Shoeless Joe Jackson
Breck Denman Phillips
I am doing a paper on Shoeless Joe Jackson of the 1919 White Sox. In this
paper I am arguing that he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The
reason he has not been inducted is because he took part in the fixing of
the 1919 World Series and also took money to loose the Series. I see no
evidence in his performance in the Series that proves he tried to throw
the Series. If anyone has any information or an opinion about this topic
I would appreciate it if you would send it to me.
Shawn Krest
Kevin Costner has a pretty strong opinion on the subject. Rent "Field of
Dreams":)
Also, when Jackson allegedly "took money to lose the Series"...he was
"Fixing" it. They were not two separate events.
I think he should be in the Hall, myself.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN
KREST
drh...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu
Roger Lustig
Jackson's fielding has long been considered suspect in that Series.
Also, there's no question that he took the money.
Jackson participated in an effort to destroy the integrity of baseball.
Why put him in the HoF?
Roger
Andrew C. Pachmayer
: In article <2n6ssv$n...@server.st.usm.edu>,
I have written a paper on Shoeless Joe in High School. I would get
the book 8 men out, and read that, it goes into a little more detail
about things. Also I found a few articles about him, and they were
very interesting about his personal life, although you'll have to
search for those yourself. If I find anything else I'll let you
know.
Andrew C. Pachmayer -- acpa...@mtu.edu
Charlie Saeger
There is apparently a pretty good history of the White Sox called 'Who's
on Third?' That apparently has material relating to Joe Jackson.
A little question: why Shoeless Joe?
Charlie Saeger
> SHOELESS JOE TOOK THE MONEY!
Of course he did. And he should have been banned, along with Cicotte,
Williams, Risberg, McMullin, Gandil, and Felsch (the reasons for banning
Buck Weaver are really petty), as well as the crook at the top, Charlie
Comiskey, who liked to let his players win but not earn money, the whole
cause for this fiasco (and, if you say then the players are not to blame,
remember that Schalk, Kerr, and Faber did not take the money). And, while
we're at it, kick Commy out of Cooperstown.
Basically, though, Ban Johnson made the right choice.
Tonia Lorenz
The True Story of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the 1919 World Series" by
Donald Gropman (1979, Lynx Books, NYC). Also, "Hoopla" by Harry Stein
(1983, St. Martin's Press, NYC). This last one is a novel, but it is set
against the backdrop of the 1919 Series and appears to have been very
heavily (and well-) researched.
Nelson Algren (Chicago's poet laureate - whatta guy!) wrote a
heart-breaking poem summarizing the whole thing called "The Swede Was a
Hard Guy" which should appear in any of his anthologies.
The Chicago Historical Society had an excellent long exhibit on the Black
Sox Scandal about 5 years ago, so they may have reference materials to
send to you too. Not sure, but it may be worth a call.
And last, the movie "Eight Men Out" (although it had to be shortened so it
didn't run for eight hours) is pretty close to the book, so if you're more
into movies than reading, it's not like you're going to get a totally
different story if you rent the video instead of reading the book.
After reading the above listed books and other articles, I'm about 60/40
that Joe should be in the Hall of Fame. One of the things that these
books point out is that there is some pretty credible evidence that Tris
Speaker and Ty Cobb, among others, were involved in throwing games around
the same time, but were never prosecuted, partially because of the fear of
giving baseball more of a public black eye in the wake of the Black Sox
trial. (Both quit baseball rather than face the charges -- when they were
talked back into the game, neither of their teams wanted them back, so
they finished with other teams.)
So, I believe that Joe was an example -- and if the other guys did just
what he did and ended up in the Hall, he should be there too. Can't
defend what he did (took the money even thought I don't think he played to
lose), but don't think he should be singled out for "banishment," either.
Good luck with your paper!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tonia in Chicago E-mail: tlo...@interaccess.com
"The whole point of life is to get your work done so you can go to the
ballpark." -- George Will
CGB Kahrl
Since Jackson took the money, confessed, later said he only "poked at the
ball" in important situations, and allowed *3* triples to be hit to
leftfield (only Dave Kingman could do this and not be suspected of foul,
well, mysterious play), he seems pretty guilty of trying to pervert the
great game. Since everybody tries to forgive Shoeless Joe, or Strawberry,
or Coleman, or Richard Nixon, or North, or Clinton or everybody else who
is/was a public figure who commits crimes, why don't you take up a more
exciting challenge and try to paint Hal Chase as a victim of society or a
product of his times?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McKinley: God, should I annex the Phillippines?
