, and they are far from perfect, but I think overall, they've done a pretty good job. Sure there are a few people who have no business being in there on the ability/accomplishments (I'm looking at you Phil Rizzuto), but most have been elected by their old cronies on the Veteran's Committee, and there are few clearly deserving players not in that are not connected to some controversy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm kind of in the middle on this. There's every indication that Jackson was sincerely repentant for what he did -- and I don't think there's any question that he had a level of involvement in what happened, however he rationalized it to himself, and however terrified he was that Swede Risberg was going to follow thru on his threat to kill him. But he paid. He lived the rest of his life isolated from the recognition his accomplishments would have otherwise earned, and he died outside The Game. That's penalty enough. I don't believe in "eternal torment."

I feel the same way about Eddie Cicotte, who was one of the best pitchers of his time, the first great knuckleballer. He never tried to rationalize what he did, he owned up to it and he willingly took his medicine. I wouldn't object to his being posthumously rehabilitated on that basis.

And Weaver's real crime was choosing his friends unwisely, and choosing not to betray them. Landis chose to make a specific example out of him, and he, like all the others, served a life sentence. But justice is nothing without compassion.

It's interesting to look up the history of the "Permanently Ineligible" list. There have actually been many players besides the Eight Men banned for gambling, or connection with gamblers -- some might have forgotten that Bowie Kuhn put Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle on that list in the 1970s because they had jobs gladhanding at casinos. That's nowhere near the same as tanking games, and Kuhn made something of a fool of himself in trying to enforce the rules so punctiliously. But both men were eventually reinstated, as have been quite a few other men banned for crimes other than gambling.

It's also interesting that Dickie Kerr, one of the "Clean Sox" in 1919, was banned later in the twenties for contract jumping. Landis was nothing if not unbiased in his application of swift unilateral action.

 

[Ghostsoldier]

Agreed. And as you and Hawk stated, of all of the 8 men out, I believe Buck got the rawest deal from Landis.

Rob

 

[LizzieMaine]

Remarkably, the only one of the Eight Men to really talk in detail for the public press about what happened was Chick Gandil, who collaborated with Los Angeles sportswriter Melvin Durslag on an as-told-to piece for Sports Illustrated in 1956. It doesn't square entirely with the facts as research has determined them to be, but it's still a fascinating bit of insight into one man wrestling with his conscience nearly forty years removed from his crime.

The full article is available here.

 

[2jakes]

As Ken Burns noted in his 1994 PBS miniseries Baseball and its corresponding book, Landis said in banning Jackson and his teammates, "Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.”
(end quote)

I’m not very knowledgeable about the ruling or history of the events.
And perhaps my question doesn’t make sense.

But can someone with more expertise explain the Landis ruling where
regardless of the jury verdict, "not guilty”, he still banned Jackson from professional baseball.
Did Landis also include that Jackson not be eligible for the HOF?
Thanks.

 

[Ghostsoldier]

That's the crux of the argument, really...as Lizzie said, Joe (and Eddie and Buck) have been paying for this forever, even in death.

Landis only stated they couldn't play professional baseball again, not that they be punished in perpetuity...this is where it's not fair to their legacies, imho.

Rob

 

[LizzieMaine]

The HOF didn't exist when the expulsions happened, and interestingly there was no official HOF rule against admitting players on the permanently-ineligible list until 1991 -- and that rule was specifically designed to keep Pete Rose out. There was no official ban on any of the Black Sox receiving Hall of Fame votes before that, but there was an "informal understanding" among those doing the voting that they weren't to be recognized. Not all HOF members agreed with that stance -- Ted Williams, for one, strongly supported the idea of electing Jackson.

As for the trial results, the Eight were found "not guilty" of conspiracy to defraud, which was a difficult charge to prove under any circumstances. Throwing ball games, technically, was not illegal in Illinois in 1919, so they couldn't be charged with that. But they could be charged with conspiracy to defraud certain specified individuals -- the specific charges, as I recall, were "conspiiacy to defraud Raymond Schalk," and "conspiracy to defraud Charles Comiskey." They were found not guilty of those charges, not of conspiring to throw ball games. A legal point, but an exceedingly fine one I would think.

