A Hundred Years Ago In Chicago

One hundred years ago, on October 9, 1919, the highly favored Chicago White Sox lost their eighth and final game of the World Series to the Reds. When the dust cleared after the loss, eight players would be permanently called out of the game, including one of baseball’s all time greatest players-- Shoeless Joe Jackson. In one of the biggest sports conspiracies the U.S. has seen, the 1919 White Sox team would be accused of throwing the game for cash.

The weight of the blame has been cast on a miserly owner (recently contested), shady gamblers, and the rough first baseman who moonlighted as a boxer, Chick Gandal. The general narrative is that a few players, disgruntled with a cheap owner, sought revenge and extra money and, through Gandal’s contacts, met with gamblers and arranged a fix.

The series went as follows:

After throwing a strike with his first pitch of the Series, Cicotte's second pitch struck Cincinnati leadoff hitter Morrie Rath in the back, delivering a pre-arranged signal confirming the players' willingness to go through with the fix.[7] In the fourth inning, Cicotte made a bad throw to Swede Risberg at second base. Sportswriters found the unsuccessful double play to be suspicious.[8]
Lefty Williams, one of the "Eight Men Out", lost three games, a Series record. Rookie Dickie Kerr, who was not part of the fix, won both of his starts. But the gamblers were now reneging on their promised progress payments (to be paid after each game lost). The gamblers claimed that all the money was let out on bets, and was in the hands of the bookmakers. After Game 5, angry at non-payment of promised money, the players involved in the fix attempted to doublecross the gamblers, and won Games 6 and 7 of the best-of-nine Series. Before Game 8, threats of violence were made on the gamblers' behalf against players and family members.[9] Williams started Game 8, but gave up four straight one-out hits for three runs before manager Kid Gleason relieved him. The White Sox lost Game 8 (and the series) on October 9, 1919.[10] Besides Weaver, the players involved in the scandal received $5,000 each or more, with Gandil taking $35,000.

en.wikipedia.org...



In the series, Shoeless Joe had 12 hits, batting .375, and nailed the only home run of that series. He committed no errors in the field and threw a player out at home. It was a stellar performance, hardly that of a man gunning to lose.

Jackson admitted to accepting money, but the entire story shows his absence from the meeting where the fix was discussed, shows that he refused the cash ($5000) that was thrown on his bed until he was threatened to take it, that he tried to approach the owner and told his coach he did not want to play because he knew what his team was up to.
Nonetheless, Shoeless Joe was implicated with his team for taking the money. He was banned from the league for life, banned from the Hall of Fame-- his livelihood and legacy gone just like that. His name is still glaringly missing from the Hall of Fame, despite being the player that the All Stars looked up to and aspired to be. Legend has it that as he was leaving the courthouse, a grieving young fan said “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” I’d guess that if those words were spoken, they probably haunted Jackson for life.
Shoeless Joe was known for his peerless swing (which to my modern eyes looks really strange-- I mean it’s a really hard, level swing, but what’s going on with the legs/head looks like bad form, which I would probably try to drill out of any players on my team-- ha. Shows what I know lol.)


Here’s a decent documentary on the subject:



What do you think? Is it time to forgive Shoeless Joe? Were greedy, short-sighted players to blame, or a miserly owner? Thanks for reading, friends!

a reply to: zosimov


Joe Jackson got the shaft on that deal.
It's obvious he didn't throw any games.

So yeah, he should be forgiven.

Pete rose too.

a reply to: zosimov

As a lifelong Chicagoan, (almost 42 years now), and a fan of both teams, (though I lean to the Cubs more often), I think the stain should stay.
These men screwed the fans more than anyone.
Fans who supported thier lifestyles and livelihoods.
Joe Jackson knew the consequences and yet was complicit in one form or another.
Granted, the issues they had with money and management were real and egregious, but thier method of revenge was misguided and showed both sides to be greedy IMO.
Jackson could've bit the bullet and been a better man for it. But he didn't.
Idk, it's all my opinion based on what I've heard/read/saw throughout my life on the topic.
When it comes to honor, integrity, and principles, there should be zero compromise. Again, my opinion.
That said, if he gets reinstated, I won't complain or protest.

a reply to: Gravelbone

I really would agree with you, had Jackson not attempted to meet with the owner after hearing about it, and then told his manager (sorry the OP was wrong-- I wrote coach) and was told he would play "hell or high water." I just honestly feel terrible about what a fix that must have been for him then, and don't know what action he should/could have taken next-- other than sit out and maybe ensure the loss, or play his best game.

