Shoeless Joe, a HOF?
Jstu9
There is a big article in TB Daily, but I'll just post some morsels from it.
Hall of Famer Ted Williams has petitioned both the Commissioner of
Baseball's office and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum to
make the late "Shoeless Joe" Jackson eligible for induction into
Cooperstown.
Williams has called on Major League Baseball "to right an injustice" by
restoring Jackson to its eligible list and has asked the Hall of Fame to
lift its ban on the late slugger.
"Joe Jackson's not alive any more," added Williams, referring to
Commissioner Kenesaw Landis' ban of the Black Sox star. "He's served
his sentence and it's time for baseball to acknowledge his debt is paid
and the Hall of Fame Committee on Veterans to list him as a nominee.
"Shoeless Joe lost his livelihood and brilliant career by virtue of a
10-minute statement by Judge (baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain)
Landis. The punishment was meted out within hours of a jury verdict
which found the players 'not guilty,' and was carried out without
any opportunity to be heard, without any findings as to the alleged guilty
acts in the sentence."
This might get interesting. I don't think anyone questions Shoeless Joe's HOF
credentials. It will be interesting to see if there is any sympathy towards
Jackson and if the feeling is that he truly has "served his time." Also, it
will interesting for Pete Rose and maybe the other "8 Men Out."
jls
Sean Lahman
Jstu9 wrote:
> This might get interesting. I don't think anyone questions Shoeless
> Joe's HOF credentials. It will be interesting to see if there is any
> sympathy towards Jackson and if the feeling is that he truly has
> "served his time." Also, it will interesting for Pete Rose and maybe
> the other "8 Men Out."
I don't think it's really pertinent to anyone besides Rose and Jackson.
Nobody's going to clamor to get Swede Risberg into the hall if he gets
reinstated.
The issue, of course, is whether one horrible incident tarnishes an
otherwise exceptional career. The HOF says "yes, it does" as a matter
of their policy. That has also been, by and large, the public sentiment
over the years.
It's important to remember that Jackson was eligible for nearly fifty
years, and received essentially no support as a HOF candidate. In the
very first election (1936), only two of 226 voters put him on their
ballot. In 1946 he received another two votes (out of 202) during the
nomination process.
Contrary to what Ted Williams thinks, Jackson isn't absent because he's
not an eligible candidate. He's absent because the voters have always
felt that he should be excluded. Maybe that opionion will change in
time, but it won't result from an edict from Major League Baseball.
Williams has a better chance of getting the MVP results from 1942
changed than getting Joe Jackson reinstated.
--
Sean Lahman / se...@baseball1.com
The Baseball Archive - http://www.baseball1.com
Paul C
I don't think it is too fair to use the quantity of votes Jackson
garnered in those early years as a yardstick to decide if he deserves to
be in the HOF by virtue of the election process. When the HOF was
started, there was 60 years worth of baseball stars to vote on. As great
as Jackson was, it would be hard to vote him past the 1st 5
inductees--Cobb, Ruth, Wagner Matthewson, Johnson. This past election we
were down to the likes of Sutton. Another thing is that as time went on,
my conjecture is that more bias was mounted against Jackson, so he
wasn't going to get in no matter what.
Having said all that, I totally agree with the writers in the mandate
that up to this point has been levied against Jackson. It's not even a
question in my mind of how great a ballplayer Jackson was. The thing is
he helped in throwing a World Series. He even tried to vindicate himself
with owner, Comiskey, but the crime had already been commited. It
doesn't matter the court system claimed he was innocent. That just means
he didn't do anything wrong from a legal perspective. From a baseball
perspective, it was simply dispicable. He played a part in forever
changing the history of baseball. To accord him the highest honor in
baseball after he done that would be a crime in itself.
One more thing. It has been pointed out several times over the years his
375 avg in that series, the only series home run, and the fact he
commited no errors in a series that was littered with 24 of them. It
still doesn't matter. His home run did come in the final game that was
lost by an 8-4 count. After checking out the play by plays of those
games several of his hits were meaningless. Those facts notwithstanding,
he was still in on the fix. I say Jackson is in his proper place with
respect to the HOF--on the outside looking in.
Wheat Thin
In article <34C3B0...@baseball1.com>,
Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think it's really pertinent to anyone besides Rose and Jackson.
>Nobody's going to clamor to get Swede Risberg into the hall if he gets
>reinstated.
No. But someone might plead Ed Cicotte's case.
>The issue, of course, is whether one horrible incident tarnishes an
>otherwise exceptional career. The HOF says "yes, it does" as a matter
>of their policy. That has also been, by and large, the public sentiment
>over the years.
>
>It's important to remember that Jackson was eligible for nearly fifty
>years, and received essentially no support as a HOF candidate. In the
>very first election (1936), only two of 226 voters put him on their
>ballot. In 1946 he received another two votes (out of 202) during the
>nomination process.
>
>Contrary to what Ted Williams thinks, Jackson isn't absent because he's
>not an eligible candidate. He's absent because the voters have always
>felt that he should be excluded. Maybe that opionion will change in
>time, but it won't result from an edict from Major League Baseball.
>
>Williams has a better chance of getting the MVP results from 1942
>changed than getting Joe Jackson reinstated.
Perhaps. But while Jackson wasn't "excluded" per se from the Hall of Fame
until fairly recently, my guess is that he really was excluded, in that the
voters interpreted Judge Landis' ban as including the hall of fame and
so did not even consider voting for him. What with all the support Jackson
has gotten in the last fifteen years from movies and sympathetic writers,
I'd say if the ban was lifted he would probably get in. I doubt, however,
that the ban will get lifted.
Good luck to Mr. Williams with the '42 (and moreover '47) MVP's, though.
--
Tommy J.M.D. Strong
tst...@reed.edu
Gerry Myerson
> I don't think it's really pertinent to anyone besides Rose and Jackson.
> Nobody's going to clamor to get Swede Risberg into the hall if he gets
> reinstated.
With any kind of normal career continuation past 1920, Cicotte would have
been a very strong candidate. Lefty Williams & Buck Weaver were in the
too-early-to-tell-but-definite-potential category. That was one heck of
a good team, when they played to win....
Gerry Myerson (ge...@mpce.mq.edu.au)
James Tuttle
Jstu9 wrote:
>
> Hall of Famer Ted Williams has petitioned both the Commissioner of
> Baseball's office and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
> to make the late "Shoeless Joe" Jackson eligible for induction into
> Cooperstown.
Good for Ted. This makes Ted a good guy in my book.
> Williams has called on Major League Baseball "to right an
> injustice" by restoring Jackson to its eligible list and has asked
> the Hall of Fame to lift its ban on the late slugger.
Ted's right.
> "Joe Jackson's not alive any more," added Williams, referring to
> Commissioner Kenesaw Landis' ban of the Black Sox star. "He's
> served his sentence and it's time for baseball to acknowledge his
> debt is paid and the Hall of Fame Committee on Veterans to list him
> as a nominee.
And he's right for the third time. I think Ted Williams is a pretty
influential fella. Now if we could get Tiger Woods and Bill Clinton to
lend their support, maybe Joe can get in.
Besides, I like his name -- "Shoeless." A lot of those old guys had
really neat nicknames like "Old Hoss," "King Kong," "Iron Man," "The Big
Train," and "The Old Perfesser." We need a "Shoeless" in the HoF. Lots
better than a "Charley Hustle."
Baseball players today lack the color of the old guys. "The Big Cat" is
a retread, and labeling Ismael Valdes as the "Rocket" just doesn't do
it. On the other hand, we have the "Tornado," and until recently, "The
Wizard of Oz." I like the last one. Maybe he'll get in someday.
Dan Szymborski
In article <6a18u9$pol$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, Paul C says...
> He even tried to vindicate himself
> with owner, Comiskey, but the crime had already been commited. It
> doesn't matter the court system claimed he was innocent.
Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
--
Dan Szymborski--Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club
Wanted to Sell: One experienced GM. Comes equipped with Joe Carter and
Doug Drabek. Free to good home. Will pay for shipping.
www.baseballstuff.com - Home to lots of baseball...uh...stuff
James Weisberg
In article <6a0qhv$7...@anubis.reed.edu>, Wheat Thin <tst...@reed.edu> wrote:
>Perhaps. But while Jackson wasn't "excluded" per se from the Hall of Fame
>until fairly recently, my guess is that he really was excluded, in that the
>voters interpreted Judge Landis' ban as including the hall of fame and
>so did not even consider voting for him. What with all the support Jackson
>has gotten in the last fifteen years from movies and sympathetic writers,
>I'd say if the ban was lifted he would probably get in. I doubt, however,
>that the ban will get lifted.
Problem is, if that is true, he would likely get in for the
wrong reason. Sympathetic writers and movies have portrayed
Jackson as both a dupe and an honorable player that took money,
but didn't throw any games. What's more, these portrayals
tend to ignore the intrinsic danger to baseball of fixed games,
regardless of who was responsible for it and what they did.
The foremost question in my mind is if the HOF really
needs Joe Jackson. What is missing from the HOF without
his presence? I'd say, not much. At least not enough to
consider enshrining someone who admitted to taking money
to throw a World Series.
--
World's Greatest Living Poster.
David Loewe, Jr.
>In article <6a18u9$pol$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, Paul C says...
>> He even tried to vindicate himself
>> with owner, Comiskey, but the crime had already been commited. It
>> doesn't matter the court system claimed he was innocent.
>Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
Since 'innocent' is not an allowable verdict, there is _NO_ difference
in any quantifiable way. A clearly innocent person gets the same
verdict as one against whom the allegations merely cannot be proven
despite their guilt.
--
"When I hold you in my arms
And I feel my finger on your trigger
I know no one can do me no harm
because happiness is a warm gun.
Yes it is."
John Lennon and Paul McCartney
David Marc Nieporent
In <34c5d52d...@news.inlink.com>,
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
>Cze...@earthlink.net (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
>>In article <6a18u9$pol$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, Paul C says...
>>> He even tried to vindicate himself
>>> with owner, Comiskey, but the crime had already been commited. It
>>> doesn't matter the court system claimed he was innocent.
>>Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
>>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
>Since 'innocent' is not an allowable verdict, there is _NO_ difference
>in any quantifiable way. A clearly innocent person gets the same
>verdict as one against whom the allegations merely cannot be proven
>despite their guilt.
The difference is very important. It's not simply that "innocent is not
an allowable verdict." It's that the court system doesn't find people
innocent. Either you're proven guilty or you're not. The latter says
NOTHING about whether you did it.
People act as if the court said "Jackson didn't do it," but they said no
such thing.
--
David M. Nieporent How about that! I looked something up!
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu These books behind me don't just make the
1L - St. John's School of Law office look good, they're filled with
useful legal tidbits just like that! - L Hutz
Mike Jones
> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:29:11 -0500, Cze...@earthlink.net (Dan
> Szymborski) wrote:
> >In article <6a18u9$pol$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, Paul C says...
> >> He even tried to vindicate himself
> >> with owner, Comiskey, but the crime had already been commited. It
> >> doesn't matter the court system claimed he was innocent.
> >Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
> >guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
> Since 'innocent' is not an allowable verdict, there is _NO_ difference
> in any quantifiable way. A clearly innocent person gets the same
> verdict as one against whom the allegations merely cannot be proven
> despite their guilt.
Right , which means that it's incorrect to say that the court claimed he
was innocent.
Which is not to say that he *wasn't* innocent, just that the court didn't
say that.
David Cleary
The Pro Football Hall of Fame has admitted bad behavior people, like Paul
Hornung (who bet on games), in the past--but they make them wait a very
long time before they do.
Whether this is a good solution that be applied to the BBHoF in a matter
like this is another question.
Dave
David Grabiner
my3...@webtv.net (Paul C) writes:
> I don't think it is too fair to use the quantity of votes Jackson
> garnered in those early years as a yardstick to decide if he deserves to
> be in the HOF by virtue of the election process. When the HOF was
> started, there was 60 years worth of baseball stars to vote on. As great
> as Jackson was, it would be hard to vote him past the 1st 5
> inductees--Cobb, Ruth, Wagner Matthewson, Johnson. This past election we
> were down to the likes of Sutton.
But that doesn't apply to 1946: Chance, Evers, Huggins, Waddell, Walsh.
Jackson received two votes to Chance's 144. It's a good-quality ballot,
but not bursting with clear choices of the caliber of the 1936 ballot:
others on it inlcuded Frisch, Hubbell, and Grove. (Grove was only tenth.)
> Another thing is that as time went on,
> my conjecture is that more bias was mounted against Jackson, so he
> wasn't going to get in no matter what.
This might have accounted for Jackson's lack of showing after 1936, the
only other time he received a vote.
> Having said all that, I totally agree with the writers in the mandate
> that up to this point has been levied against Jackson. It's not even a
> question in my mind of how great a ballplayer Jackson was. The thing is
> he helped in throwing a World Series. He even tried to vindicate himself
> with owner, Comiskey, but the crime had already been commited. It
> doesn't matter the court system claimed he was innocent. That just means
> he didn't do anything wrong from a legal perspective.
This is particularly true since the court also found everyone else not
guilty, and since it was not a fair trial with the mysteriously
vanishing confessions.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
Robert Timmermann
David Cleary (dcl...@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:
: The Pro Football Hall of Fame has admitted bad behavior people, like Paul
Paul Hornung admitted to betting on his own team to win games. However,
unlike Joe Jackson he never testified before a grand jury that he knowingly
conspired to fix a game. This is an important distinction. Hornung's
situation is closer to Rose's than Jackson's.
--
Bob Timmermann
South Pasadena, CA
Librarian in a large unnamed city on the West Coast
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
In article <34C409...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> wrote:
>Jstu9 wrote:
>>
>> Hall of Famer Ted Williams has petitioned both the Commissioner of
>> Baseball's office and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
>> to make the late "Shoeless Joe" Jackson eligible for induction into
>> Cooperstown.
>
>Good for Ted. This makes Ted a good guy in my book.
>
Ted got a nice shiny star in my book because he was one of the big forces
that opened the Hall to Negro Leaguers. The star is a little less shiny
now. ...
>> Williams has called on Major League Baseball "to right an
>> injustice" by restoring Jackson to its eligible list and has asked
>> the Hall of Fame to lift its ban on the late slugger.
