Who's Missing From the Hall That You'd Elect?

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Triad.....Joe Jackson unzipped his fly and took a rather large piss on the integrity of the sport, and you want to put him in the HoF?

However, putting someone in the Hall of Fame doesn't mean we're honoring how good of a person they were. It means we're honoring how good of a player they were. I can easily separate the two. I can recognize what a tremendous player Pete Rose was without being confused that he might be an admirable person off the field. I can easily say to him that you were a wonderful athlete and a rotten individual. What's so hard about saying that?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Did Joe Jackson refuse to take the bribe? Joe Jackson took the bribe.

He was coached to confess. We don't know the details. What little we do know, is inconclusive as far as culpability. Lefty Williams, for example, had threats made against his family. That's the likes of what Jackson was dealing with. In the end, Jackson didn't get his day in court with major league baseball.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Did Joe Jackson keep his mouth shut about the fact that the games were not on the level? Joe Jackson alerted no one.

If we apply this to Buck Weaver, is he somehow obligated to be a policeman for the league?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

He was a great player who easily would belong had he not taken the corrupt road. But he did take the corrupt road and he is quite justly disqualified from being honored by the sport he dishonored.

"Honor" is a two-dollar word when it comes to sports though. How honorable was Kirby Puckett in the way he treated his wife? How honorable were the escapades of Wade Boggs? How honorable were Ferguson Jenkins, Orlando Cepeda, and Gaylord Perry? The term "honor" is used opportunistically, to suit whatever fits the situation. It can mean whatever anybody wants it to.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

As for who belongs in the Hall who isn't in as of yet, I say no players, the list at the start of this thread is made up exclusively of marginal HoFers and my feeling is that the shrine should be reserved for only those for whom there is no question. If there is an argument over whether or not someone was an immortal of the game, then that person probaly wasn't an immortal.

I'd say if we were being very stringent on the qualifications, at least Santo deserves to be in. How many third basemen can you find who had OPS seasons of 164, 161, 153, 146, 139, 131, 128, 126 and 121?

Pie Traynor's highs were 125, 124. Brooks Robinson's highs were 145, 126, 124, 123, 123. I think only Mathews, Schmidt, Brett, Boggs and Baker match up with Santo's output. If he's better than all of the Veterans Committee selections at that position, shouldn't he be in? (Jimmy Collins, Frank Baker, Freddie Lindstrom, George Kell)

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The most glaring ommission isn't a player, it's Marvin Miller who has been rejected a half dozen times now in the voting. There is no individual who so strongly influenced the nature of the game in the last part of the 20th Century, yet he waits while they induct announcers.

This makes better sense than some of the commissioner choices that have been enshrined. Sadly, it's a self-serving industry.

Originally Posted by jtur88

The value of the HoF is not in rewarding players because they were fine people, but enabling future generations to have a concept of who the outstanding playes were in the past.

That's exactly right. I think at some point the Hall is going to realize the silliness of keeping out McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa, Clemens and Rose. It's going to make the Hall look incomplete, because it will be. The hit king, home run king, and best pitcher of the last 80 years ought to be recognized for their accomplishments.

Originally Posted by LongtimeBravesFan

McGwire was borderline for me before he began his late career home run burst. Considering the "help" he had getting those home runs, I will not support his inclusion.

Problem is that no one can quantify how much or how little "help" that entails. And we only know a very small percentage of the players who were supposedly "helped." So then why single out a few select ones? It's lazy evaluating to round off like that and pretend there's any precision to the equation.

Frank Thomas, Mike Piazza, Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez all could've been helped by performance enhancers, moreso than any of those mentioned earlier. And it's not merely about bulk either. You're going to allow those players into the Hall, but not McGwire, Bonds and Sosa? It all becomes very arbitrary. The Hall of Fame should not be set on an arbitrary standard.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Mark McGwire made himself into a greater hero than he deserved to be by the use of artificial enhancements.

It's speculation to what degree it helped him, and to what degree other unidentified players were helped as well. I don't understand how someone can single out a player like McGwire while having very little data to measure the accusation with. How much of a better player did it make him, if at all? Do you have any idea? Can you quantify it?