 

[HudsonHawk]

As Ken Burns noted in his 1994 PBS miniseries Baseball and its corresponding book, Landis said in banning Jackson and his teammates, "Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball.”
(end quote)

I’m not very knowledgeable about the ruling or history of the events.
And perhaps my question doesn’t make sense.

But can someone with more expertise explain the Landis ruling where
regardless of the jury verdict, "not guilty”, he still banned Jackson from professional baseball.
Did Landis also include that Jackson not be eligible for the HOF?
Thanks.

The not-guilty verdict was and is irrelevant. There was no law against intentionally losing a baseball game. This was entirely an internal matter between an employer and his employees.

As for Landis's ruling...it was made years before the HOF existed, so it contained no such provision as to ban anyone from the HOF. For many years, it was sort of an unwritten rule that no player on the ineligible list would be eligible for the HOF. The HOF made that a formal ban in 1991 in response to Rose's eligibility. The HOF conducted a formal review of that last year and upheld their previous ruling.

 

[Fading Fast]

I lean pretty close to Lizzie on this as I don't think it is a black-and-white situation. (And I am not saying the below represents her argument - just saying we do over-lap.)

And, to HH and GS' discussion, however imperfect we all are / however immoral players, managers and owners are - I believe sportsmanship, integrity, character should be part of the discussion / part of the consideration.

A speed limited is an easy rule to understand and free love is fun especially when you're young and unattached - but real life doesn't always fit into those two boxes.

Baseball - all sports - should try to set standard for character, integrity, honesty as the flip is saying, even though we set rules and regs, do anything and everything you can get away with. Is there a decent parent on earth who would raise their child with that standard or wants their child to grow up in a world where that is the standard?

Humans should strive for morality, recognize they will always fall short, judge and, then, balance punishment with (thank you Lizzie) compassion. Our world, our institutions (gov't, business, charity, sport leagues) will, IMHO, all be better with high standards that we strive for and fall short of (and judge, then, punish with compassion) than some antinomian world where we have no standards, no excellence, no moral code and just do anything and everything to win / to advance / to get ahead.

The mistake, IMHO, is that many believe that since we fall short of moral standards (and we almost always do as a whole) we become hypocrites and should just accept that we are immoral. That sets up an all-or-none view that is deleterious to the best in mankind. We set standards, some meet them, many strive, improve themselves but still fall short and some look for every angle - yup, got it. But those who meet them, inspire us / those who genuinely strive and fall short, deserve our respect and compassion and those who cut the corners deserve our derision.

That, hopefully, makes flawed humans (all of us), overall, better.

So, should the HOF let SJJ in? I don't know, but it should consider it. Maybe, as HH said, taking money to throw a sport is the third rail of sports, but then if SSJ didn't actually act on the money, is that a mitigating factor? Judge objectively, then, issue punishment with compassion.

 

[HudsonHawk]

That's the crux of the argument, really...as Lizzie said, Joe (and Eddie and Buck) have been paying for this forever, even in death.

Landis only stated they couldn't play professional baseball again, not that they be punished in perpetuity...this is where it's not fair to their legacies, imho.

Rob

I think it was entirely Landis's intention to ban the players permanently from all aspects of the game, not just from playing the game or just for the duration of their lifetime. The current Major League Rules state that "a player or other person on the Ineligible List shall not be eligible to play or associate with any Major or Minor League Club." I think that is consistent with the Black Sox, and expressly with Rose. There was never any intention for the ban to have a expiration date, except through the codified reinstatement mechanism.

 

[HudsonHawk]

So, should the HOF let SJJ in? I don't know, but it should consider it. Maybe, as HH said, taking money to throw a sport is the third rail of sports, but then if SSJ didn't actually act on the money, is that a mitigating factor? Judge objectively, then, issue punishment with compassion.

I think that whether or not Jackson acted on his promise to throw the games doesn't mitigate the real damage. The damage to the game is not that the Cincinnati Reds won the World Series rather than the Chicago White Sox, it's the loss of confidence from the public that the games were legitimate. Jackson agreed to, and accepted money for, delegitimizing the contest. How much he actually followed through with that is not really relevant to the "crime", IMO.

 

[Ghostsoldier]

Ray Schalk certainly had no love for them, lol.

I think the biggest criminal in all of this was the Old Roman...but, that's another argument.