>
>Ted's right.
Ted wants to "right an injustice." Jackson played part in a scheme to
throw the World Series and got kicked out of baseball. What's the
injustice?
>Besides, I like his name -- "Shoeless." A lot of those old guys had
>really neat nicknames like "Old Hoss," "King Kong," "Iron Man," "The Big
>Train," and "The Old Perfesser." We need a "Shoeless" in the HoF. Lots
>better than a "Charley Hustle."
>
>Baseball players today lack the color of the old guys. "The Big Cat" is
>a retread, and labeling Ismael Valdes as the "Rocket" just doesn't do
>it. On the other hand, we have the "Tornado," and until recently, "The
>Wizard of Oz." I like the last one. Maybe he'll get in someday.
This is beacuse baseball is covered on TV and radio rather than in the
papers. If you write, then typing "Ted Williams" over and over again
gets old fast, so you get "the Kid", "the splendid splinter", "thumper"
and so on. Most nicknames are too long to say when you are on TV and
radio. Besides, those were just what the press used. I once had a
roommate ask me if I really thought that when DiMaggio ran into Williams
the conversation went like this:
"Hey Splendid Splinter, how's it going?"
"Not bad Yankee Clipper, how about you?"
David Marasco mar...@nwu.edu http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~dmarasco
"An object at rest cannot be stopped." - The Tick
James Tuttle
Innocent until proven guilty.
Verdict: Not guilty.
Therefore: Innocent until tried again.
But: No double jeopardy.
Therefore: No second trial.
Therefore: Innocent.
That still doesn't mean he didn't do it, since the standard for a
conviction is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," not "proof by the
preponderance of the evidence."
He belongs in the HoF regardless.
Stephen Shauger
David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>
> In <34c5d52d...@news.inlink.com>,
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
> >>In article <6a18u9$pol$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, Paul C says...
>
> >>> with owner, Comiskey, but the crime had already been commited. It
> >>> doesn't matter the court system claimed he was innocent.
>
> >>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
>
I've written this before, but I guess it bears repeating. The Black
Sox were not on trial for throwing the world series, because it
wasn't against the law. The trumped up charges were conspiracy to
defraud Charles Comiskey. The burden of proof was to show that not
only did they throw the world series, but that there intent was to
deprive Comiskey of profits and/or business assets; a harder thing to
prove. This is what they were found not guilty of.
Shauger
David Marc Nieporent
In <34C49C...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:
>Innocent until proven guilty.
That's a bumper sticker, not a statement of law. There's a legal
presumption of innocence. That doesn't mean the person IS innocent.
>Verdict: Not guilty.
>Therefore: Innocent until tried again.
>But: No double jeopardy.
>Therefore: No second trial.
>Therefore: Innocent.
No. Therefore, not legally culpable.
>That still doesn't mean he didn't do it, since the standard for a
>conviction is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," not "proof by the
>preponderance of the evidence."
>He belongs in the HoF regardless.
Sure. Somebody who throws the WS belongs in the HOF. Right after Hitler
gets the Nobel Peace Prize.
(There. Maybe THAT will end this thread.)
David Grabiner
James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> writes:
> Innocent until proven guilty.
> Verdict: Not guilty.
> Therefore: Innocent until tried again.
> But: No double jeopardy.
> Therefore: No second trial.
> Therefore: Innocent.
> That still doesn't mean he didn't do it, since the standard for a
> conviction is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," not "proof by the
> preponderance of the evidence."
Also, the court of public opinion doesn't have the same standards as the
court of Chicago. It can admit evidence from confessions which were
stolen from the courtroom (and later reappeared to be used against
Jackson in another case; see _Eight Men Out_ for details). In the court
of public opinion, Jackson admitted to accepting $5000 to throw the
World Series.
Verdict: guilty. Jackson was an accessory to the principal crime even
if he didn't commit it himself.
Sentence: left for you to decide.
There is also evidence that he may have cooperated to throw the World
Series; I believe he did (based on his performance in Games 1, 2, 4, and
5, which were thrown, ignoring 3, 6, and 7, which the Sox played to win
and won, and 8, which may have been thrown unilaterally by Williams),
but it would be hard to make a criminal case out of it.
James Tuttle
David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>
> James Tuttle claimed:
>
> >Innocent until proven guilty.
>
> That's a bumper sticker, not a statement of law. There's a legal
> presumption of innocence. That doesn't mean the person IS innocent.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Presumed innocent until proven
guilty. The bumper sticker came from someplace, didn't it, David? So
we presume he's innocent. That's okay with me.
and David Grabiner says:
> Verdict: guilty. Jackson was an accessory to the principal crime even
> if he didn't commit it himself.
> Sentence: left for you to decide.
He has served his sentence. Wasn't he banned for life? And isn't he
dead?
Ben Flieger
James Tuttle wrote in message <34C4DB...@daedal.net>...
>David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>>
>> James Tuttle claimed:
>>
>> >Innocent until proven guilty.
>>
>> That's a bumper sticker, not a statement of law. There's a legal
>> presumption of innocence. That doesn't mean the person IS innocent.
>
>Where there's smoke, there's fire. Presumed innocent until proven
>guilty. The bumper sticker came from someplace, didn't it, David? So
>we presume he's innocent. That's okay with me.
The law presumes he is innocent. Innocent, BTW, of fraud. They didn't try
him for throwing the WS.
>
>and David Grabiner says:
>
>> Verdict: guilty. Jackson was an accessory to the principal crime even
>> if he didn't commit it himself.
>
>> Sentence: left for you to decide.
>
>He has served his sentence. Wasn't he banned for life? And isn't he
>dead?
Semantics. And out-of-date semantics. He was placed on the "permanently
ineligible" list. ergo, he can NEVER be admitted into the Hall.
David Marc Nieporent
In <34C4DB...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:
>David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>> James Tuttle claimed:
>> >Innocent until proven guilty.
>> That's a bumper sticker, not a statement of law. There's a legal
>> presumption of innocence. That doesn't mean the person IS innocent.
>Where there's smoke, there's fire. Presumed innocent until proven
>guilty. The bumper sticker came from someplace, didn't it, David? So
>we presume he's innocent. That's okay with me.
No. The *law* has to presume he's innocent. *We* don't.
>and David Grabiner says:
>> Verdict: guilty. Jackson was an accessory to the principal crime even
>> if he didn't commit it himself.
>> Sentence: left for you to decide.
>He has served his sentence. Wasn't he banned for life? And isn't he
>dead?
Sophistry. "Banned for life" doesn't mean he's forgiven when he dies.
"Banned for life" was the *maximum* penalty when Jackson was banned.
There *wasn't* a HOF when Landis banned him, so there wasn't anything
after his death to ban him from.
You don't understand. Throwing the WS is the ultimate sin. There's
nothing worse you can do. Nothing. You don't "serve your sentence" for
that. The sentence is infinite.
Hank Gillette
> Jstu9 wrote:
> >
> > Hall of Famer Ted Williams has petitioned both the Commissioner of
> > Baseball's office and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum
> > to make the late "Shoeless Joe" Jackson eligible for induction into
> > Cooperstown.
>
> Good for Ted. This makes Ted a good guy in my book.
>
It makes me believe that Ted's stroke was more serious than we were led to
believe.
Hank Gillette
Rick Jones
On 19 Jan 1998 16:50:05 GMT, js...@aol.com (Jstu9) wrote:
>There is a big article in TB Daily, but I'll just post some morsels from it.
> "Shoeless Joe lost his livelihood and brilliant career by virtue of a
> 10-minute statement by Judge (baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain)
> Landis.
Shoeless Joe Jackson lost his career because he conspired to throw the
World Series. Blaming his crime on Landis is like O.J. Simpson
blaming his crime on Lance Ito. I'd put Kermit the Frog in the Hall
of Fame before I put Joe Jackson in it.
David Loewe, Jr.
On 20 Jan 1998 12:23:29 -0500, niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc
Nieporent) wrote:
>In <34c5d52d...@news.inlink.com>,
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
>>Cze...@earthlink.net (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
>>>Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
>>>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
>>Since 'innocent' is not an allowable verdict, there is _NO_ difference
>>in any quantifiable way. A clearly innocent person gets the same
>>verdict as one against whom the allegations merely cannot be proven
>>despite their guilt.
>The difference is very important. It's not simply that "innocent is not
>an allowable verdict." It's that the court system doesn't find people
>innocent. Either you're proven guilty or you're not. The latter says
>NOTHING about whether you did it.
What exactly are you saying here, Nieporent? If you are looking at the
verdict of the court, as Szymborski is, then there is _no_ difference
between 'innocent' and 'not guilty' _VERDICTS_ because there is _no
such thing_ as a verdict of 'innocent'. There cannot be, as Szymborski
wants us to believe, 'a huge difference', because one of his two
choices doesn't exist. Do you see my point now?
>People act as if the court said "Jackson didn't do it," but they said no
>such thing.
Well, _I'm_ acting as if the court could not find him 'innocent'.
--
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count
on having both at once."
Lazarus Long
Jack Heraty
tst...@reed.edu (Wheat Thin) wrote:
>In article <34C3B0...@baseball1.com>,
>Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com> wrote:
>>
>>I don't think it's really pertinent to anyone besides Rose and Jackson.
>>Nobody's going to clamor to get Swede Risberg into the hall if he gets
>>reinstated.
>
>No. But someone might plead Ed Cicotte's case.
Or Buck Weaver's.
--
Jack Heraty
Don't take the world serious.
"Baseball is dull only to dull minds."
- Red Smith
NO to radical realignment!
Jack Heraty
dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
>The Pro Football Hall of Fame has admitted bad behavior people, like Paul
>Hornung (who bet on games), in the past--but they make them wait a very
>long time before they do.
But Paul Hornung *admitted what he did*, served a year's suspension,
and was reinstated. Big difference. I think it was right to vote him
in, but it was also right to make him wait.
>
>Whether this is a good solution that be applied to the BBHoF in a matter
>like this is another question.
>
Jackson's (and Rose's) situations aren't quite the same as Hornung's,
I think, because of Hornung's admission of guilt, and if memory
serves, he never bet on his own team (though I'm not 100% sure on that
one).
Also on this subject, let us speak now of Bob Feller.
Feller has joined Williams in wanting Shoeless Joe in the Hall.
Yes, the same Bob Feller who said he would never set foot in
Cooperstown again if Pete Rose was allowed in.
Rapid Robert may have had a blazing fastball and a jughandle curve,
but Einstein, he ain't.
Jack Heraty
James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>>
>> James Tuttle claimed:
>>
>> >Innocent until proven guilty.
>>
>> That's a bumper sticker, not a statement of law. There's a legal
>> presumption of innocence. That doesn't mean the person IS innocent.
>
>Where there's smoke, there's fire. Presumed innocent until proven
>guilty. The bumper sticker came from someplace, didn't it, David? So
>we presume he's innocent. That's okay with me.
>
>and David Grabiner says:
>
>> Verdict: guilty. Jackson was an accessory to the principal crime even
>> if he didn't commit it himself.
>
>> Sentence: left for you to decide.
>
>He has served his sentence. Wasn't he banned for life? And isn't he
>dead?
What does being dead have to do with it? Those eight men almost
*DESTROYED* baseball. Get it? Had it not been for the likes of Babe
Ruth and Lou Gehrig making the game popular again, because of the
Black Sox, there almost wasn't a Hall of Fame at all!
Sure, Jackson was an illiterate country bumpkin who the gamblers took
advantage of. Sure, it can be argued that his performance in the 1919
WS doesn't indicate he dogged it. Sure, he was very, very sorry. But
the fact is, he was an adult, he knew the rules, he *did* accept
money, had full knowledge of what was going on and did nothing to stop
it, and in the process, almost ruined the sport for good.
Hall of Fame for Jackson? Never!
Of the two other players on the team who are in the HOF, both known at
the time to be absolute straight arrows that the gamblers wouldn't
have even dreamt of approaching, one is in on merit and would be in
the Hall regardless (Eddie Collins), and the other mainly on sentiment
for being honest, though he was also very good player (Ray Schalk).
There are some who say that Schalk's qualifications are questionable.
I say, better a Schalk in the Hall than a Jackson.
James Tuttle
David Nieporent wrote:
> James Tuttle wrote:
>
> >He has served his sentence. Wasn't he banned for life? And isn't he
> >dead?
>
> Sophistry. "Banned for life" doesn't mean he's forgiven when he dies.
> "Banned for life" was the *maximum* penalty when Jackson was banned.
> There *wasn't* a HOF when Landis banned him, so there wasn't anything
> after his death to ban him from.
>
> You don't understand. Throwing the WS is the ultimate sin. There's
> nothing worse you can do. Nothing. You don't "serve your sentence"
> for that. The sentence is infinite.
Ah, David. Never say infinite. Galileo's stuff was banned infinitely
too. In his case, infinity was 400 years. And Richard Nixon was banned
forever too. And he got reinstated in less than 400 years.
So I won't give up on Shoeless Joe. He might get reinstated even before
O.J. And now I understand Bob Feller has joined Ted Williams. We still
need Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods to join the Shoeless bandwagon.
Paul Antonissen
In article <34ca9ff9...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, spr...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
[deletia]
>Hall of Fame for Jackson? Never!
>
>Of the two other players on the team who are in the HOF, both known at
>the time to be absolute straight arrows that the gamblers wouldn't
>have even dreamt of approaching, one is in on merit and would be in
>the Hall regardless (Eddie Collins), and the other mainly on sentiment
>for being honest, though he was also very good player (Ray Schalk).
>There are some who say that Schalk's qualifications are questionable.
>I say, better a Schalk in the Hall than a Jackson.
This reminds me of what Bill James wrote about this in the Historical Abstract:
"My own opinion as to whether or not Joe Jackson should be put in the Hall
of Fame is that of course he should; it is only a question of priorities.