It seems a little disingenuous to try to discount the accomplishments of McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, in light of the suspected high number of performance enhancement users throughout the league. If there was any advantage seen, did 40-50% of the league have an advantage over the rest of the league? Who exactly were all those players? Do you know that Chipper Jones, Gary Sheffield, Vladimir Guerrero, Ivan Rodriguez, Jeff Kent, Albert Pujols, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez weren't among those on the "advantage" side?

Ultimately, doesn't it become a rather silly exercise to try to divine who had an advantage and who didn't? Heck, if you follow the timelines of Hank Aaron and Willie Stargell, it looks like they had a boost at the end of their careers as well. And they both got bigger too. Suspicious?

[Grandstander]

triad:

We don't know the details. What little we do know, is inconclusive as far as culpability.

I'm afraid you are in lag with the known facts of the case. I direct you to:
Amazon.com: Burying the Black Sox: How Baseball's Cover-Up of the 1919 World Series Fix Almost Succeeded: Gene Carney: Books

Burying the Black Sox: How Baseball's Cover-Up of the 1919 World Series Fix Almost Succeeded by Gene Carney. It was published last year, I own and have read it. It is the most wide ranging investigation into the known facts of the fix, academic in nature, not especially well written, but very exhaustive in detail and extremely carefull in distinguishing what is known to be true and what is conjecture.

Far from "inconclusive", there is not the slightest doubt that Joe Jackson A) Knew that the fix was in before the start of the Series and knew the identities of those involved in the scheme. B) Accepted a $5000 payment delivered to him at his hotel room by those who recruited him and fully understood that this money was in exchange for his participation in the conspiracy. C) Played in games where he knew that the outcome was not being truly contested by his own club. D) Kept confidence with the conspirators throughout the length of the Series and revealed the fix to no one until forced to do so before a grand jury.

What are known to be facts are taken from the orginal confessions of Cicotte, Williams and Jackson, the grand jury testimony from each of those three, the numerous witnesses who were treated to Hap Felder shooting off his mouth and bragging about the fix in local bars, the trial testimony of Sleepy Bill Burns and Billy Maharg who conspired with Chick Gandel and Swede Risburg to set the fix in motion, and the extensive testimony delivered in the 1923 civil trial against Charles Commiskey when several Black Sox, including Jackson, tried to recover the salaries they would have received in 1921 and 1922 had they not been banished from the game. Read it all and there is no way you will be able to deny any of the points listed above.

Even if you wish to argue that Jackson refused to play poorly in exchange for money as evidenced by his Series stats, then you are still left trying to excuse his silence and his accepting the money. If not paid for his bad play, he was paid for his silence.

And I do not buy your argument about dividing a man's character from his play, not when we are talking about an application of character to play on the field. Joe Jackson flunked the character test in a huge manner. If he had participated in fixing horse races I would not be arguing against his HoF credentials. He participated in fixing ballgames, he defrauded the fans who had paid their way into the park, he defrauded all those White Sox fans who had bought into the fantasy of sports and the joy of your club winning. He did it for 5 grand. He sold out. Putting Jackson in the MLB HoF would be like awarding Clifford Irving a Pulitizer for his Howard Hughes biography. I do not take Kirby Puckett's marital behavior into account when deciding on HoF credentials, that had nothing to do with the game.

If we apply this to Buck Weaver, is he somehow obligated to be a policeman for the league?

Weaver is a seperate case, he did not accept money and was not part of the scheme to throw games. His play was honest and his failure was a lesser one. He had a duty to report knowledge of the games being fixed, but instead chose loyalty to his friends. For that I believe he deserved a suspension for a year or two, but not banishment. Jackson took the money. The idea is not that Buck Weaver in particular is obligated to report any fixing schemes, but that all ballplayers are so obligated. That is hardly unreasonable considering that we are talking about the very integrity of the competition.

I don't understand how someone can single out a player like McGwire while having very little data to measure the accusation with.