God: Yes.
Gridley, you may fire when ready.
CGBK Orinst 207
Mark Andrew Gannon
>In article <2n6ssv$n...@server.st.usm.edu>, bphi...@whale.st.usm.edu (Breck
>Denman Phillips) wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am doing a paper on Shoeless Joe Jackson of the 1919 White Sox. In this
>> paper I am arguing that he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The
>> reason he has not been inducted is because he took part in the fixing of
>> the 1919 World Series and also took money to loose the Series. I see no
>> evidence in his performance in the Series that proves he tried to throw
>> the Series. If anyone has any information or an opinion about this topic
>> I would appreciate it if you would send it to me.
>Since Jackson took the money, confessed, later said he only "poked at the
>ball" in important situations, and allowed *3* triples to be hit to
>leftfield (only Dave Kingman could do this and not be suspected of foul,
>well, mysterious play), he seems pretty guilty of trying to pervert the
>great game. Since everybody tries to forgive Shoeless Joe, or Strawberry,
>or Coleman, or Richard Nixon, or North, or Clinton or everybody else who
Shoeless Joe: took money to throw the World Series.
Strawberry: various assault/battery and tax evasion charges.
Coleman: injured small child with firecracker.
Nixon: OK'd a break-in at the Watergate Hotel and covered it up.
North: violated federal laws, later lied to Congress about it.
Destroyed evidence.
Clinton? Please tell me of what crime Clinton has been accused.
>is/was a public figure who commits crimes, why don't you take up a more
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As long as you're going to say "commits crimes," I'm going to go a step
further- what crimes did Clinton commit? Even Phil Gramm hasn't said
that Clinton has comitted crimes.
>exciting challenge and try to paint Hal Chase as a victim of society or a
>product of his times?
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>McKinley: God, should I annex the Phillippines?
>God: Yes.
>Gridley, you may fire when ready.
>CGBK Orinst 207
--Mark
:-b
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"NEVER do second order perturbation theory." --Toby Falk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Sedinger
> In article <2n6ssv$n...@server.st.usm.edu>, bphi...@whale.st.usm.edu (Breck Denman Phillips) writes:
> >
> >I am doing a paper on Shoeless Joe Jackson of the 1919 White Sox. In this
> >paper I am arguing that he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The
> >reason he has not been inducted is because he took part in the fixing of
> >the 1919 World Series and also took money to loose the Series. I see no
> >evidence in his performance in the Series that proves he tried to throw
> >the Series. If anyone has any information or an opinion about this topic
> >I would appreciate it if you would send it to me.
>
>
> SHOELESS JOE TOOK THE MONEY!!!!
>
> He is banned from the Hall of Fame for accepting a payoff to throw
> the series, not for throwing the serious. A crook who doesn't deliver
> on his contract is still a crook, right? Case closed, he admitted
> having accepted the money.
> -----------------------------
> Brent Hutto
I disagree. He may have accepted the money, but merely doing so does not
automatically make him a criminal. It may make him stupid, or even less
than moral, but one does not become a criminal unless one actually
commits a criminal act. If you paid me to kill your mother, and then I
didn't kill your mother, am I still a murderer?
---
====================================================
Lithium will no longer be available on credit.
Kelly Sedinger hs...@sbu.edu
====================================================
CGB Kahrl
gan...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu (Mark Andrew Gannon) wrote:
> Shoeless Joe: took money to throw the World Series.
> Strawberry: various assault/battery and tax evasion charges.
> Coleman: injured small child with firecracker.
> Nixon: OK'd a break-in at the Watergate Hotel and covered it up.
> North: violated federal laws, later lied to Congress about it.
> Destroyed evidence.
> Clinton? Please tell me of what crime Clinton has been accused.
>
> >is/was a public figure who commits crimes, why don't you take up a more
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> As long as you're going to say "commits crimes," I'm going to go a step
> further- what crimes did Clinton commit? Even Phil Gramm hasn't said
> that Clinton has comitted crimes.