I think there are some equally great players that should go in first, like
Billy Williams, Herman Long, Minnie Minoso and Elroy Face. Then, too, the
players of the nineteenth century have never really gotten their due-Ed
McKean, Pete Browning, Harry Stovey and several others have been waiting a
long time. The players of the Negro leagues committed no crime except
their color; I think we would need to look closely at the credentials of
several of those before we decide where Jackson fits in. You wouldn't want
the great stars of the thirties and forties, who are still living and can
enjoy the honor, to pass away while waiting for the Hall of Fame to get
done with the Black Sox, would you? And then I think there are some other
players who should be considered strongly-Ron Santo, Ken Boyer, Larry
Doby, Al Rosen, Roy Sievers, Vic Wertz, Lefty O'Doul, Sadaharu Oh; there
shouold probably be better provisions made for people whose contributions
to the game were not made on the field, like Grantland Rice, Barney
Dreyfuss, Harry Pulliam, maybe Mrs. Babe Ruth and Mrs. Lou Gehrig, the guy
who wrote "Take Me Out to the Ballgame", Harry Caray. And, too, we do not
want to forget the many wonderful stars of the minor leagues, who brought
baseball to most of the country before television and expansion-men like
Ray Perry, Larry Gilbert, Jack Dunn and Nick Cullop. When they are in we
can turn our attention to such worthwhile players of our own memories as
Roger Maris, Buddy Bell, Fred Hutchinson, Larry Bowa, Bill North, Omar
Moreno and Duane Kuiper. And then, at last, when every honest player who
has ever played the game, at any level from Babe Ruth ball through the
majors, when every coach, writer, umpire and organist who has helped make
baseball the wonderful game that it is rather than trying to destroy it
with the poison of deceit, when each has been given his due, then I think
we should hold our noses and make room for Joe Jackson to join the Hall of
Fame."
--
*************************************************************************
-Reverend "Grizzly" Paul (ULC)
"Baby on board, something something Burt Ward...hey this stuff writes
itself!"
-Homer writes a song
Zen Bitz
Jack Heraty wrote:
> Also on this subject, let us speak now of Bob Feller.
>
> Feller has joined Williams in wanting Shoeless Joe in the Hall.
>
> Yes, the same Bob Feller who said he would never set foot in
> Cooperstown again if Pete Rose was allowed in.
Geez. Maybe we should have a 'Black Sheep Hall of Fame Wing'.
I mean, lets consider MLB an extended family - it's heartless
to disown family members, especially after they are dead;
they should be acknowledged, ALONG WITH THEIR CRIMES AGAINST
BASEBALL AND HUMANITY.
We could put in Pete Rose and SJ Jackson, maybe move Cap Anson,
and Kennesaw Landis.
Then we could waste Gigabits of bandwidth argueing whether
or not Marvin Miller and Ty Cobb belonged there...
--
Void Where Prohibited * Laden With Cosmic Significance
"Second place? Second place in a gunfight gets you an 80 lb.
granite trophy, enscribed with your name and the date."
+== To send mail replace die@spammerscum with hitz@burrito===+
Ben Hitz -- Do not reply Directly -- Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
David Grabiner
spr...@ix.killspam.netcom.com (Jack Heraty) writes:
> dcl...@fas.harvard.edu (David Cleary) wrote:
> >The Pro Football Hall of Fame has admitted bad behavior people, like Paul
> >Hornung (who bet on games), in the past--but they make them wait a very
> >long time before they do.
> But Paul Hornung *admitted what he did*, served a year's suspension,
> and was reinstated. Big difference. I think it was right to vote him
> in, but it was also right to make him wait.
> Jackson's (and Rose's) situations aren't quite the same as Hornung's,
> I think, because of Hornung's admission of guilt, and if memory
> serves, he never bet on his own team (though I'm not 100% sure on that
I'm not a football fan and don't know the story, but this does give a
good precedent for Rose. Betting on other teams is cause for a one-year
suspension from the National League; this was part of the original 1876
rules. If that's what Rose did, and he confesses to it (and MLB is
willing to accept that this is what happened), he should be reinstated.
John Krempasky
From "The Politics of Glory" (since renamed, of course, but I can't remember
the new name)....
"My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in the Hall
of Fame are baseball's answer to those women who show up at murder trials
wanting to marry the cute murderer."
Sean Lahman
So James espouses one viewpoint in the Historical Abstract, and a
somewhat contradictory viewpoint a few years later.
Hmmm. Maybe he's not the voice of God after all.
--
Sean Lahman / se...@baseball1.com
The Baseball Archive - http://www.baseball1.com
Paul Antonissen
>John Krempasky wrote:
>>
>> From "The Politics of Glory" (since renamed, of course, but I can't
>> remember the new name)....
>>
>> "My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in the
>> Hall of Fame are baseball's answer to those women who show up at
>> murder trials wanting to marry the cute murderer."
>
>So James espouses one viewpoint in the Historical Abstract, and a
>somewhat contradictory viewpoint a few years later.
How was this contradictory?
>Hmmm. Maybe he's not the voice of God after all.
>
>--
> Sean Lahman / se...@baseball1.com
> The Baseball Archive - http://www.baseball1.com
--
****************************************************************************
-Reverend "Grizzly" Paul (ULC)
I started becoming more aware of swearing. I had an epiphany -- I
realized no one thought I was talking like a carney. They thought I was
talking like a mall kid.
--Penn Jilette
Crafruso
SE>John Krempasky wrote:
SE>>
SE>> From "The Politics of Glory" (since renamed, of course, but I can't
SE>> remember the new name)....
SE>>
SE>> "My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in the
SE>> Hall of Fame are baseball's answer to those women who show up at
SE>> murder trials wanting to marry the cute murderer."
SE>So James espouses one viewpoint in the Historical Abstract, and a
SE>somewhat contradictory viewpoint a few years later.
SE>Hmmm. Maybe he's not the voice of God after all.
SE>--
SE> Sean Lahman / se...@baseball1.com
SE> The Baseball Archive - http://www.baseball1.com
don't see the conflict. In one case he said put Jackson in the HoF
after putting in everybody who played the game at any level without
violating baseball ethics, in the other he compared those who want to
put Jackson in the hall with women who show up at murder trials wanting
to marry the cute murderer. Both viewpoints seem to me to be against
Jackson in the HoF. Or do you want to marry the cute murderer, Sean?
Russ Craft
--
This message comes from NaSCOM, the official internet server of NaSPA, THE
Network and System Professionals Assocation, with over 40,000 members in 72
countries. Contact http://www.naspa.net for free trial membership or
X116 or fax (414) 768-8001 or (414) 768-8000 x116 voice.
David Marc Nieporent
In <34c584d9...@news.inlink.com>,
>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
>>>Cze...@earthlink.net (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
>>>>Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
>>>>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
>>>Since 'innocent' is not an allowable verdict, there is _NO_ difference
>>>in any quantifiable way. A clearly innocent person gets the same
>>>verdict as one against whom the allegations merely cannot be proven
>>>despite their guilt.
>>The difference is very important. It's not simply that "innocent is not
>>an allowable verdict." It's that the court system doesn't find people
>>innocent. Either you're proven guilty or you're not. The latter says
>>NOTHING about whether you did it.
>What exactly are you saying here, Nieporent? If you are looking at the
>verdict of the court, as Szymborski is, then there is _no_ difference
>between 'innocent' and 'not guilty' _VERDICTS_ because there is _no
>such thing_ as a verdict of 'innocent'. There cannot be, as Szymborski
>wants us to believe, 'a huge difference', because one of his two
>choices doesn't exist. Do you see my point now?
Not really, no. There IS a huge difference between something which
does exist and something which doesn't. There is a huge difference
between what the court actually did, and what people are claiming the
court did. See my point now?
>>People act as if the court said "Jackson didn't do it," but they said no
>>such thing.
>Well, _I'm_ acting as if the court could not find him 'innocent'.
Exactly. They couldn't, and didn't.
Wheat Thin
In article <34ca9ff9...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Jack Heraty <spr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>What does being dead have to do with it? Those eight men almost
>*DESTROYED* baseball. Get it? Had it not been for the likes of Babe
>Ruth and Lou Gehrig making the game popular again, because of the
>Black Sox, there almost wasn't a Hall of Fame at all!
>
>Sure, Jackson was an illiterate country bumpkin who the gamblers took
>advantage of. Sure, it can be argued that his performance in the 1919
>WS doesn't indicate he dogged it. Sure, he was very, very sorry. But
>the fact is, he was an adult, he knew the rules, he *did* accept
>money, had full knowledge of what was going on and did nothing to stop
>it, and in the process, almost ruined the sport for good.
>
>Hall of Fame for Jackson? Never!
And what of Charles Comiskey?
I've thought about this argument a long time, and the more I think about it
the more I lean towards Bill James' stance that the whole HOF system is
corrupt and needs to be thrown out, or at least revised, before questions
such as Joe Jackson can be considered seriously.
I don't think Shoeless Joe should be in the Hall of Fame, although I also
don't think he should be vilified for what he did. And I understand the
argument for letting him in. His ability as a ballplayer certainly
qualifies him, and his motives, while hardly pardoning him, are understand-
able. And then there's the simple question of precedent: if Charles Comiskey,
who did as much if not more to ruin the game of baseball as any of the
eight men out, could be let into the Hall of Fame, why not Joe?
The Hall is corrupt. There are already a number of people enshrined there
who don't belong there, for whatever reasons. Does it really matter if we
add one more?
--
Tommy J.M.D. Strong
tst...@reed.edu
John Krempasky
Sean Lahman wrote in message <34C66E...@baseball1.com>...
>So James espouses one viewpoint in the Historical Abstract, and a
>
Umm, Sean. Go back and read the Historical Abstract comments by Bill James
again.....carefully.
And turn on your "sarcasm" and "humor" detection chips, ok?
Helpful Hint: He thinks Mrs. Babe Ruth and Duane Kuiper should go in
before Joe Jackson.
Ray Kerby
David Grabiner wrote:
> spr...@ix.killspam.netcom.com (Jack Heraty) writes:
>
> > Jackson's (and Rose's) situations aren't quite the same as
> Hornung's,
> > I think, because of Hornung's admission of guilt, and if memory
> > serves, he never bet on his own team (though I'm not 100% sure on
> that
>
> I'm not a football fan and don't know the story, but this does give a
> good precedent for Rose. Betting on other teams is cause for a
> one-year
> suspension from the National League; this was part of the original
> 1876
> rules. If that's what Rose did, and he confesses to it (and MLB is
> willing to accept that this is what happened), he should be
> reinstated.
David,
I don't think you've been following the usual net logic on Rose.
Since
the supposed evidence that Rose bet on baseball is suppressed, his
guilt is assumed because he accepted a liftetime ban for a lesser,
non-gambling related charge. And since we can now assume he is
guilty of betting on baseball, only the naive would deny that he
bet on his own team. And, according to net logic, the games that
you don't bet on your team are essentially the same as betting
against your team. And since Rose must have been against his
team, the competitive integrity of the entire sport is threatened
because of his actions. And we all know that baseball, being
America's pasttime, must be kept virginally pure to avoid the
coming of the antichrist. So Rose has to be kept out of the HOF.
Are things clearer now?
Regards,
Ray Kerby
David Marc Nieporent
In <34C66E...@baseball1.com>, Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com> claimed:
>John Krempasky wrote:
>> From "The Politics of Glory" (since renamed, of course, but I can't
>> "My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in the
>So James espouses one viewpoint in the Historical Abstract, and a
>somewhat contradictory viewpoint a few years later.
Um, I think I speak for me and all the voices in Roger Maynard's head when
I say "Wha?"
Ted Frank
In article <6a3ba5$o...@pluto.njcc.com>,
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>Verdict: Not guilty.
>>Therefore: Innocent until tried again.
>>But: No double jeopardy.
>>Therefore: No second trial.
>>Therefore: Innocent.
>
To be more accurate: not criminally culpable. Cf. Brown v. Simpson.
--
You're just a drifter who found a bag of mail.
http://www.radix,net/~moe
Bob-Nob
Rick Jones venit, vidit, et dixit:
> Shoeless Joe Jackson lost his career because he conspired to throw the
> World Series. Blaming his crime on Landis is like O.J. Simpson
> blaming his crime on Lance Ito.
Well, it's like it except for the part where the two instances
differ. OJ was found "not guilty" in Ito's court. Shoeless Joe was
found "not guilty" in a court of law, but then found to be "guilty" in
Landis' whateveryouwanttocallit. Ie. Ito was involved with OJ's "not
guilty" and Landis was involved with Jackson's "guilty."
> I'd put Kermit the Frog in the Hall
> of Fame before I put Joe Jackson in it.
I guess it depends on what Hall of Fame. I'm not sure Kermit
was one of the best sluggers of his time (Miss Piggy seems to have
had him beat in that department).
Still he sure was something at catching flies ...
*grin* Catch you later. *ducks*
--Bob Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer (Bob) | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Class of 1996 | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
ACRFC MVP, Teacher, Captain, Coach | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"BOB IS NOB!"
Gerry Myerson
> The Hall is corrupt. There are already a number of people enshrined there
> who don't belong there, for whatever reasons. Does it really matter if we
> add one more?
Doesn't matter at all. Oh, and while you're up, why not throw another Jew
on the fire.
With apologies to Mel Brooks,
Gerry Myerson (ge...@mpce.mq.edu.au)
David Loewe, Jr.
On 21 Jan 1998 17:50:08 -0500, niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc
Nieporent) wrote:
>In <34c584d9...@news.inlink.com>,
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
>>niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc Nieporent) wrote:
>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
>>>>Cze...@earthlink.net (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
>>>>>Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
>>>>>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
>>>>Since 'innocent' is not an allowable verdict, there is _NO_ difference
>>>>in any quantifiable way. A clearly innocent person gets the same
>>>>verdict as one against whom the allegations merely cannot be proven
>>>>despite their guilt.
>>>The difference is very important. It's not simply that "innocent is not
>>>an allowable verdict." It's that the court system doesn't find people
>>>innocent. Either you're proven guilty or you're not. The latter says
>>>NOTHING about whether you did it.
>>What exactly are you saying here, Nieporent? If you are looking at the
>>verdict of the court, as Szymborski is, then there is _no_ difference
>>between 'innocent' and 'not guilty' _VERDICTS_ because there is _no
>>such thing_ as a verdict of 'innocent'. There cannot be, as Szymborski
>>wants us to believe, 'a huge difference', because one of his two
>>choices doesn't exist. Do you see my point now?
>Not really, no. There IS a huge difference between something which
>does exist and something which doesn't.
But, Szymborski _acts_ like they both _exist_. My response is to
Szymborski.