You are in luck, I can help you with this inability. The way you single out the players is by paying attention and seeing who has confessed, who has had strong evidence brought against them for which they have no answer, and who has been caught in the drug testing. That's how you single out the cheats. That you have failed to identify all of the cheats, or failed to identify precisely the degree to which they cheated, in no manner mitigates the contempt you may feel for the known cheats, or even the merely heavily suspected cheats. McGwire supplied the nation with pretty much all we needed to know with his transparent "Not here to talk about the past" version of taking the fifth. That performance, before a nationwide audience, amounted to a defacto confession and for that reason, McGwire moves to a high place on the "singled out" list.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

triad:

I'm afraid you are in lag with the known facts of the case. I direct you to:
Amazon.com: Burying the Black Sox: How Baseball's Cover-Up of the 1919 World Series Fix Almost Succeeded: Gene Carney: Books

Thanks for that reference. At first blush, I'm wondering how much could be investigated into the workings of the men who orchestrated the fix. Maybe that question is answered in the book.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Even if you wish to argue that Jackson refused to play poorly in exchange for money as evidenced by his Series stats, then you are still left trying to excuse his silence and his accepting the money. If not paid for his bad play, he was paid for his silence.

It's not all that much of a stretch to look at the facts and conclude that Jackson had a change of heart, and decided after all to play his best. The stats support this. And if you had dirty money, would you try to return it to the culprits? Also, once he was in the middle of it all, it could have been too late for him to go back and say that he wasn't in, because it's possible there could've been threats made on his family for not cooperating.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

And I do not buy your argument about dividing a man's character from his play, not when we are talking about an application of character to play on the field.

But what's character got to do with getting hits, even if we're talking character that may have cheapened the sport? Jackson's behavior still doesn't change the fact that he was one of the greatest hitters of his era. Why should an institution fail to recognize this simply because he was involved in a game-fixing scheme? With or without the scheme, it remains that he was a truly great player — end of story.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

If he had participated in fixing horse races I would not be arguing against his HoF credentials. He participated in fixing ballgames, he defrauded the fans who had paid their way into the park, he defrauded all those White Sox fans who had bought into the fantasy of sports and the joy of your club winning.

If it's true that he defrauded the fans, which I grant you is a distinct possibility, is that really worth throwing out his entire career as if it didn't happen? At the very worst, he helped to ruin one World Series which the White Sox would have likely lost anyway, and he helped give the sport a black eye. Think of how many players and owners throughout history have given the sport a black eye. What about collusion? What about the owners turning a blind eye on steroid use back in the '90s? What about the players' strike of '94? They cancelled an entire World Series. To me, that's just as egregious.

At any rate, from what I've read, Landis didn't give the Black Sox players a fair chance to defend themselves. Even being acquitted in court, that wasn't good enough for him. It smacks as a political move by Landis, who thought he was still a judge, and must've been jealous that he couldn't have ruled in the Black Sox court case. I have a very low opinion of Landis. To me, it's ridiculous that he's in the Hall of Fame, but Jackson and Rose aren't. Landis even stalled integration. Let's celebrate that? He died and was replaced as commissioner in 1944. If he had lived a few years longer, Jackie Robinson never would have got his shot. In fact, we have Landis to thank that we never got to see Josh Gibson in a major league game, or Satchel Paige in his prime.

To me, Landis' indiscretions are far more reaching than Jackson helping to fix a World Series. How much did Landis defraud the fans by failing to allow blacks to play throughout the '20s and '30s?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I do not take Kirby Puckett's marital behavior into account when deciding on HoF credentials, that had nothing to do with the game.

So then you're saying it's not really about honor per se, but honor involving the playing of the game. What about Gaylord Perry?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Weaver is a seperate case, he did not accept money and was not part of the scheme to throw games. His play was honest and his failure was a lesser one. He had a duty to report knowledge of the games being fixed, but instead chose loyalty to his friends. For that I believe he deserved a suspension for a year or two, but not banishment.

We can agree that Weaver was robbed, and it's sad what happened to him. This is just another indication that Landis was not interested in due process.

From what I've read, Comiskey himself knew about the fix. I guess if you're not a player, you get off easy.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The idea is not that Buck Weaver in particular is obligated to report any fixing schemes, but that all ballplayers are so obligated. That is hardly unreasonable considering that we are talking about the very integrity of the competition.

I think this is an ethical question that a rule can't answer for us. Personally, I don't believe that a player should be responsible for exposing indiscretions.