But definitely the players who threw the game put a (deserved?) stain on baseball (and professional sports in general) and really disappointed fans.

Thanks for adding to the discussion!

a reply to: Gravelbone

I don't agree with you on this one.
These men were desperate.
The money involved was life altering.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I agree-- I don't think he was involved in any way. His name was offered up at a meeting he absented, he refused the payoff only to have it thrown down in his room (apparently gave the money to charity but obviously should have given that money back. This is what he is guilty of), tried to warn the owner, and played his heart out in the series.

Don't know enough about Pete Rose to comment.

a reply to: zosimov

Rose was banned from baseball for gambling.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I just can't excuse the players who knowingly contributed to this. And with my competitive spirit, playing to win is a must for me lol, so the players who cheated to lose bother me as much as those who cheat to win.
I don't think Shoeless Joe threw the game, however, so I definitely think he should be exonerated.

What would be even more disheartening and awful is if, as the documentary I posted suggests, the subsequent trial was fixed. No wonder so many people have no confidence in either the legal system or the validity of professional sports nowadays.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I really don't know the details. I actually kind of always assumed he was guilty.
I'll have to look into that one too, though! All I know is the guy had a personality that people could use against him, which doesn't prove his guilt at all.

a reply to: zosimov

Winning is kind of a point of view.
The scoreboard isn't always the best indicator.

These men were doing what they thought was best for their families.
The money was far more important than a trophy for the team owner.


Now for Pete rose.
He got caught gambling as a manager not a player.
And anyone familiar with him know he never intentionally lost a game in his life.
He took out a catcher in an all star game...lol

a reply to: Bluntone22

While I definitely think that the value of sports is NOT in winning--imo it's much more about self improvement, teamwork, physical excellence and endurance, and (one would hope) goodsportsmanship, I disagree about winning/losing. Sometimes the better team loses, but that is not to say that a win is not important.

All it takes is to lose a close one in the finals to know the importance of winning (and losing). I can still feel the sting from 21 years ago when my high school softball team lost the finals by a run. (of course this was compounded by the news that one of our pitchers and fellow senior had lost her mom that night to cancer-- she was told after the game).

I just can't condone the complicit players' actions. Especially knowing how the men were looked up to. I do, however, think it was a more stupid choice than an evil one.

a reply to: zosimov

I think your mentally is probably not the same as a baseball player in 1919.
This was a job to them and most of them had a regular job in the off season because of the low pay they had with the white sox.

These men played for a few years and then they had to make a living after baseball.
Today is totally different for athletes.

a reply to: Bluntone22

You could be right!

I do understand what it means to struggle to pay the bills and raise a family, though.
I have a lot of empathy for the poor. I just don't agree with the players' methods in this case.

a reply to: Bluntone22

PS:
What do you think of Shoeless Joe's swing?


Do you think it would have been improved or worsened by today's techniques (hold head completely still, knees bend but don't dip, step with the front foot, pivot with the back)?
I'd guess that working on his technique would probably have ruined whatever it was he had that made him so great.

a reply to: zosimov

The game is so much different today.
Just image joe with today's equipment and diet.
Honestly you can't teach hand eye coordination so I think he would have been fine.

One thing today that I hate is the swing for the fences mentality.
A guy hits 40 home runs and strikes out 200 times..ugh
What the hell happened to bunting a runner into scoring position?

Babe Ruth hit over 700 home runs with a bat the size of a telephone pole in parks not built for home runs... 47 oz bat!

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'll bet you're right about Shoeless Joe doing just fine today! Babe Ruth, I'm not so sure but I admit I could be wrong there.

I never hit a homerun. I really am a bit disappointed about that--even one would have been satisfying enough. But striking out was the worst (with going down looking topping the list), with a short pop fly or a mangled bunt coming up close 2nd and 3rd. Batting average was a super important stat to me!! I would have felt like a fool striking out with a grand sweeping miss I think

a reply to: Bluntone22

Baseball. Also known as " Rounders For Men "

a reply to: alldaylong

Best game ever invented

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: alldaylong

Best game ever invented

The girls like playing it anyway.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: alldaylong

Best game ever invented

The girls like playing it anyway.

Softball.....

Ain't nothing soft about softball.