Rob

 

[Fading Fast]

I think that whether or not Jackson acted on his promise to throw the games doesn't mitigate the real damage. The damage to the game is not that the Cincinnati Reds won the World Series rather than the Chicago White Sox, it's the loss of confidence from the public that the games were legitimate. Jackson agreed to, and accepted money for, delegitimizing the contest. How much he actually followed through with that is not really relevant to the "crime", IMO.

He's guilty as charged - agreed. A cold blooded killer who shot and killed his unknown-to-him victim to steal his victim's car for a joy ride and a mentally and physically abused spouse of twenty years who finally shoots and kills the abusing spouse are both guilty of murder as charged. Now we discuss punishment - most would argue for a different sentence for each.

That's all I'm saying with SSJ. He's guilty - no question. And, it seems, you are arguing that what he did is so deleterious to the game, that the punishment should be no HOF - it's a reasonable argument. A counter is he did it once, he didn't act on it and he showed remorse for decades afterwards - hence, is there any leniency in the sentencing (no HOF so far) he should be shown versus someone who serial took money, willingly threw games and never showed any remorse?

 

[HudsonHawk]

The HOF didn't exist when the expulsions happened, and interestingly there was no official HOF rule against admitting players on the permanently-ineligible list until 1991 -- and that rule was specifically designed to keep Pete Rose out. There was no official ban on any of the Black Sox receiving Hall of Fame votes before that, but there was an "informal understanding" among those doing the voting that they weren't to be recognized. Not all HOF members agreed with that stance -- Ted Williams, for one, strongly supported the idea of electing Jackson.

As for the trial results, the Eight were found "not guilty" of conspiracy to defraud, which was a difficult charge to prove under any circumstances. Throwing ball games, technically, was not illegal in Illinois in 1919, so they couldn't be charged with that. But they could be charged with conspiracy to defraud certain specified individuals -- the specific charges, as I recall, were "conspiiacy to defraud Raymond Schalk," and "conspiracy to defraud Charles Comiskey." They were found not guilty of those charges, not of conspiring to throw ball games. A legal point, but an exceedingly fine one I would think.

The official indictment was for a conspiracy 1) "to operate among the spectators of said games and others and the general public to procure divers large sums of money by means of and by use of the confidence game" and 2) against a one Charles C. Nims of Chicago who was "unlawfully, fraudulently and feloniously swindled out of the sum of $250.00."

 

[Harp]

As for the trial results, the Eight were found "not guilty" of conspiracy to defraud, which was a difficult charge to prove under any circumstances. Throwing ball games, technically, was not illegal in Illinois in 1919, so they couldn't be charged with that. But they could be charged with conspiracy to defraud certain specified individuals -- the specific charges, as I recall, were "conspiiacy to defraud Raymond Schalk," and "conspiracy to defraud Charles Comiskey." They were found not guilty of those charges, not of conspiring to throw ball games. A legal point, but an exceedingly fine one I would think.

Any ex post facto application would first require a prior legality; which state would become illegal under said law enactment; without this prerequisite
prior judgement coupled to prevailing sentiment will stand and conspiracy to defraud a likely permanent bar to Hall of Fame admission.
The Black Sox players are caught inside Shakespeare's vortex wherein all near are drawn and a cease of majesty occurs.
A scandal that will never be erased or scoured from Baseball's chronicle.

 

[HudsonHawk]

And, it seems, you are arguing that what he did is so deleterious to the game, that the punishment should be no HOF - it's a reasonable argument. A counter is he did it once, he didn't act on it and he showed remorse for decades afterwards - hence, is there any leniency in the sentencing (no HOF so far) he should be shown versus someone who serial took money, willingly threw games and never showed any remorse?

That's exactly what I'm arguing. That the real "crime" was damage to the game's reputation, not the actual outcome of the games. He *did* act on it. What happened after he committed the crime of agreeing to fix the games is irrelevant. I get the argument that the punishment was too harsh, but I disagree with it. I think it fits the "crime"

 

[2jakes]

In the world of pro tennis, Maria Sharapova was banned for 2 years for taking substance that was a no-no according
to the tennis federation. The sentence
was changed later and she played in the US Open @ NY.
Some of the fellow players felt this was
wrong.
That she should've been banned permanently from playing pro tennis.