The other factor we haven't talked about is threats to the well-being of the players' families. You might have thought twice as well about upsetting those criminals if it involved your family.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

That you have failed to identify all of the cheats, or failed to identify precisely the degree to which they cheated, in no manner mitigates the contempt you may feel for the known cheats, or even the merely heavily suspected cheats.

But there's an imbalance. Let's say for the sake of argument that Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, Jeff Kent and Jim Thome also cheated to the same degree that McGwire, Bonds and Palmeiro did — but that it never became known. Meanwhile, you're cheering on ARod, Griffey, Thomas, Ramirez, Piazza, Kent and Thome for the great hitters that they are, while decrying the few who were caught. Not only that, but you support them for the Hall of Fame.

So the result is that your contempt is misdirected or at least incomplete. You're only fooling yourself when you think that Bonds and McGwire were the bad guys. For every one that's caught, there are likely a handful more that go under the radar. What this means is that you are probably unknowingly cheering for more cheaters than you are decrying. Isn't that rather ironic? And a little disingenuous, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

McGwire supplied the nation with pretty much all we needed to know with his transparent "Not here to talk about the past" version of taking the fifth. That performance, before a nationwide audience, amounted to a defacto confession.

One problem though — McGwire wasn't on trial, and appeared voluntarily. Guilty by suspicion isn't found anywhere in the law books.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Burying the Black Sox: How Baseball's Cover-Up of the 1919 World Series Fix Almost Succeeded by Gene Carney.

Far from "inconclusive", there is not the slightest doubt that Joe Jackson A) Knew that the fix was in before the start of the Series and knew the identities of those involved in the scheme. B) Accepted a $5000 payment delivered to him at his hotel room by those who recruited him and fully understood that this money was in exchange for his participation in the conspiracy. C) Played in games where he knew that the outcome was not being truly contested by his own club. D) Kept confidence with the conspirators throughout the length of the Series and revealed the fix to no one until forced to do so before a grand jury.

Your assessment doesn't seem to agree with the following overview of the same book...

A highlight of the book is the prominence Mr. Carney gives to the often overlooked 1924 civil trial brought by Joe Jackson against Charles Comiskey for breach of his 1920 contract. At this trial, Mr. Carney states, "For the first time, there would be new light shed on what Cominskey knew and when he knew it and on exactly what he did or did not do about it. Here for the first time, Jackson's play in the World Series would be scrutinized and whether or not he had willingly lent his name to the conspiracy."

In many ways, this trial pitted Jackson's word versus Cominskey's, with a verdict to be rendered by a jury who had access to all available evidence. They could look into the eyes of the defendants and plaintiff, listen to cross-examination, observe body language and intonation, and decide for themselves whose version was closest to the truth. Mr. Carney believes it's highly significant that - where ten votes were needed for Jackson to win his case - he got eleven. "Eleven of twelve jurors believed Jackson had played every game to win. And that he had not received the $5000 from Williams until the Series was over. And that he had not been in on the conspiracy. And that he deserved his back pay."

We also learn from reporter Frank G. Menke of some of the incredible admissions made by Comisky at this trial: "His $10,000 reward for information was a bluff, as it was made after he knew the Series was crooked, who was in on the Fix, and `practically all of the details.' He admitted at the trial that he knew the identity of the crooked players two days after the Series but made no attempt to get signed statements, and permitted them to play in 1920. He admitted that Jackson played all games to win." Menke's conclusion was that Cominsky had engineered a cover-up of the Fix, and that it nearly succeeded.

The book sounds like it's saying Jackson was less culpable than his punishment suggests, and that Comiskey is even more culpable.

[jtur88]

Mathematically, it is amazing how little a player would have to do to throw a series. Given 500 ABs, the difference between a .315 hitter (Roberto Clemente) and a .275 hitter (Richie Hebner) is 24 hits, or one hit every 6.4 games. So a batter who doesn't hustle to beat out a grouinder, or who gets thrown out making a poor slide trying to stretch a hit, once in the course of a 7-game series, had reduced his contributory BA by 40 points. If several players in unison were to reduce their hit total to just one below merit, or fail to make a compensatory sparkling play in the field just once, it would very likely alter the result of a moderately close series, by turning several Clementes into Hebners. Any good gambler would know this.