>There is a huge difference
>between what the court actually did, and what people are claiming the
>court did. See my point now?
Which is the _exact opposite_ of what Szymborski is claiming the court
did. Do you see _my_ point now?
>>>People act as if the court said "Jackson didn't do it," but they said no
>>>such thing.
Upon further review, Szymborski is acting as if the court said
"Jackson did it, we can't prove and we won't give him full
vindication, even though we can.", which is just as wrong in it's own
way because the court does not hand out vindication.
>>Well, _I'm_ acting as if the court could not find him 'innocent'.
>Exactly. They couldn't, and didn't.
Which is _not_ what Szymborski is saying. He makes a big deal of the
fact that they weren't given a verdict of 'innocent' as opposed to
'not guilty'. I'm saying that even really innocent people get verdicts
of 'not guilty' and therefore the court's verdict makes no difference
to whether or not Jackson, Cicotte, Weaver, et. al. should be
re-instated _one way or the other_.
--
"Think of what you're saying, you can get it wrong and
still you think that it's alright,
think of what I'm saying, we can work it out and get it
straight, or say goodnight."
John Lennon and Paul McCartney
JEarls41
In article <6a6e09$6...@pluto.njcc.com>, niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc
Nieporent) writes:
Sean wrote:
>> From "The Politics of Glory" (since renamed, of course, but I can't
>>remember the new name)....
>> "My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in the
>> Hall of Fame are baseball's answer to those women
>>who show up at murder trials wanting to marry the cute murderer."
John wrote:
>So James espouses one viewpoint in the Historical Abstract, and a
>somewhat contradictory viewpoint a few years later.
David, evidently befuddled, replied:
: Um, I think I speak for me and all the voices in Roger Maynard's head when
:I say "Wha?"
Bill James has been known to change his mind. ("A foolish consistency is the
hobgoblin of small minds. " -- Emerson. ) He changed his mind on Drysdale as a
HOF candidate from the Historical Abstract to Politics of Glory/Whatever
happened to the Hall of Fame.
But he would not change his mind on Jackson or the Black Sox. James is
completely opposed to forgiveness for them, and has written about the dangerous
scrapes baseball has had with gamblers before and since the Black Sox, always
with the thesis that gambling on baseball, once proven, is unforgiveable.
He defends Rose, to some degree, in Baseball 1990 and The Politics of Glory by
asking for a fuller investigation and feels Rose may have been rushed to
accepting a judgment he didn't understand, but then argues the complete
absurdity of considering Rose for the HOF.
Joe Earls
P.S. Bill James has my envy -- he's the writer, like Hemingway, that we all
write ABOUT. And even if he has his critics nowadays, he got there first with
a lot of things, (for which I think most rsbb'ers feel indebted) and he is a
terrifically engaging writer. I think I'd save "Historical Abstract" very early
in the hypothetical "If your house was burning down...." situation.
OTOH, if "The Hidden Game of Baseball" was around, I might break INTO someone's
house to get THAT -- hard to believe that that, and "Diamond Mind" are out of
print. ;-( Well, so was Faulkner for awhile.
Joe Earls
Joe Earls Tantasqua Regional HS/University of Mass
Matthew D. Sullivan
Wheat Thin (tst...@reed.edu) wrote:
<snip>
: The Hall is corrupt. There are already a number of people enshrined there
: who don't belong there, for whatever reasons. Does it really matter if we
: add one more?
Hell, yes, it does matter. Two wrongs don't make a right.
-Matt
Dan Szymborski
In article <34ccc545...@news.inlink.com>, David Loewe, Jr. says...
Jeepers, I sure said a lot in those two lines, apparently. The previous
poster said that the court found him innocent. I just said that the
court found him not guilty which IS a big difference. Jackson supporters
use the argument that the court found him innocent, when it did no such
thing. The court merely didn't find enough evidence that there was
enough intent to defraud the public and Comiskey.
> >There is a huge difference
> >between what the court actually did, and what people are claiming the
> >court did. See my point now?
>
> Which is the _exact opposite_ of what Szymborski is claiming the court
> did. Do you see _my_ point now?
I didn't even address what people were claiming the court did. I hadn't
even mentioned it until now. I just said that a court can't find someone
innocent, only not guilty.
> >>>People act as if the court said "Jackson didn't do it," but they said no
> >>>such thing.
>
> Upon further review, Szymborski is acting as if the court said
> "Jackson did it, we can't prove and we won't give him full
> vindication, even though we can.", which is just as wrong in it's own
> way because the court does not hand out vindication.
I never said this. It's not the court's job to hand out vindication,
only to determine guilt on the charges brought.
> >>Well, _I'm_ acting as if the court could not find him 'innocent'.
>
> >Exactly. They couldn't, and didn't.
>
> Which is _not_ what Szymborski is saying. He makes a big deal of the
> fact that they weren't given a verdict of 'innocent' as opposed to
> 'not guilty'. I'm saying that even really innocent people get verdicts
> of 'not guilty' and therefore the court's verdict makes no difference
> to whether or not Jackson, Cicotte, Weaver, et. al. should be
> re-instated _one way or the other_.
A big deal? I wrote two sentences prefaced with "Small but important
point". And yes, the distinction is an important one because people do
act like they believe the court found them to have done nothing wrong
while courts don't do anything of the sort. In addition about making a
big deal of it, you responded to my 2 lines of texts with about 20 times
the words that I used. If you want big deal, read Weisberg's DiMaggio
postings on DejaNews [sorry James!].
> "Think of what you're saying, you can get it wrong and
> still you think that it's alright,
> think of what I'm saying, we can work it out and get it
> straight, or say goodnight."
> John Lennon and Paul McCartney
>
--
Dan Szymborski--Founder of the Doug Mientkiewicz Fan Club
Wanted to Sell: One experienced GM. Comes equipped with Joe Carter and
Doug Drabek. Free to good home. Will pay for shipping.
www.baseballstuff.com - Home to lots of baseball...uh...stuff
Aaron Pound
Dan Szymborski wrote:
>
> In article <34ccc545...@news.inlink.com>, David Loewe, Jr. says...
> > On 21 Jan 1998 17:50:08 -0500, niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc
> > Nieporent) wrote:
> >
> > >In <34c584d9...@news.inlink.com>,
> > >David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
> > >>niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc Nieporent) wrote:
> > >>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
> > >>>>Cze...@earthlink.net (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
> > >>>>>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
(snip)
> > >Not really, no. There IS a huge difference between something which
> > >does exist and something which doesn't.
> >
> > But, Szymborski _acts_ like they both _exist_. My response is to
> > Szymborski.
(snip)
> > >>Well, _I'm_ acting as if the court could not find him 'innocent'.
> >
I'm not going to try to figure out who said what here, mostly because it
is nt particularly relevant to my point. The debate about whether a
court found Shoeless Joe "innocent" or "not guilty" seems to be missing
a salient point. That is: no court in the United States ever finds
anyone "innocent" because innocence is presumed. Debating whether it is
an allowable verdict or whether the difference between an innocent
verdict and a not guilty verdict skips past this legal point.
Shoeless Joe walked into court presumed to be an innocent man. The
prosecution had the burden of showing that this presumption was false.
The jury determined that the prosecution had failed to carry this burden
and held that he was "not guilty". Ergo, Shoeless Joe remains presumed
innocent as far as the law is concerned. In the American legal system
no one needs a court order to be declared innocent, innocence is
assumed.
This is very different from many legal systems in use in other parts of
the world, which presume guilt. In that case, the accused walks into
court with the presumption hanging over hiom that he did the crime. It
is the burden of the defense to prove innocence. In that case, a court
would need to pronounce innocence.
Whether Landis' action was right or not, I can't say. I haven't seen
the evidence, and don't know what went into the judgment he made. His
judgment, however, is entirely beside the legal point of what
determination the jury made, whether "innocent" or "not guilty".
Aaron J. Pound, Esq.
I am a lawyer dammit.
James Tuttle
James Tuttle, then David Nieporent, then Ted Frank wrote:
> >>Therefore: Innocent.
> >
> >No. Therefore, not legally culpable.
>
> To be more accurate: not criminally culpable. Cf. Brown v. Simpson.
Brown v. Simpson was a civil case where the preponderance of the
evidence was the standard of proof. "Not criminally culpable," rather,
"not guilty," came out of California v. Simpson, the criminal trial
where the standard was "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
In the Jackson case, the Court of Public Opinion is the most important
venue, and I'm on the jury in that court. Seems to me that Jackson
wasn't such a bad guy (Comiskey was!) and this all happened almost 80
years ago. If we as a nation can forgive Richard M. Nixon less than 15
years after his disgrace (as we did ... 5 presidents attended his
funeral), then we can join Ted Williams and Bob Feller in calling for
Shoeless Joe to be inducted posthumously. So sez I.
Cris Whetstone
James Tuttle wrote:
>
> James Tuttle, then David Nieporent, then Ted Frank wrote:
>
> > >>Therefore: Innocent.
> > >
> > >No. Therefore, not legally culpable.
> >
> > To be more accurate: not criminally culpable. Cf. Brown v. Simpson.
>
> Brown v. Simpson was a civil case where the preponderance of the
> evidence was the standard of proof. "Not criminally culpable," rather,
> "not guilty," came out of California v. Simpson, the criminal trial
> where the standard was "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
>
> In the Jackson case, the Court of Public Opinion is the most important
> venue, and I'm on the jury in that court. Seems to me that Jackson
> wasn't such a bad guy (Comiskey was!) and this all happened almost 80
> years ago. If we as a nation can forgive Richard M. Nixon less than 15
> years after his disgrace (as we did ... 5 presidents attended his
> funeral),
I fail to see how paying respects to another president who has died
constitutes forgiveness.
THe issue is not about forgiveness, anyway. Jackson is on the
permamnently ineligible list for giving away games for his own profit.
It makes absolutley no difference how cheap Comiskey was. Jackson, among
others did the dead. THey did it not out of necessity, but out of greed.
Would you bring back a former employee who had embezzeled money from
your business just to be a nice guy? Would you put his picture back on
the wall after he dies just for forgiveness?
> then we can join Ted Williams and Bob Feller in calling for
> Shoeless Joe to be inducted posthumously. So sez I.
Not a chance. Those guys are losing it. I have no idea for what purpose
they are doing this.
--
Cris Whetstone ** To reply remove the * from my address**
Frank Catalanotto Fan Club
"Work is the curse of the drinking class." - Oscar Wilde
Textus
I don't think James going from "Put Jackson in the HoF after putting in every
single honest person associated with the game" (quotes probably sdhould be
hypen string, this is a summary of what he said in HistAb) to "people who want
Jackson in are like those women who marry death row inmates" is really a change
of position.
Sean Lahman
>
> >> From "The Politics of Glory" (since renamed, of course, but I can't
> >> remember the new name)....
> >> "My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in
> >> the Hall of Fame are baseball's answer to those women who show up
> >> at murder trials wanting to marry the cute murderer."
>
> >somewhat contradictory viewpoint a few years later.
>
> when I say "Wha?"
As I see it, there are only two reasonable viewpoints on Joe Jackson,
and James switched from one to the other. The first is to say that
Jackson doesn't belong, but to point out that his guilt is not certain.
That's what James does in the Historical Abstract. He writes (I'm
paraphrasing) that he had read everything he could find and was not
certain about Jackson's guilt. He concluded by saying that of course
Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but it was a question of
priorities.
The second viewpoint is that what Jackson did was so bad that he should
never, ever be admitted. That's what James says in Politics of Glory.
Realize that most of the book is an analysis of the significant HOF
cases -- a whole chapter on Rizzutto, for example. But he dismisses Joe
Jackson in ONE SENTENCE.
In the Historical Abstract, James makes the case that Jackson was
illiterate, perhaps an unwitting dupe, who took the money but didn't
cheat. Blah, blah, blah. That's the classic Shoeless Joe defense. Of
all the HOF cases in Politics of Glory, Jackson's was one which he could
have devoted a whole chapter too. But he didn't.
If I'm the only one who things that represents a change in viewpoint, so
be it. Whatever. It just bothers me to see so many people here quote
James like they're quoting the bible. He's just a freaking guy with an
opinion. He's far from an authority on Joe Jackson. I'd rather see
people quote Eliot Asinof or Fred Lieb, people who could be considered
authorities on the subject.
--
Sean Lahman / se...@baseball1.com
NawrockiT
Sean Lahman wrote:
: As I see it, there are only two reasonable viewpoints on Joe Jackson,
: and James switched from one to the other. The first is to say that
: Jackson doesn't belong, but to point out that his guilt is not certain.
: That's what James does in the Historical Abstract. He writes (I'm
: paraphrasing) that he had read everything he could find and was not
: certain about Jackson's guilt. He concluded by saying that of course
: Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but it was a question of
: priorities.
You have ripped this out of context, Sean. If you go back and read the entire
passage from the Historical Abstract, you'll see that James clearly does NOT
believe that Joe Jackson should be in the Hall.
James' "priorities" are that everyone who has ever played the game cleanly and
did not sully the sport should go in before Joe Jackson. He includes such
luminaries as Duane Kuiper and Omar Moreno among those that he feels deserve
induction more than Shoeless Joe. If you think this is an endorsement of
Jackson's candidacy, then you haven't read very much Bill James. And your
sarcasm meter is way out of whack.
Tom Nawrocki
Nick Flynn
[ much snipping]
>John wrote:
[hope i got this right]
>Bill James has been known to change his mind. ("A foolish consistency is the
>hobgoblin of small minds. " -- Emerson. ) He changed his mind on Drysdale as a
>HOF candidate from the Historical Abstract to Politics of Glory/Whatever
>happened to the Hall of Fame.
This is off the topic of Joe Jackson, but there is one other pretty
notorious case of Bill James changing his mind that has stuck in my
craw.
In the original Historical Abstract (not sure if it is also in the
revised one), he presents what is to my mind a really good case for
why Johnny Evers deserves to be in the HoF. Then, years later, in the
Politics of Glory (I assume - I read it in a collection), he recants
this and basically gives the standard anti-Evers evidence.
It is not the recanting I object to, but the fact that it was done
without attempting to refute the arguments he had earlier presented on
the opposite side (which I had found pretty compelling).
Did this bug anyone else?