You are right of course. I just couldn't come up with a token corrupt
Democrat off the top of my head. I suppose Rostenkowski or Bert Lance would
have been better selections. Usually Democrats seem too high-minded to be
guilty of something you go to jail for; instead they produce lame-brains
like Jerry Brown, Zorba the Clerk, David Dinkins, or Pat
Schroeder...Please, back to baseball.
Robert J. Goniea
:
: Shoeless Joe: took money to throw the World Series.
: Strawberry: various assault/battery and tax evasion charges.
: Coleman: injured small child with firecracker.
: Nixon: OK'd a break-in at the Watergate Hotel and covered it up.
: North: violated federal laws, later lied to Congress about it.
: Destroyed evidence.
: Clinton? Please tell me of what crime Clinton has been accused.
:
: >is/was a public figure who commits crimes, why don't you take up a more
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: As long as you're going to say "commits crimes," I'm going to go a step
: further- what crimes did Clinton commit? Even Phil Gramm hasn't said
: that Clinton has comitted crimes.
Excuse me, you have heard of the WHITEWATER fiasco havent you? Both of the
Clintons are accused of being involved in this incident and have in recent
months tried to hide evidence on the issue, the later charge being very
similar to Oliver North destroying evidence in his operation. North was
roasted by congress for doing that, why should we accept anything less if
the head of the White house and her husband are accused of the same thing?
I know this thread started off as a discussion of ballplayers breaking the
rules, but if the thread continues any further in the Clinton direction then
I would suggest it be taken over to one of the political newsgroups.
Bob G.
GO TIGERS!!!!!!!!
Roger Lustig
>In article c...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu, hu...@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu () writes:
>> In article <2n6ssv$n...@server.st.usm.edu>, bphi...@whale.st.usm.edu (Breck Denman Phillips) writes:
>> My opinion is simple.
>> SHOELESS JOE TOOK THE MONEY!!!!
>> He is banned from the Hall of Fame for accepting a payoff to throw
>> the series, not for throwing the serious. A crook who doesn't deliver
>> on his contract is still a crook, right? Case closed, he admitted
>> having accepted the money.
>I disagree. He may have accepted the money, but merely doing so does not
>automatically make him a criminal.
Bribery is a crime, as is accepting a bribe.
>It may make him stupid, or even less
>than moral, but one does not become a criminal unless one actually
>commits a criminal act. If you paid me to kill your mother, and then I
>didn't kill your mother, am I still a murderer?
No, but you're guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
Roger
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
>Mark Andrew Gannon (gan...@sbphy.physics.ucsb.edu) wrote:
>:
>: Shoeless Joe: took money to throw the World Series.
>: Strawberry: various assault/battery and tax evasion charges.
>: Coleman: injured small child with firecracker.
>: Nixon: OK'd a break-in at the Watergate Hotel and covered it up.
>: North: violated federal laws, later lied to Congress about it.
>: Destroyed evidence.
>: Clinton? Please tell me of what crime Clinton has been accused.
>:
>: >is/was a public figure who commits crimes, why don't you take up a more
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: As long as you're going to say "commits crimes," I'm going to go a step
>: further- what crimes did Clinton commit? Even Phil Gramm hasn't said
>: that Clinton has comitted crimes.
>:
>Excuse me, you have heard of the WHITEWATER fiasco havent you? Both of the
>Clintons are accused of being involved in this incident and have in recent
>months tried to hide evidence on the issue,
I presume you were in the White House and saw them do this. Otherwise, you
know, they could very easily sue you for libel, since there is not one iota
of proof that this is true. Heck, I don't think that a single elected
CongressionalRepublican has claimed that this latter thing is true..
the later charge being very
>similar to Oliver North destroying evidence in his operation.
Hmm. Make up your mind. One sentence ago you said that they "tried to
hide evidence." Now you seem to be retracting this, saying only that
they've been charged.
Of course, they haven't been charged with anything either. They've
probably been accused, but then they've also been accused of being
space aliens by the Weekly World News.
North was
>roasted by congress for doing that, why should we accept anything less if
>the head of the White house and her husband are accused of the same thing?
You seem to be a bit confused. North was roasted for doing something
wrong. You don't roast someone for being accussed of doing something
wrong. You wait to see how investigations turn out, what evidence turns
up, etc.