For this reason, I am unswayed by the observation that a player's actual stats through the series is evidence that he was or was not in on the fix.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Triad

Your assessment doesn't seem to agree with the following overview of the same book...
The book sounds like it's saying Jackson was less culpable than his punishment suggests, and that Comiskey is even more culpable.

Yes, well I've read the book and you've read a blurb. I am 100 % confident of every representation I made in my post concerning what the book reveals and among those revelations, Jackson not playing to win is not on the list I provided, is it? Look again.

That popular sentiment swayed a jury toward a star ballplayer isn't the sort of evidence I was referencing.

[LongtimeBravesFan]

I read a book co-written by Jim Bouton and a former umpire. It was about an umpire who had been hired to fix a divsion decidng game and the pitcher for the team that was supposed to lose. Bouton and the ump took turns writing chapters, 18 total, a top and bottom of nine "innings". Bouton wrote the top half from the pitcher's point of view, with the bottom half being told by the umpire.

Anyway, at one point late in the book, the ump said (to the reader) that he had only made six calls wrong on purpose.

While the book was fiction, I'd imagine (or at least hope) the umpire put a lot of thought into how he could fix a game. Changing the call on one pitch can change how later pitches to the batter happen.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I am unswayed by the observation that a player's actual stats through the series is evidence that he was or was not in on the fix.

Here was Jackson's line for the Series:

AB: 32
H: 12
2B: 3
HR: 1
RBI: 6
SO: 2
BAvg: .375

It would seem he was more on the side of helping his team win than not helping them win. In fact, of all the batters on both teams, he statistically helped his team more than any of the others. If the charge is that Jackson somehow held back, then that sure sets a high standard for how well he was expected to perform. You do better than anyone else in the Series, and that's still not good enough?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Jackson not playing to win is not on the list I provided, is it?

You made the distinction between Jackson and Weaver, saying Weaver should've only gotten a suspension. The review I cited indicated that it was determined in the civil suit that Jackson did not receive the $5000 in advance, and was not in on the conspiracy.

Eleven of twelve jurors believed Jackson had played every game to win. And that he had not received the $5000 from Williams until the Series was over. And that he had not been in on the conspiracy.

Your points about Jackson:

A) Knew that the fix was in before the start of the Series and knew the identities of those involved in the scheme.
>> No different from Weaver.

B) Accepted a $5000 payment delivered to him at his hotel room by those who recruited him and fully understood that this money was in exchange for his participation in the conspiracy.
>> Disputed in the quote I gave.

C) Played in games where he knew that the outcome was not being truly contested by his own club.
>> No different from Weaver.

D) Kept confidence with the conspirators throughout the length of the Series and revealed the fix to no one until forced to do so before a grand jury.
>> No different from Weaver.

So then what you're left with is that Jackson was as culpable as Weaver, whom you regarded as only deserving a suspension.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

That popular sentiment swayed a jury toward a star ballplayer isn't the sort of evidence I was referencing.

Isn't it appropriate though that he be judged by a jury of his peers, and not a dictatorial commissioner?

[Triad]

Looking at the overall question another way, we've basically had 130 years of baseball history, with the number of players heavily tipped to the last 40 years. Essentially, the first 90 years amounts to about 50 player-seasons when gauged by the last 40 years. So we have about 90 years worth of history when compressing to the current trend of teams and players. In those "90" years, we've got the following players who are possibly being kept out of the Hall of Fame who are deserving by most accounts:

Pete Rose
Joe Jackson
Mark McGwire
Barry Bonds
Sammy Sosa
Rafael Palmeiro
Roger Clemens

That's nearly one player per decade, on average. So on that trend, 100 years from now we could expect the list to be about 15 players on the outside looking in who would otherwise be first-tier Hall of Famers. That's almost enough to start another Hall of Fame, or at least its own wing. How do we reasonably expect to leave such a substantial amount of the game's best players out? It's antithetical, and I believe it will become more obviously so as time goes on. The Hall of Fame will be incomplete without them.

[Grandstander]

triad:

You made the distinction between Jackson and Weaver, saying Weaver should've only gotten a suspension. The review I cited indicated that it was determined in the civil suit that Jackson did not receive the $5000 in advance, and was not in on the conspiracy.

The blurb writer is incorrect.