- Nick
David Marc Nieporent
In <6a60ca$d...@anubis.reed.edu>, Wheat Thin <tst...@reed.edu> claimed:
>I don't think Shoeless Joe should be in the Hall of Fame, although I also
>don't think he should be vilified for what he did.
I'm trying to figure out exactly why not.
>And I understand the
>argument for letting him in. His ability as a ballplayer certainly
>qualifies him, and his motives, while hardly pardoning him, are understand-
>able.
Greed?
>And then there's the simple question of precedent: if Charles Comiskey,
>who did as much if not more to ruin the game of baseball as any of the
>eight men out, could be let into the Hall of Fame, why not Joe?
Because Charles Comiskey didn't throw a World Series.
>The Hall is corrupt. There are already a number of people enshrined there
>who don't belong there, for whatever reasons. Does it really matter if we
>add one more?
Well, gee, innocent people have already been executed in this country;
does it really matter if we execute a few more? I already robbed one
bank; does it really matter if I rob one more?
David Loewe, Jr.
>In article <34ccc545...@news.inlink.com>, David Loewe, Jr. says...
>> On 21 Jan 1998 17:50:08 -0500, niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc
>> Nieporent) wrote:
>> >In <34c584d9...@news.inlink.com>,
>> >David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
>> >>niep...@pluto.njcc.com (David Marc Nieporent) wrote:
>> >>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@nionslpianmk.com> claimed:
>> >>>>Cze...@earthlink.net (Dan Szymborski) wrote:
>> >>>>>Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
>> >>>>>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
>> >>>>Since 'innocent' is not an allowable verdict, there is _NO_ difference
>> >>>>in any quantifiable way. A clearly innocent person gets the same
>> >>>>verdict as one against whom the allegations merely cannot be proven
>> >>>>despite their guilt.
>> >>>The difference is very important. It's not simply that "innocent is not
>> >>>an allowable verdict." It's that the court system doesn't find people
>> >>>innocent. Either you're proven guilty or you're not. The latter says
>> >>>NOTHING about whether you did it.
>> >>What exactly are you saying here, Nieporent? If you are looking at the
>> >>verdict of the court, as Szymborski is, then there is _no_ difference
>> >>between 'innocent' and 'not guilty' _VERDICTS_ because there is _no
>> >>such thing_ as a verdict of 'innocent'. There cannot be, as Szymborski
>> >>wants us to believe, 'a huge difference', because one of his two
>> >>choices doesn't exist. Do you see my point now?
>> >Not really, no. There IS a huge difference between something which
>> >does exist and something which doesn't.
>> But, Szymborski _acts_ like they both _exist_. My response is to
>> Szymborski.
>Jeepers, I sure said a lot in those two lines, apparently.
Actually, you didn't say much CLEARLY, which has been the problem.
>The previous poster said that the court found him innocent. I just said
>that the court found him not guilty which IS a big difference.
There is no quantitative or qualitative difference between an
'innocent' person and a 'not guilty' person in a criminal trial. An
innocent man gets the same verdict (not guilty) as a scoundrel whom
the case against cannot proven.
>Jackson supporters use the argument that the court found him innocent,
>when it did no such thing. The court merely didn't find enough evidence
>that there was enough intent to defraud the public and Comiskey.
They are wrong and you were misleading, because you did not make clear
that you understood that 'innocent' was not a possible verdict.
>>>There is a huge difference between what the court actually did,
>>>and what people are claiming the court did. See my point now?
>> Which is the _exact opposite_ of what Szymborski is claiming the court
>> did. Do you see _my_ point now?
>I didn't even address what people were claiming the court did.
You might want to read the above sentence again, it does not
deal with you talking about what other people claim, it talks about
what you (through bad wording _or_ intent) have claimed.
>I hadn't even mentioned it until now. I just said that a court can't
>find someone innocent, only not guilty.
Actually, you didn't. You may have meant to, but you did not. You are
guilty of the same type of fallacy that those you are aiming at are
guilty of.
>> >>>People act as if the court said "Jackson didn't do it," but they said no
>> >>>such thing.
>> Upon further review, Szymborski is acting as if the court said
>> "Jackson did it, we can't prove and we won't give him full
>> vindication, even though we can.", which is just as wrong in it's own
>> way because the court does not hand out vindication.
>I never said this. It's not the court's job to hand out vindication,
>only to determine guilt on the charges brought.
Which part of 'is acting like' didn't you understand? It's not the
same as 'said'.
>> >>Well, _I'm_ acting as if the court could not find him 'innocent'.
>> >Exactly. They couldn't, and didn't.
>> Which is _not_ what Szymborski is saying. He makes a big deal of the
>> fact that they weren't given a verdict of 'innocent' as opposed to
>> 'not guilty'. I'm saying that even really innocent people get verdicts
>> of 'not guilty' and therefore the court's verdict makes no difference
>> to whether or not Jackson, Cicotte, Weaver, et. al. should be
>> re-instated _one way or the other_.
>A big deal?
Yes, you set it off in your text in it's own paragraph and you
included the phrases 'important difference' and 'huge difference'. If
it's important and huge, it sure sounds like you are making a big deal
of it.
>I wrote two sentences prefaced with "Small but important
>point". And yes, the distinction is an important one because people do
>act like they believe the court found them to have done nothing wrong
>while courts don't do anything of the sort. In addition about making a
>big deal of it, you responded to my 2 lines of texts with about 20 times
>the words that I used.
BZZZZT! I responded to _your_ 2 lines of text with about 3 and 1/2
lines of text, everything else (until now) is in response to
_Nieporent's_ rejoinders.
>If you want big deal, read Weisberg's DiMaggio postings on DejaNews
>[sorry James!].
Been there, done that.
Overall, your original paragraph was poorly worded, as it does not
make clear that you understand that 'innocent' is not a verdict. From
your original paragraph, you were guilty of the same sort of thing you
were decrying coming from Jackson's supporters, but in reverse.
--
"He can't even run his own life, I'll be damned if he'll run mine."
Jonathan Edwards
Zen Bitz
David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
> BZZZZT! I responded to _your_ 2 lines of text with about 3 and 1/2
> lines of text, everything else (until now) is in response to
> _Nieporent's_ rejoinders.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's THE Nieporent to you and your ilk.
These kids today, no sense of HISTORY.
Hope this Helps.
--
Void Where Prohibited * Laden With Cosmic Significance
"Second place? Second place in a gunfight gets you an 80 lb.
granite trophy, enscribed with your name and the date."
+== To send mail replace die@spammerscum with hitz@burrito===+
Ben Hitz -- Do not reply Directly -- Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
Sean Lahman
NawrockiT wrote:
>
> Sean Lahman wrote:
> : As I see it, there are only two reasonable viewpoints on Joe
> : Jackson, and James switched from one to the other. The first is to
> : say that Jackson doesn't belong, but to point out that his guilt is
> : not certain.
> You have ripped this out of context, Sean. If you go back and read the
> entire passage from the Historical Abstract, you'll see that James
> clearly does NOT believe that Joe Jackson should be in the Hall.
Hmmm. Isn't that _exactly_ what I said above?
You ommitted what I wrote later:
> : The second viewpoint is that what Jackson did was so bad that he
> : should never, ever be admitted.
I never claimed that James changed his opinion on whether Jackson
belonged in the HOF. I think he changed his view on how bad the things
Jackson did really were.
> James' "priorities" are that everyone who has ever played the game
> cleanly and did not sully the sport should go in before Joe Jackson.
> He includes such luminaries as Duane Kuiper and Omar Moreno among
> those that he feels deserve induction more than Shoeless Joe. If you
> think this is an endorsement of Jackson's candidacy, then you haven't
> read very much Bill James. And your sarcasm meter is way out of whack.
I may be slow, and on some days I'm downright dense, but I did manage to
catch the sarcasm there. My point was that earlier in that piece, he
outlined the defense of Joe Jackson. As far as I can tell, his one
sentence summary in Politics of Glory rejects that defense.
I tried to explain that I saw two views on Jackson -- both of which keep
him out, but one of which allows the possibility that Jackson did not
clearly commit the most heinous offense. In the Historical Abstract,
James says Jackson's guilt is not clear. In Politics of Glory, he
basically says that only an idiot would sympathize with Jackson. It's a
subtle difference, one that many people probably don't think is
significant, and one that's certainly not worthy of this much
discussion.
Since several other people decided to quote and post virtually every
single word James had ever written on Joe Jackson, I thought a humorous
observation was in order. Sorry if I committed blasphemy.
And since you raise the issue, I've read plenty of Bill James, including
the self-published (pre-1982) Abstracts that most people have never
seen, and his mid-80s newsletters. I even have a file of newspaper and
magazine articles he wrote that were never published in any book. I
just dispute the popular perception that he is the only baseball writer
who has anything worthwhile to say. Further, I dispute that
_everything_ he has written is like the word of God. There are better
researched writings on Joe Jackson, and it's sad that the two pages in
the Historical Abstract are all that some people have read. Just like
all that some people know about the Pete Rose case is a few pages of
James' blather in the 1990 Player Ratings book.
Stephen Shauger
them is Career Statistical Standards Met. I'm not defending Tinker,
mind you.
We all know that Chance is not in for his career
accomplishments, but hiw peak, and to some extent, his
managing, so this is somewhat unfair.
He is probably most unfair to Evers, though. Of course if you play
in the deadest of the dead ball eras, you are going to have to adjust
the stats a little. Also, they didn't put Evers in for longevity.
That bugged me quite a bit.
Steve
David Marc Nieporent
In <34C695...@daedal.net>, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net> claimed:
>James Tuttle, then David Nieporent, then Ted Frank wrote:
>> >>Therefore: Innocent.
>> >No. Therefore, not legally culpable.
>> To be more accurate: not criminally culpable. Cf. Brown v. Simpson.
Thank you for that correction.
>Brown v. Simpson was a civil case where the preponderance of the
>evidence was the standard of proof. "Not criminally culpable," rather,
>"not guilty," came out of California v. Simpson, the criminal trial
>where the standard was "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Yes, his point was that I used imprecise terminology.
>In the Jackson case, the Court of Public Opinion is the most important
>venue, and I'm on the jury in that court. Seems to me that Jackson
>wasn't such a bad guy
Even if true, that's not the issue. Whether he's guilty is the issue.
>(Comiskey was!) and this all happened almost 80
>years ago.
So what? We still prosecute Nazi war criminals, don't we? We're not
going to stop just because time has passed, are we? (I'm *really* trying
to kill this thread. :) )
>If we as a nation can forgive Richard M. Nixon less than 15
>years after his disgrace (as we did ... 5 presidents attended his
>funeral),
Attending his funeral is hardly the same as "forgiving" him, and it's
*certainly* not the same thing as *honoring* him, which is what you want
to do with Jackson.
>then we can join Ted Williams and Bob Feller in calling for
>Shoeless Joe to be inducted posthumously. So sez I.
Right after Richard Nixon gets his own national monument.
David Marc Nieporent
In <34C763...@baseball1.com>, Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com> claimed:
>David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>> Sean Lahman <se...@baseball1.com> claimed:
>> >John Krempasky wrote:
>> >> From "The Politics of Glory" (since renamed, of course, but I can't
>> >> remember the new name)....
>> >> "My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in
>> >> the Hall of Fame are baseball's answer to those women who show up
>> >> at murder trials wanting to marry the cute murderer."
>> >So James espouses one viewpoint in the Historical Abstract, and a
>> >somewhat contradictory viewpoint a few years later.
>> Um, I think I speak for me and all the voices in Roger Maynard's head
>> when I say "Wha?"
>As I see it, there are only two reasonable viewpoints on Joe Jackson,
As I see it, there's only one reasonable viewpoint on Joe Jackson.
>and James switched from one to the other. The first is to say that
>Jackson doesn't belong, but to point out that his guilt is not certain.
>That's what James does in the Historical Abstract. He writes (I'm
>paraphrasing) that he had read everything he could find and was not
>certain about Jackson's guilt. He concluded by saying that of course
>Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but it was a question of priorities.
Whoosh! Apparently James' comments went way over your head. Reread what
he wrote. Not a paraphrase, but the actual words. Read the names he
suggst belong in the HOF before Jackson. Think "sarcasm" while reading
it.
Sean Lahman
David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> Whoosh! Apparently James' comments went way over your head. Reread
> what he wrote. Not a paraphrase, but the actual words. Read the
> names he suggst belong in the HOF before Jackson. Think "sarcasm"
> while reading it.
Got the book right here in front of me, David. The sarcasm at the end
of James' piece is duly noted, but it's not relevant to anything I was
saying. That whooshing sound you hear is my point, which you obviously
missed.
To recap, I said there were two reasoanble viewpoints on Shoeless Joe,
and James espoused one in the Historical Abstract, then the other in
Politics of Glory.
Specifically, I wrote...
> The first is to say that Jackson doesn't belong, but to point out
> that his guilt is not certain.
<snip>
> The second viewpoint is that what Jackson did was so bad that he
> should never, ever be admitted.
Note that both of these views conclude that Jackson is out, but they
differ as to the "degree of guilt" (James' words) assigned to Jackson.
If you actually read the relevant portion from the Historical Abstract,
James outlines (and endorses) the classical Jackson defense. That's
what I call viewpoint #1, which Ted Williams and Bob Feller are
currently promoting.
The Politics of Glory has full chapters discussing significant HOF
cases. He notably limits his discussion of Jackson to one sentence,
when he clearly had the opportunity to expand on the subject. James
dismisses any case for his induction, saying that any sympathy for
Jackson is misplaced. That's viewpoint #2, which I gather you and I
share.
It's a subtle difference, and one that might not be very significant.
But I was trying to point out that there are in fact two reasonable
views of Shoeless Joe's HOF case.
Sorry that a single humorous comment on James' infallability caused such
a furor.
DougP001
In article <MPG.f2e62a32...@news.earthlink.net>, Cze...@earthlink.net
(Dan Szymborski) writes:
>> He even tried to vindicate himself
> with owner, Comiskey, but the crime
>had already been commited. It
> doesn't matter the court system claimed he
>was innocent.
Small but important point. The court system found them to be
>"not
guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
And the court system found them not guilty of "throwing games with
intent to defraud," which is not the same as finding them not guilty of
throwing games.