If Bill Clinton turns out to be guilty of being a space alien, I'll
be among the first to call for impeachment procedings.
>I know this thread started off as a discussion of ballplayers breaking the
>rules, but if the thread continues any further in the Clinton direction then
>I would suggest it be taken over to one of the political newsgroups.
There's nothing political about this argument; it has nothing to do with
politics. It is no more reasonable to declare Bill Clinton a criminal
than it is to declare that Brooks Robinson was better than Mike Schmidt.
If evidence becomes available that shows otherwise, then it will be quite
appropriate to label him as such. But as of now, it is very premature.
(Of course, I think its safe to say that there will never be evidence
that shows Robinson as better than Schmidt).
Ken Speich (I-Hole Hater)
> bphi...@whale.st.usm.edu (Breck Denman Phillips) writes:
>>
>>I am doing a paper on Shoeless Joe Jackson of the 1919 White Sox. In this
>>paper I am arguing that he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The
>>reason he has not been inducted is because he took part in the fixing of
>>the 1919 World Series and also took money to loose the Series. I see no
>>evidence in his performance in the Series that proves he tried to throw
>>the Series. If anyone has any information or an opinion about this topic
>>I would appreciate it if you would send it to me.
>>
>
>Jackson's fielding has long been considered suspect in that Series.
>
>Also, there's no question that he took the money.
country bumpkin who didn't know anything but baseball... He was probably easy
take advantage of...
>
>Jackson participated in an effort to destroy the integrity of baseball.
>Why put him in the HoF?
is not in the Hall... and even in that series, when he was supposed to be
"tanking it", he was still the best player on the field... He was definitely
one of the greatest ever, and that's why he deserves to be in the Hall...
>
>Roger
--Just my $.01 (too poor for two cents... I'm in college!)
--Kenny
--
ke...@mail.csh.rit.edu "You have to laugh once a day, because
kas...@ultb.rit.edu a day without sunshine is like... night!"
kas...@ritvax.rit.edu --Steve Martin
The New York Rangers shall prevail in 1993-94 !!!!!
Sandra Vigil
Another source (Besides _Eight Men Out_ ) is _Shoeless Joe and Ragtime
Baseball_, whose author escapes me at the moment.
/S
--
"It's good, you know, when you got a * *
woman who is a friend of your mind." Sandra Vigil
- Beloved vi...@esca.com
Toni Morrison * *
Eric Roush
: In article c...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu, hu...@SMTC.engr.scarolina.edu () writes:
: > In article <2n6ssv$n...@server.st.usm.edu>, bphi...@whale.st.usm.edu (Breck Denman Phillips) writes:
: > >
: > >I am doing a paper on Shoeless Joe Jackson of the 1919 White Sox. In this
: > >paper I am arguing that he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The
: > >reason he has not been inducted is because he took part in the fixing of
: > >the 1919 World Series and also took money to loose the Series. I see no
: > >evidence in his performance in the Series that proves he tried to throw
: > >the Series. If anyone has any information or an opinion about this topic
: > >I would appreciate it if you would send it to me.
: >
: > My opinion is simple.
: >
: > SHOELESS JOE TOOK THE MONEY!!!!
: >
: > He is banned from the Hall of Fame for accepting a payoff to throw
: > the series, not for throwing the serious. A crook who doesn't deliver
: > on his contract is still a crook, right? Case closed, he admitted
: > having accepted the money.
: > -----------------------------
: > Brent Hutto
: I disagree. He may have accepted the money, but merely doing so does not
: automatically make him a criminal. It may make him stupid, or even less
: than moral, but one does not become a criminal unless one actually
: commits a criminal act. If you paid me to kill your mother, and then I
: didn't kill your mother, am I still a murderer?
A murderer, maybe not. A criminal, definitely. Conspiracy
to commit murder is a crime, regardless of whether the murder
is actually committed. Besides, if we wanted to get picky,
you might also be guilty of fraud, or taking money under
false pretenses, although I'm not sure that contracts to
commit crimes are binding. Ted?
--
Eric Roush | No one's gonna give a damn in July
also coache@ | if you lost a game in March.
aol.com | Earl Weaver
hmmm...time to change the sig...