Period.

Jackson lost the case. Further, the book contains passages describing Jackson's rather idiotic attempt to "return" the money to Charles Commiskey, hoping that this would make everything go away. Exactly how do you return money that you have never received? There is not the slightest doubt that Jackson received and retained the $5000 given to him in his hotel room by his co conspirators. None at all. Jackson admitted this in his confession. Jackson admitted this when he attempted to "return" the money. Jackson is on record as having stated that he turned the money over to his wife. Jackson accepted and kept the money, that is why his case is different from Weaver's. Consider the two examples of behavior. Weaver was approached and informed of the scheme and offered money to particpate. His instant reaction was....leave me out of this, I will not participate, I will not take your money, I will not play at anything less than my best. Jackson was approached with the same deal....he took the money and kept his mouth shut.

Rather than defending this blurb writer of whom you know nothing, why not read the book and find out for yourself? My patience for this sort of thing is limited.

Isn't it appropriate though that he be judged by a jury of his peers, and not a dictatorial commissioner?

His suspension was entirely a private, civil matter. MLB is a privately operated enterprise and may make whatever rules it wishes provided they violate no laws. No trial, no jury, is required to fire him from his job because he indulged in unethical behavior related to the performance of that job.

Further, your faith in the integrity of Illinois juries in the early 1920's strikes me as ridiculous. The first trial, the one where the eight were charged with defrauding the public and throwing the series, was a farce from start to finish. The players were cheered by the spectators coming and going each day, Charles Commiskey, the one supposedly defrauded, was paying the fees for the player's defense attorneys, the written, signed confessions of Cicotte, Williams and Jackson were stolen from the DA's office and even though copies were still available, they were deemed inadmissable by the judge. After exonerating the players, the jury members helped carry them out of the courtroom on their shoulders and spent the night partying with them in celebration. All that sound like it was on the up and up to you?

Jury of their peers....indeed.

I am reporting facts....I have read the book and I am reporting facts. All of the representations I made are backed by evidence presented in the book and the evidence is overwhelming. Your man Jackson was dishonest. You want to make a hero out of someone who took money to help defraud the fans, that is your choice. It isn't mine. I would rather see an honest player who was lousy at the game get enshrined, than the greatest player who wasn't honest.

I suspect that you are the victim of the romanticizing of Jackson which has taken place ever since "Sholess Joe" was written and then turned into "Field of Dreams." That stuff only works on a dramatic level if you begin with the false premise that Jackson was some innocent who didn't understand what was going on and and never would have participated if he had. That just isn't true. Jackson was good friends with the crooked players. The White Sox in 1919 were a faction torn club. One set was centered on Eddie Collins, "College Boy" and was a collective of the more educated, more serious, less rowdy players. The rival faction was led by Chick Gandel and was composed of the less educated, hard drinking, hard partying blue collar/agricultural background players, naturally the illiterate Southerner Jackson was drawn to the latter group. All eight of the dishonest players were from the Gandel group, they were friends. So even if Jackson did not wish to participate in throwing games, he still faced the conflict of having to rat out his friends on the club, as did Weaver. Weaver refused to play dishonestly and refused to take any money. Jackson, regardless of his intentions or his play, took the money and kept silent. Now, where we might see Weaver as misguided but noble, placing loyalty to friends ahead of the integrity of the game, Jackson also had 5 grand as his motivation for "protecting" his friends.

Read the book.....don't argue facts with me when you are just guessing. I get the feeling that on this issue, you are going to be immune to facts no matter what. Your impulse seems to be to want to excuse all offending players of all lowball conduct. I don't feel that way. My feeling is that any conduct by a player which brings into question whether or not the games are being played honestly and fairly, is conduct which justifies removing them from MLB on a permanent basis and denying them any post career honors.

[Triad]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

His suspension was entirely a private, civil matter. MLB is a privately operated enterprise and may make whatever rules it wishes provided they violate no laws. No trial, no jury, is required to fire him from his job because he indulged in unethical behavior related to the performance of that job.

I will read the book eventually, but I'm curious if it talks about why Landis waited until right after the trial to ban the players. This seems like opportunism at its finest. The timing would suggest that Landis was hoping that the legal system would give him a good excuse to ban the players, but when it didn't, he decided he'd become his own legal system.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

After exonerating the players, the jury members helped carry them out of the courtroom on their shoulders and spent the night partying with them in celebration. All that sound like it was on the up and up to you?