Doug Pappas
Gambz14
>. Betting on other teams is cause for a one-year
>suspension from the National League; this was part of the original 1876
>rules. If that's what Rose did, and he confesses to it (and MLB is
>willing to accept that this is what happened), he should be reinstated.
>
>David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu
>http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner
>Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
>Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
>
from the 1/21/98 edition of sportsbytes [email gam...@aol.com for a free
subscription]:
pete rose:
sacrifice to the baseball gods
by gambz
mailto:gam...@aol.com
The modern world -- from the practice facilities of the Golden State Warriors
to the chemical munitions factories of Iraq -- is quickly going to hell in a
handbasket. Straight to hell. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Not so very long ago, before the annual political scandal ended in "'-gate" and
before bicuspids and human saliva were the non-fistic weapons of choice among
North American athletes, and before more ink in your morning sports section.
was devoted to the police blotter than to the scores themselves, there was Pete
Rose. To him, baseball was a joy. It was a passion. He ran to first base on
bases on balls -- the term "walk" was an oxymoron to a man nicknamed "Charlie
Hustle" -- and he slid headfirst and he played every game he could and he
played hard. To win.
And along the way, he amassed 4,256 hits, a record that will NEVER be broken.
Ever. Suppose a player gathers 200 hits a year for 21 consecutive seasons. A
truly remarkable career, right? He'd still be 57 hits short of eclipsing Rose's
mark. And with coast-to-coast travel, artificial turf, and night games, who
plays 20+ seasons anymore?
Still, Rose managed to piss off plenty of people. Mets fans. Dodgers fans.
Pirates fans. Red Sox fans [something that might have been very costly to Rose,
as we'll discuss later]. After he set a National League-record hitting streak
back in 1978 with the Reds, he received a postgame phone call from
then-President Carter. His first response to the President? "How ya doin'?"
Teammates and reporters laughed at Rose's nonchalance, but by that time they
knew what to expect.
Pete Rose was named player-manager of the Reds in 1985, after stops in
Philadelphia [where he was instrumental in the Phillies' first World Series
title ever] and Montreal. The Reds finished second every season from '85-'88,
leading some to call for a ritual sacrifice of Marge Schott's beloved St.
Bernard, Schottzie.
But 1989 was a year marred by numerous injuries to several Reds stars, not to
mention a new, no-nonsense Commissioner, Bart Giamatti, who as NL President
suspended Rose for the insane amount of 30 days for bumping an umpire who
shoved Rose FIRST. [He was also a devoted Red Sox fan, wearing his goofy,
tattered BoSox cap to NL games, in an apparent conflict of interest.]
I am not going to sit here and tell you that Pete Rose never gambled. I'll bet
you $500 he did. It is possible he bet on baseball, too, although even today
there exists nothing more than mountains of circumstantial evidence and
testimony from known criminal scumwads. The Dowd Report is a sham.
Compulsive gambling is an illness, just like alcoholism or drug addiction. I
personally know members of all three groups [they will soon be known as my
in-laws]. AndI am fully cognizant of the potentially destructive effect
gambling can have upon sport, making it no less predictable than WCW wrestling.
But I mean, holy cow, Steve Howe was suspended from baseball SEVEN TIMES, and
was welcomed back each time. Oh, that's right, he was a member of the MLBPA,
with their deep pockets and selective ethics. Pete Rose, at the time of his
exile from baseball, was management.
I view it as baseball's biggest shame that the man who set the one really
unbreakable sports record is not in Cooperstown. Don't get me wrong -- if he
ever bet on the Reds TO LOSE, off with his head. Literally.
In the column which follows, you will see an arcane, implausible set of
scenarios under which Rose could have bet on the Reds to win but altered the
outcome of league play. To me, this is no more morally reprehensible than
Darryl Strawberry [who will get some Hall votes in the future, strangely
enough] high on coke in right field or, for that matter, the slap-happy Wil
Cordero of Dr. Giamatti's beloved BoSox.
Pete Rose -- and baseball -- has suffered enough. Let the man in.
-----
keep rose out of the hof
by rich mies
mailto:bg...@aol.com
I grew up idolizing Pete Rose. "Charlie Hustle" was, to me, the epitome of a
baseball player: maybe not the most overwhelmingly talented, but scrappy,
hard-working, and truly in love with his game. He was THE consummate
competitor: aggressive, driven and dedicated to his game and his team.
In 1989, I was stunned to read in the papers Pete was summoned to New York to
answer questions about gambling allegations. As the saga unfolded, I was
dumfounded. How could Pete Rose—the man who professed to love baseball as much
as life itself—have gotten involved in such a sordid situation?
When Commissioner Giamatti suspended Pete from baseball for life, I cried, but
also came to realize the seriousness of his deeds. It is because of these
misdeeds that Pete Rose should not be allowed into the Hall of Fame.
Every baseball player knows the seriousness of gambling and consorting with
known gamblers. The rules of major league baseball concerning gambling are
posted in each locker room and dugout. These rules are read to the teams every
spring training. As a major league player and manager for over 20 years, Pete
was MOST familiar with these rules. Yet he chose to ignore them and continued
to bet and bet heavily. As John Dowd, the investigator who handled the case,
said, "The evidence against Pete Rose is overwhelming." The 225-page report
that was made public is merely a summary of the evidence gathered. The full
report is SEVEN volumes of sworn testimony by Rose’s associates. This evidence
clearly indicates the Pete Rose bet ON BASEBALL—in fact, he bet on games of the
team he was managing and loved: the Reds. Paul Janszen, who testified that be
placed bets for Rose has stated repeatedly that Pete bet on "baseball, only
baseball." When asked if Rose bet on Reds games, his reply was "yes, sir,
every game."
Nothing precludes a baseball player from going to casinos, horse tracks and
other forms of gambling. But betting on baseball is forbidden, and rightly so.
Betting on games that your team is playing is even more suspect. Yet Rose did
exactly that, with full knowledge that, if busted, he would risk losing his
reputation, his employment in the game, and even the Hall of Fame he held so
dear. In 1989, he accepted the suspension. In return, Giamatti agreed not to
turn the evidence over for prosecution. If Rose was guiltless, why would he
agree to this??? Even now, Rose has never denied or confirmed the charges.
Rather, his position is that he has done enough, and now should be reinstated.
Whether Rose tanked games or manipulated the outcome to cover a point spread is
not clear. Even if every bet he placed was for the Reds to win, it does NOT
lessen the charges. Betting on baseball is explicitly prohibited. To argue
that, since the bets were on his team winning somehow diminishes the crime is
akin to saying a driving while drunk on beer is not as serious an offense as
driving drunk on hard liquor.
Some people contend that Rose’s gambling problems are no more serious than
Ruth’s drinking Cobb’s racism. While I am not condoning the actions of these
two, neither one’s behavior was a violation of baseball code. Neither one cast
doubt upon the integrity of the game nor raised suspicions that we fans were
cheated out of enjoying the game we love.
Pete Rose knew the consequences of his actions. This did not stop him from
betting. This did not cause him to seek help. Rather, Pete Rose, like all too
many of today’s athletes, felt his athletic talents somehow exempted him from
his moral obligation to do the right thing. To reinstate Rose to the game and
allow him to be considered for the Hall of Fame would send a signal to today
and tomorrow’s athletes that the rules are made to be broken. It would say that
athletic talent buys clemency.
Pete Rose’s accomplishments on the playing field are unquestionably worthy of
the Hall of Fame. His flagrant disregard for the rules of conduct makes him
ineligible and unworthy of enshrinement.
Doug Riblet
nawr...@aol.com (NawrockiT) wrote:
>: And with coast-to-coast travel, artificial turf, and night games, who
>: plays 20+ seasons anymore?
>Eddie Murray. Dennis Eckersley. Obviously, at any one point in the game's
>history, there will be very few players with 20 years of service. But they
>ain't going away.
Paul Molitor, Danny Darwin, Rick Honeycutt and Dennis Martinez were
also 20-year veterans active in 1997. Rickey Henderson and Tim
Raines are heading into their 20th seasons. Harold Baines, Jesse
Orosco and Lee Smith are all heading into season #19. I've probably
missed a couple. Hell, Rafael Belliard is getting pretty close.
For all the blather about how today's players don't have the moral
fortitude or financial incentive to sustain long careers, the exact
opposite is happening. Most players have to be dragged off the
diamond kicking and screaming, no matter how humiliatingly far
their skills have diminished. Eddie Murray played a month in AAA
last August, for nothing more than a September call-up and the
chance at a few last pinchhitting appearances. Crazy as it may
sound to some people (though it seems perfectly logical to me),
professional baseball players appear to love their jobs.
-----------------------------------------
Doug Riblet / dbri...@students.wisc.edu
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~dbriblet/
Boris Bytensky
Gary Huckabay wrote:
>
> David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> >> Gambz14 wrote:
- bunch of stuff deleted -
> >>I view it as baseball's biggest shame that the man who set the one really
> >>unbreakable sports record is not in Cooperstown.
> >
> >Most outs ever?
>
> Hey, give Sammy Sosa a few more years. NO record is unbreakable. I
> think Ryan's K record may survive my lifetime, but I don't think any
> of the more meaningful records {HR, H, R} will. Rose belongs in the
> Hall {outer circle} based on his on-field accomplishments.
The one record which will probably never (as probably never as it gets)
is Wins. I doubt you'll see someone *average* over 25 wins a year for
20+ seasons.
rest of discussion regarding Rose and HOF deleted
dke...@best.com
In article <6a8808$r...@pluto.njcc.com>,
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>Just like
>>all that some people know about the Pete Rose case is a few pages of
>>James' blather in the 1990 Player Ratings book.
>
It's not all I know. I remember the situation as it
unfolded too.
But the James piece has formed the heart of my opinion
on the matter. His portrayal of the Dowd report makes
the report seem silly. And I have not heard anything
contradictory.
This does not mean I think Rose is innocent. It means
I don't know. And it means that I think the case baseball
had against him was weak.
I would be happy to see evidence to the contrary.
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (650) 967-5644
dke...@netcom.com FAX: (650) 967-5648
In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct.
--- Ernie Hai, coordinator Singapore Gov't Internet Project.
Jeremy Buchman
In article <19980122042...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
>OTOH, if "The Hidden Game of Baseball" was around, I might break INTO
someone's >house to get THAT
Well, as someone who owns "The Hidden Game of Baseball" and highly
recommends it, I'm glad that my signature file doesn't include my home
address. :)
--
Jeremy Buchman
jbuc...@leland.stanford.edu
"Don't look back--something might be gaining on you."--Satchel Paige
Ken Emery
In article <6a8cs5$1u8$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, Gary Huckabay wrote:
>In article <6a8a4q$1...@pluto.njcc.com>,
<snip>
>{2} Rose hasn't ASKED to remove the ban. {Granted, asking Bud Selig would
> present some other issues.} Until Rose asks, nothing's going to happen.
> If I were on the review board, his endless rabble rousing wouldn't
> help his cause. A little contrition and complete disclosure would.
I believe Pete has petitioned the office of the commisioner (such as
it is these days) for reinstatement. If his petition is granted he
would be removed from the ineligible list and could then enter the
HOF.
bye,
ken emery
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
In article <6a8b32$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Roger Moore <r...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>tst...@reed.edu (Wheat Thin) writes:
<snip>
>>And what of Charles Comiskey?
>
>>I don't think Shoeless Joe should be in the Hall of Fame, although I also
>>don't think he should be vilified for what he did. And I understand the
>>argument for letting him in. His ability as a ballplayer certainly
>>qualifies him, and his motives, while hardly pardoning him, are understand-
>>able. And then there's the simple question of precedent: if Charles Comiskey,
>>who did as much if not more to ruin the game of baseball as any of the
>>eight men out, could be let into the Hall of Fame, why not Joe?
>
>But what Comiskey did was a completely different kettle of fish from what
>Jackson and the other conspirators did. Comiskey took advantage of the
<remainder of a great post by Raj snipped>
People tend to over look what a huge force Comiskey was in baseball. I've
been reading up on his 1913 World Tour and it's been very interesting. My
jaw dropped when I read this following quote from John McGraw -
"I wish some - no, not some, all - of our friends at home could have been
here to share the hospitality of the old Roman dealt out so lavishly. The
serious business of the year being over, he wants every one to have a good
time, and that every minute."
This certainly conflicts with the cheapskate Comiskey that has been offered
up to us in the history books. I'm perfectly willing to believe he drove
a hard bargain when negotiating contracts, but I think his character has
become a little two-dimensional in the way it has been handed down to us.
David Marasco mar...@nwu.edu http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~dmarasco
"An object at rest cannot be stopped." - The Tick
James Weisberg
In article <6a7t85$b...@pluto.njcc.com>,
>going to stop just because time has passed, are we? (I'm *really* trying
>to kill this thread. :) )
Who's "we"? The U.S. doesn't prosecute Nazi war criminals.
At most, they deport them elsewhere. And not every country
gives a damn about Nazis or what they did.
Those who do give a damn prosecute them because they happen
to be alive and missed the first go 'round.
As for your time passed argument, I have a problem with it.
If the human lifespan were 10 or 100 times longer, would you
still think it worthwhile to prosecute someone for something
they did 1000yrs ago? 10,000? What's the point exactly? If
the person who committed these crimes lived a perfect 1000
years afterward, does this not mean anything?
I asked you before, does rehabilitation mean anything to
you? If not, how about simple change? We change. We are not
static creatures. If given adequate time, I think many people
would change for the better. For economic, social, and
political reasons, it may be best to lock up or execute
certain criminals today, but I'm not convinced this is the
best approach to take if lifespans were to become significantly
longer. More importantly, I'm not sure how useful it is to
go back and prosecute such and individual after such a long
time had passed and that person had changed completely.
--
World's Greatest Living Poster.
Hank Gillette
> He concluded by saying that of course
> Jackson should be in the Hall of Fame, but it was a question of
> priorities.
>
You're not familar with sarcasm, are you? (The priority was that every
honest human being associated in any way with baseball at any level should
be enshrined before Jackson)
Hank Gillette
Gerry Myerson
I was informed by email that "Mel Brooks" should be "Robert Downey;"
the reference is to Putney Swope.
We now return you to the debate over whether a court can find you
not criminally innocent.
In article <NoJunkMail-22...@abinitio.mpce.mq.edu.au>,
NoJun...@this.address (Gerry Myerson) wrote:
-> In article <6a60ca$d...@anubis.reed.edu>, tst...@reed.edu (Wheat Thin) wrote:
->
-> > The Hall is corrupt. There are already a number of people enshrined there
-> > who don't belong there, for whatever reasons. Does it really matter if we
-> > add one more?
->
-> Doesn't matter at all. Oh, and while you're up, why not throw another Jew
-> on the fire.
->
-> With apologies to Mel Brooks,
->
-> Gerry Myerson (ge...@mpce.mq.edu.au)
sjgrant
Boris Bytensky (byte...@interlog.com) wrote:
: Gary Huckabay wrote:
: >
: > David Marc Nieporent wrote:
: > >> Gambz14 wrote:
: - bunch of stuff deleted -
:
: > >>I view it as baseball's biggest shame that the man who set the one really
: > >>unbreakable sports record is not in Cooperstown.
: > >
: > >Most outs ever?
: >
: > Hey, give Sammy Sosa a few more years. NO record is unbreakable. I
: > think Ryan's K record may survive my lifetime, but I don't think any
: > of the more meaningful records {HR, H, R} will. Rose belongs in the
: > Hall {outer circle} based on his on-field accomplishments.
: The one record which will probably never (as probably never as it gets)
: is Wins. I doubt you'll see someone *average* over 25 wins a year for
: 20+ seasons.
: rest of discussion regarding Rose and HOF deleted
Well, *the* truly unbreakable record would be Cy Young's complete
games number
David Loewe, Jr.
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:27:29 -0500, Zen Bitz
<d...@spammerscum.bioc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>> BZZZZT! I responded to _your_ 2 lines of text with about 3 and 1/2
>> lines of text, everything else (until now) is in response to
>> _Nieporent's_ rejoinders.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>That's THE Nieporent to you and your ilk.
>These kids today, no sense of HISTORY.
Given that Nieporent seems, from the way I read some of his posts, to
be attending law school, I'm probably a _LOT_ OLDER than Nieporent.
HTH HAND
>Hope this Helps.
DougP001
In article <34c5d52d...@news.inlink.com>, dlo...@nionslpianmk.com (David
Loewe, Jr.) writes:
>
>Small but important point. The court system found them to be "not
>
>guilty" not "innocent". That's a huge difference.
Since 'innocent' is
>not an allowable verdict, there is _NO_ difference
in any quantifiable way. A
>clearly innocent person gets the same
verdict as one against whom the
>allegations merely cannot be proven
despite their guilt.
Which is why, if the question is "Was it more probable than not that
Shoeless Joe Jackson threw games?", a not guilty verdict doesn't
come close to settling the question. Especially when the jury instructions
introduced an intent-to-defraud element which is irrelevant to the issue
MLB cares about.
Doug Pappas
Jonathan Bernstein
Gary Huckabay (ez02...@dogbert.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: In article <6a8a4q$1...@pluto.njcc.com>,
: David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
: Similarly, the Rose bashers, myself included, often neglect to mention:
: (1) It's a Hall of *FAME*. Rose and Reggie Jackson are probably the
: most famous players of that time frame.
Gary, you're dead wrong on that one. It's the Hall of *FAME*, as in
"these are the guys who we want to bestow fame upon", rather than the Hall
of Fame, as in "let's reward those who are most famous."
The whole point of the award is to give fame to those who deserve it.
That's also why Bill James was wrong when he said that it was pointless
to reward 19th century players now that they're too dead to appreciate it;
we want to reward excellence as an example to the rest of us. Put Rose,
the unrepentent gambler into the Hall, and we're telling future players
that he's the ideal to strive for.
[...]
: Much of Rose's fame and persona is based on an image that he carefully
: cultivated with the media. I think that if Rose started his career around
: 1982, he'd be reviled to an extent to match people like Steve Howe,
: Darryl Strawberry, Jose Canseco, and Albert Belle. The media's focus is
: a little different these days.
I wouldn't go that far; his act certainly sold with reporters of his time,
and it probably takes a different act to sell today. No way of knowing
whether he'd adapt or not.
Oh, and by the way:
: Hey, give Sammy Sosa a few more years. NO record is unbreakable. I
: think Ryan's K record may survive my lifetime, but I don't think any
: of the more meaningful records {HR, H, R} will.
The game's gonna have to change for Ryan's K record to go down, wouldn't
you say? I don't think that one, or Henderson's SB record, are vulnerable
at current conditions.
I'd be shocked if the HR record doesn't fall in the next thirty years,
probably more than once, probably by at least one active player.
JHB
Michael D. McCullough
Paul Antonissen wrote:
>This reminds me of what Bill James wrote about this in the Historical
Abstract:
>
>"My own opinion as to whether or not Joe Jackson should be put in the Hall
>of Fame is that of course he should; it is only a question of priorities.
How interesting. Here's what he wrote in The Politics of Glory:
Kimberly Murphy-Smith
Hint to all those who find these two lines contradictory: Go back and
re-read the HistAb. Turn on your tongue-in-cheek sensors. (Bigger
Hint: James says Mrs. Babe Ruth should get in before Shoeless Joe.)
Kimberly Murphy-Smith (kamu...@ix.netcom.com)
http://members.aol.com/kimmurphy/
Greg Spira
In article <6a8k6d$6...@power.Stanford.EDU>, jbuc...@leland.Stanford.EDU
says...
> In article <19980122042...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >OTOH, if "The Hidden Game of Baseball" was around, I might break INTO
> someone's >house to get THAT
>
> Well, as someone who owns "The Hidden Game of Baseball" and highly
> recommends it, I'm glad that my signature file doesn't include my home
> address. :)
>
>
want the Hidden Game. R. Plapinger out west often has one, and you can
find one currently on sale for $25 by searching at bibliofind on the net.
And if anyone wants me to keep a look out for one, just tell me.
Greg
Sean Lahman
Greg Spira wrote:
>
> jbuc...@leland.Stanford.EDU says...
> > JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >OTOH, if "The Hidden Game of Baseball" was around, I might break
> > >INTO someone's house to get THAT
> >
> > Well, as someone who owns "The Hidden Game of Baseball" and highly
> > recommends it, I'm glad that my signature file doesn't include my
> > home address. :)
> >
> >
> I would point out that there are such things as used books for people
> who want the Hidden Game. R. Plapinger out west often has one, and
> you can find one currently on sale for $25 by searching at bibliofind
> on the net.
Hope I won't get in trouble for saying this, but John Thorn told me
they're considering an update and re-release.
Sean Lahman
David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>
> <se...@baseball1.com> claimed:
> > Further, I dispute that
> >_everything_ he has written is like the word of God.
>
> people throw out as a strawman about statheads.
Well, I've been called a lot of things but that's the first time I've
been accused of being an anti-stat person. Next you'll be calling James
Weisberg "anti-Cobb", or accuse Gary Huckabay of not having a sense of
humor.
Why must every thread inevitably result in a transcription of Bill
James' view on the subject being posted? Just yesterday, I asked why
the perception of Carlton and Sutton were so different when their career
numbers are so similar. I have my own ideas, but I wanted to hear some
others. Of course, the first response was "you must not have read Bill
James book. He already talked about that.", as if his pronouncement
was the final word on the subject. I'm just as capable as anyone else
of flipping to page 80 of Politics of Glory to read the few lines on
Carlton vs Sutton. If I want to know Bill James' view on something,
I'll e-mail him.
I prefer to express my own views and opinions. Sometimes they get shot
down, and sometimes I may end up looking like a blathering idiot. But
if people are more comfortable regurgitating someone else's opinions,
how about a little variety? Demonstrate that you've read more than just
one book. You're preaching to the choir.
> >There are better
> >researched writings on Joe Jackson,
>
> Yes, btu there aren't better *written* writings on Joe Jackson. Those
> two little wry quotes about Joe Jackson sum up, succinctly, the
> anti-Joe Jackson position.
No, I don't think they do. But it's not important enough to argue
about.
> >Just like
> >all that some people know about the Pete Rose case is a few pages of
> >James' blather in the 1990 Player Ratings book.
>
> I don't think there's anybody like that.
If you say so. I'll give you a dollar if you show me an r.s.b. posting
on Rose that mentions any other reference source, including a single
person who's actually seen the Dowd report. And you can give me a dime
for every post that quotes James.
Sean Lahman
dke...@best.com wrote:
> But the James piece has formed the heart of my opinion
> on the matter. His portrayal of the Dowd report makes
> the report seem silly. And I have not heard anything
> contradictory.
>
> This does not mean I think Rose is innocent. It means
> I don't know. And it means that I think the case baseball
> had against him was weak.
>
> I would be happy to see evidence to the contrary.
If I have one wish in life, it would be that people read something
besides what Bill James wrote on the Rose case. There are two excellent
books -- Mike Sokolove's _Hustle_, and James Reston's _Collision at Home
Plate_. Both are still in print, and I'd guess that most moderately
sized libraries would have both. Even Helyar's _Lords of the Realm_ has
a good analysis of the investigation.
They all did much more research on the case and reached a different
conclusion than Bill James. I don't mind if people share James' view on
the Rose case, but I wish they'd at least consider a second or third
opinion. Some of James' facts are just plain wrong.
I wish the Dowd report were more widely available. I'd be happy to send
some pertinent photocopies of excerpts to any open-minded individuals
that would care to read them.
Sean Lahman
sjgrant wrote:
>
> Boris Bytensky (byte...@interlog.com) wrote:
> : The one record which will probably never (as probably never as it
> : gets) is Wins. I doubt you'll see someone *average* over 25 wins a
> : year for 20+ seasons.
>
> games number
You're both wrong. The only unbreakable record is Vander Meer's
consecutive no-hitters. Nobody will ever throw three.
James Tuttle
Joe Earls wrote:
> OTOH, if "The Hidden Game of Baseball" was around, I might break INTO
> someone's house to get THAT
I got it from the public library. Someone once told me to read that
book. The other book I got on interlibrary loan was "Player Win
Averages" by the Mills bros., and I also read the Branch Rickey story
from a Life mnagazine in August 1954 IIRC. Library had that too.
OTOH, have never read anything by Bill James. (Actually, never heard of
him until I got involved in this newsgroup.)
Ben Flieger
Sean Lahman wrote in message <34C8AD...@baseball1.com>...
>sjgrant wrote:
>>
>> Boris Bytensky (byte...@interlog.com) wrote:
>> : The one record which will probably never (as probably never as it
>> : gets) is Wins. I doubt you'll see someone *average* over 25 wins a
>> : year for 20+ seasons.
>>
>> Well, *the* truly unbreakable record would be Cy Young's complete
>> games number
>
>You're both wrong. The only unbreakable record is Vander Meer's
>consecutive no-hitters. Nobody will ever throw three.
>
Somebody already ahs, ergo, someone probably will. The ONLY truely
unbreakable record is Wilt Chamberlains 60 min playing time. There may be
some other unbreakables, but tht is the one that pops in my mind. The
reason, of course, that a record is unbreakable, is a rule change.
Ben Flieger
James Weisberg wrote in message <6a94hb$6...@miso.wwa.com>...
>In article <6a7t85$b...@pluto.njcc.com>,
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>So what? We still prosecute Nazi war criminals, don't we? We're not
>>going to stop just because time has passed, are we? (I'm *really* trying
>>to kill this thread. :) )
>
> Who's "we"? The U.S. doesn't prosecute Nazi war criminals.
Israel does. The US helps Israel.
>At most, they deport them elsewhere. And not every country
>gives a damn about Nazis or what they did.
> Those who do give a damn prosecute them because they happen
>to be alive and missed the first go 'round.
> As for your time passed argument, I have a problem with it.
>If the human lifespan were 10 or 100 times longer, would you
>still think it worthwhile to prosecute someone for something
>they did 1000yrs ago?
Yes,
10,000?
Yes,
What's the point exactly?
Punishment.
If
>the person who committed these crimes lived a perfect 1000
>years afterward, does this not mean anything?
Not a thing.
> I asked you before, does rehabilitation mean anything to
>you? If not, how about simple change? We change. We are not
>static creatures. If given adequate time, I think many people
>would change for the better.
Your opinion.
For economic, social, and
>political reasons, it may be best to lock up or execute
>certain criminals today, but I'm not convinced this is the
>best approach to take if lifespans were to become significantly
>longer.
Naw, torture is still the best I can think of.
More importantly, I'm not sure how useful it is to
>go back and prosecute such and individual after such a long
>time had passed and that person had changed completely.
As a warning to him and to others. Do "X", and "Y" will happne to you. "Y"
is a very bad thing.
Robert William Vesterman
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 02:17:40 +0000, James Tuttle <j...@daedal.net>
wrote:
>Besides, I like his name -- "Shoeless." A lot of those old guys had
>really neat nicknames like "Old Hoss," "King Kong," "Iron Man," "The Big
>Train," and "The Old Perfesser." We need a "Shoeless" in the HoF.
Yeah, I agree completely! Who cares about the fact that he admitted to
taking money to throw the World Series - he's got a cool nickname! If
that doesn't say HOF all over it, I don't know what does.
On a more serious note, the best baseball nickname of all time:
Charles Alston Tebeau, a.k.a. "Pussy".
Bob Vesterman.
----------
This is the coolest of all sig files.
Stephen Shauger
A very good post.
Roger, do you have a source on the Comisky stuff. i would like to
learn more about the pitching staff development.
Shauger
Roger Moore wrote:
>
And while it's true that some of those guys were
> probably underpayed (Jackson certainly was), the extent to which that was
> true has probably been overstated.
>
> While much is made of the fact that Collins was payed about twice as much
> as Jackson, for instance, there were two mitigating factors. For one
> thing, Collins was fairly clearly a better player and deserved to be payed
> at least somewhat more. For another thing, Collins had managed to wring a
> long term contract out of Connie Mack and get a contiuation of that
> contract included as part of his being sent to the White Sox. Since he
> had been sold to the Sox, though, baseball had come on hard times during
> WWI and all of the teams were trying to save money by reducing salaries.