It sounds like they were quite biased for the players indeed, which to me is a separate issue. Does that mean another method should have been used in its place? How else was Jackson to get due process?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I suspect that you are the victim of the romanticizing of Jackson which has taken place ever since "Sholess Joe" was written and then turned into "Field of Dreams."

I'm saying he was likely the lesser of the evils in the whole situation. You haven't seemed to want to say anything bad about Landis or Comiskey. If people are so vehement about Jackson's unworthiness to stay in the league, what about those two figures? I'm just wanting to hear a consistent position.

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I get the feeling that on this issue, you are going to be immune to facts no matter what. Your impulse seems to be to want to excuse all offending players of all lowball conduct.

I think sports are far too politicized, and I believe that we further contribute to the corruptness of the governing bodies in sports when we treat them as legislators of honor. I believe that what happened on the field was authorized by the league, and if the records were not reversed, then they should be respected. There's this dilemma of major league baseball and the Hall of Fame each trying to condemn the sinner without condemning the accompanying team results. Clemens and Pettitte played on championship teams. So did Canseco and McGwire. Many others in the Mitchell report did as well. You suggest a very arbitrary and jagged line to try to say the individual's performance is invalid, while also saying that the performance as it reflects his team is not invalid. If Clemens truly had some advantage over the other players, then that would mean the Yankees had that same advantage over other teams in the World Series. Why the disconnect here?

Originally Posted by Grandstander

My feeling is that any conduct by a player which brings into question whether or not the games are being played honestly and fairly, is conduct which justifies removing them from MLB on a permanent basis and denying them any post career honors.

Then how do you apply this to team results? Do you seriously think that the owners and managers aren't often complicit in these matters?

I think the only possible unhypocritical stance to take is that what happens on the field as sanctioned by MLB at the time (unless there is a specific review of certain specific individual occurrences) is to be respected. This retroactive cleansing doesn't wash. It's an unrealistic idealism to assume that it accomplishes anything substantive. All it does is create a false sense of jurisprudence on the integrity of the game. It finds a scapegoat and attacks him, then everyone is happy for a time. It's not all that different in principle from the sacrificial nature of treating the manager when a team is going bad (he's outta there). The move is made to appease, and the manager becomes a political pawn. So goes the player who raised suspicions from his actions that many in the league were engaged in nefarious deeds. In the eyes of the league, he must be made an example of, and at the same time it supposedly makes them look angelic and interested in things being on the up and up — all the while their deeds are on the same level of those they are demonizing.

No, the whole solution in terms of legend is to let it all ride and leave out the political nature of the sport. We're fooling ourselves if we think the self-policing of the ownership and league officials is bringing about justice for all.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by LongtimeBravesFan

While the book was fiction, I'd imagine (or at least hope) the umpire put a lot of thought into how he could fix a game. Changing the call on one pitch can change how later pitches to the batter happen.

This got me to thinking. Umpires who make it to the post season are salaried at around 200K to 300K, so are much cheaper to get to than a player. But with the cameras now in use, it would be very hard for an ump to make 2 or 3 bad calls in one game, all favoring the same team. I guess one could counterbalance those with bad calls favoring the other team, at junctures much less likely to be critical. That would give an appearence of balance, but certainly not of competence, and hell would be raised.

An umpire that makes just one bad call at a seemingly relevant point, would have an effect only if the game would have been close in any case, which many games are not, and he could turn a 9-1 game into a 9-4 game, which would be of no value. Only a plate ump would be able to influence the game. Calls made by the others are too infrequent and obvious. Your plate ump in on the fix only gets to do one game.

So who is cheap, that could influence a game? A batboy, by giving a superstar a cracked bat with crucial runners on base, which might still be a bloop double? A clubhouse attendant, by spiking the Gatorade tank with some mild depressant?

Players salaries are too high for the gamblers to afford them. Any player with a regular slot in a post-season game would have th expectatin of makkng at least ten million in his career. You could get to a bench plyer with diminishing prospects, but he might never get into a game, or handle a ball if he does.