> It's interesting to note that with the improving post-war economic
> conditions, Comiskey was willing to give raises to most of his players
> after the 1919 season- an indirect indication that there was an element of
> real economic hardship in the low salaries he gave his players. In any
> case, a comparison of the salaries of the Black Sox to their
> contemporaries indicates that they weren't as poorly payed as later
> commetators have suggested.
>
> If you look at what Comiskey did apart from underpaying his players, I'm
> not certain if he did anything that justifies keeping him out of the Hall.
> Asinof reports that as soon as he received a credible allegation that his
> team was trying to throw the series he tried to bring it to the attention
> of the National Commision. You can hardly blame him because the
> authorities didn't want to listen. His behavior from after the Series,
> trying to cover up what had happened, at least makes a certain ammount of
> sense. The baseball authorities weren't interested in lifting a finger to
> help him in trying to clean up the mess and they passed on a distinct
> feeling that they wanted the whole thing to disappear down a black hole.
> Basically, both the baseball authorities and his lawyers told him that the
> right thing to do was to whitewash the entire issue; there were, IMO,
> plenty enough black eyes for the entire baseball establishment on the
> issue, and singling out Comiskey for the entire blame seems unfair.
>
> That also ignores the entire remainder of Commie's career. He was a key
> player, probably second in importance to Ban Johnson, in establishing the
> AL, and he was one of the most successful owners in the first twenty years
> of the league. That has to be worth a lot. He was also one of the most
> influential managers in 19th century baseball. While van der Ahe gets
> most of the attention, player/manager Comiskey was the real builder of the
> dominating Brown Stocking teams of the 1880's. Again, while the most
> commonly observed feature of the St. Louis team was their aggressive
> courting and use of rowdy fans, a huge ammount of their success was
> because of Commiskey's pioneering development of the first real pitching
> _staff_ in major league history. Until Comiskey's time, and for a fair
> while while he was still managing, teams tried to push pitching duties
> onto as few men as possible. Some teams wound up spreading the pitching
> duties around a fair bit, but that was more like a modern bullpen by
> committee than a modern pitching staff- they were trying out various
> pitchers until they found the one true starter who would carry them to the
> championship, ala Old Hoss Radbourn, Tim Keefe, etc. Comiskey, OTOH,
> systematically spread the pitching workload over several pitchers. His
> success with such 19th century big names as Tony Mullane, Bob Caruthers,
> Dave Foutz, and Silver King was largely a result of letting them share the
> workload; it's no coincidence that they all put up near HOF type numbers.
> His managerial success and innovation, IMO, are almost enough to qualify
> Comiskey for the Hall even without his time as a successful owner and
> developer of the AL.
>
> --
> Raj (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
> Master of Meaningless Trivia (626) 585-0144
> http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~raj/
Perry Sailor
Sean Lahman wrote:
>
> John Krempasky wrote:
> >
> > From "The Politics of Glory" (since renamed, of course, but I can't
> > remember the new name)....
> >
> > "My own opinion is that the people who want to put Joe Jackson in the
> > Hall of Fame are baseball's answer to those women who show up at
> > murder trials wanting to marry the cute murderer."
>
> somewhat contradictory viewpoint a few years later.
>
Huh? In the Historical Abstract, he says, paraphrasing: "Of course
Jackson belongs in the Hall of Fame -- right after Larry Bowa, Omar
Moreno, and Duane Kuiper, and every other honest player, coach, umpire
and writer who ever participated in baseball at any level."
Perry
Kathleen Moore
Ben Flieger wrote in message <6aai4s$s...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
>
>Somebody already ahs, ergo, someone probably will. The ONLY truely
>unbreakable record is Wilt Chamberlains 60 min playing time. There may be
>some other unbreakables, but tht is the one that pops in my mind. The
>reason, of course, that a record is unbreakable, is a rule change.
>
>
game at the age of 15? Now, you can't sign any kind of professional
baseball contract before your 16th birthday.
--
Kathleen Moore
She came down from Cincinnati
It took her three days on a train....
You've got fins to the left, fins to the right
And you're the only girl in town.....Jimmy Buffett
Chris Saunders
Sean Lahman (se...@baseball1.com) wrote:
: Hope I won't get in trouble for saying this, but John Thorn told me
: they're considering an update and re-release.
Dude!! I'm psyched -- reading HGoB now, via university library loan.
Great book, but I think about applying the formulas to, say, Mike Piazza
and find the tables only go to '83 or so.
HGoB2 would be awesome.
--
Spike White | | Moderation in all things
Tivoli Systems | spike...@tivoli.com | -- and abstinence in none!
Austin, TX | '87 BMW K75S (motorcycle)|
Disclaimer: The guys down the hall disagree with everything I say. Guess
who speaks for the company!
Chris Saunders
Ben Flieger (a...@primenet.remove.com) wrote:
: >> Well, *the* truly unbreakable record would be Cy Young's complete
: >> games number
: >
: >You're both wrong. The only unbreakable record is Vander Meer's
: >consecutive no-hitters. Nobody will ever throw three.
: Somebody already ahs, ergo, someone probably will. The ONLY truely
: unbreakable record is Wilt Chamberlains 60 min playing time. There may be
: some other unbreakables, but tht is the one that pops in my mind. The
: reason, of course, that a record is unbreakable, is a rule change.
Three consecutive no-hitters is not technically illegal, but might as well be.
The selection process for picking managers would preclude the
sheer stupidity required. Starting your ace three times in three sequential
games? And letting him pitch nigh-complete games every time? No manager
in MLB would be that stupid, now that pitcher rotation has developed from
an experiment to an established science.
A local HS coach, for one game, allowed his starter to pitcher 14 innings
(the complete game). He prefaced his comments with "Now I know everybody
is going to think I was crazy, but...".
Andrew Milner
> OTOH, have never read anything by Bill James. (Actually, never heard of
> him until I got involved in this newsgroup.)
You've NEVER heard of Bill James before? You're depriving yourself of a
great. great analyst and writer.
-- Andrew
http://www.webhaven.com/andrew
James Weisberg
In article <6aai14$s...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Ben Flieger <a...@spamdis.primenet.com> wrote:
>> Who's "we"? The U.S. doesn't prosecute Nazi war criminals.
>
>Israel does. The US helps Israel.
If there is significant motivation to do so, yes. Otherwise,
the U.S. doesn't care. It's not like the U.S. is looking for
Nazi war criminals. This country has better things to do than
rooting out those people. The war is *over*! The U.S. government
didn't even do much to search out their own MIAs in Vietnam
much less do anything to help those who tortured non-American
Jews in Nazi prison camps.
The point is, the only people really involved in prosecuting
Nazi war criminals are the survivors of those camps. That's
not really anything special. It's no different than any other
group with a longstanding grudge against another group. The
rest of the world has moved on.
>>At most, they deport them elsewhere. And not every country
>>gives a damn about Nazis or what they did.
>> Those who do give a damn prosecute them because they happen
>>to be alive and missed the first go 'round.
>> As for your time passed argument, I have a problem with it.
>>If the human lifespan were 10 or 100 times longer, would you
>>still think it worthwhile to prosecute someone for something
>>they did 1000yrs ago?
>
>Yes,
>
> 10,000?
>
>Yes,
>
> What's the point exactly?
>
>Punishment.
And what's the point of punishment? Really? If some Nazi
war criminal ended the war and became a good priest for the
rest of his life, what exactly is the point of punishing
this person if you found him 40yrs later in a church? It's
not to teach him anything. It's not to rehabilitate him.
It's not to protect society against such a person. What
purpose does this punishment serve?
Is it punishment just for the sake of punishment? Are
humans not above that? Are we not capable of forgiveness?
> If
>>the person who committed these crimes lived a perfect 1000
>>years afterward, does this not mean anything?
>
>Not a thing.
Explain that. I don't understand. Are we only as good as
our worst action? If that action goes unpunished, that is
the fault of society, not the person who committed the action.
The person who committed the action might actually realize
it was wrong and change for the better long before society
gets around to doling out a punishment.
>> I asked you before, does rehabilitation mean anything to
>>you? If not, how about simple change? We change. We are not
>>static creatures. If given adequate time, I think many people
>>would change for the better.
>
>Your opinion.
Well, you do admit that *some* people would change for the
better, right? So what is the purpose of punishing those people
well after the fact, well after they have changed?
> For economic, social, and
>>political reasons, it may be best to lock up or execute
>>certain criminals today, but I'm not convinced this is the
>>best approach to take if lifespans were to become significantly
>>longer.
>
>Naw, torture is still the best I can think of.
Again, what purpose does that serve? A person who changes for
the better gets to live with the "torture" of realization that
at one point, he did something wicked. Torturing good people
because they were once bad seems counterproductive to me.
> More importantly, I'm not sure how useful it is to
>>go back and prosecute such and individual after such a long
>>time had passed and that person had changed completely.
>
>As a warning to him and to others. Do "X", and "Y" will happne to you. "Y"
>is a very bad thing.
Well, in this case, X is rounding up millions of people and
putting them in concentration camps. I think most people know
this is a bad thing to attempt. But anyway...
Warnings are fine. If you found someone still unchanged
and/or unrepentent, that's one thing. But to punish a changed
man decades (or centuries or eons in my hypothetical example),
after the fact doesn't make much sense. Bad people don't
become good people through prosecution and punishment alone.
They must realize what they have done is wrong and want to
change. Nothing accomplishes that turn-about like time. So
if we lived thousands of years, it doesn't make too much
sense to me to go punish someone for what they did centuries
before, assuming they have demonstrably changed.
Roger Moore
Ray Kerby <rke...@dallas.net> writes:
>David Grabiner wrote:
>> Betting on other teams is cause for a one-year
>> suspension from the National League; this was part of the original 1876
>> rules. If that's what Rose did, and he confesses to it (and MLB is
>> willing to accept that this is what happened), he should be
>> reinstated.
>David,
> I don't think you've been following the usual net logic on Rose.
>Since
>the supposed evidence that Rose bet on baseball is suppressed, his
>guilt is assumed because he accepted a liftetime ban for a lesser,
>non-gambling related charge.
Rather, since Rose accepted a permanent ban in the face of strong evidence
that he bet on his own team's games, it's assumed that he didn't have
evidence which was capable of refuting those charges. The discovery of
additional evidence (i.e. a betting book with Rose's fingerprints on it)
since the publication of the Dowd report seems to add credibility to the
charges. It certainly doesn't seem reasonable to put Rose in the Hall
while he's still on the permanently inelligible list, though I think that
most people would agree that if he were to come back and clear his name it
would be OK to induct him into the HOF as soon as he's elected.
>And since we can now assume he is
>guilty of betting on baseball, only the naive would deny that he
>bet on his own team. And, according to net logic, the games that
>you don't bet on your team are essentially the same as betting
>against your team.
Actually, betting in any way, shape, or form on any game in which you are
personally involved, whether as a player, coach, manager, umpire, or
owner, no matter which way you bet, is now and has always been (since well
before the first professional baseball leagues were founded) grounds for
immediate and permanent banishment from baseball. At least since the days
of the Black Sox scandal, baseball has made a very vigorous effort to
ensure that ignorance is not a possible defense against this rule by
working to ensure that ignorance of the rule is impossible. Baseball has
never accepted "I bet for my team to win" as any mitigation of charges of
betting on your own team's games. The argument that betting in favor of
one's own team in only some games is equivalent to betting against your
team in others is, to a considerable extent, an unnecessary attempt to
explain why Rose should be banned even if he only bet the Reds to win;
the rule has always stated that it doesn't matter which way you bet.
Simple argument:
1) Rose accepted a ban from baseball for whatever reason.
2) A player who can't be associated with baseball in any way except by
buying a ticket shouldn't be honored by the HOF.
3) Rose doesn't belong in the HOF until his ban is lifted.
4) QED
Wheat Thin
In article <6a8b32$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Roger Moore <r...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
I greatly enjoyed reading your post, which gave me much to think about. I
just have a few comments to make before crawling into a hole and reading
some more on the topic.
>But what Comiskey did was a completely different kettle of fish from what
>Jackson and the other conspirators did. Comiskey took advantage of the
>reserve clause to underpay his players, but that wasn't anything that
>other owners weren't doing. The argument that the Black Sox decided to
>throw the series because of their low pay is, IMO, one of those things
>that has become a popular idea because it's a nice simple explanation for
>a very complex situation, and because a number of strong leftists like
>Asinof and Sayles have pushed an explanation (i.e. worker explotation) as
>a way of passing the responsability on to management.
1) You say that other than underpaying his players, Comiskey didn't do
anything to warrant being thrown out of the HOF; I wonder, though, isn't
that enough? As I see it, there is a simple parallel between Comiskey
and his fellow owners cheating their players via the reserve clause, and
the players returning the favor by selling games. The fact that Comiskey
wasn't doing anything the other owners weren't doing doesn't strike me
as particularly important, especially in light of the fact that, by
reputation at least, he was the stingiest of them all. (If you have
stats that prove me wrong here, feel free to do so.) Comiskey was one
of the wealthiest owners of the period, and the White Sox the most successful
organization, and yet the White Sox were one of the lowest paid teams.
The players, at the same time, were at a low point; while they were hardly
poor in comparison with the general population, their salaries had fallen
dramatically since the days of the Players Federation only a few years
before. They knew they were being cheated, and it's easy to understand
that some of them might want to cheat right back.
I know the situation was far more complex than Asinof or Sayles allowed
for, but the fact remains that the players were getting exploited. The
reserve clause, in its very existence, was a form of worker exploitation,
albeit of a peculiar type and in a peculiar business. That doesn't
suffice to explain the entirety of why the players started selling games,
but it was part of the problem and Charles Comiskey did absolutely
nothing to help it.
2) You say that the way the conspiracy evolved, Comiskey was helpless
to prevent it. I'm sure he couldn't have. But I'm not really concerned
with what Comiskey could or couldn't have done; I'm concerned with what
he did done. Everything Comiskey ever did as an owner, including his
wishy-washy attempt to cover up the conspiracy, seemed geared to maximize
his own profits. That was, along with the brief scene showing Shoeless
Joe botching an easy ball in the outfield, perhaps the truest moment
in Sayles' movie. It seems pretty apparent to me that Comiskey was at
once enraged at his players for trying to cheat him, and aghast at the
thought that he might lose them and see his profits fall (I hope
David Nieporent doesn't nail me here for trying to read his mind, though.)
It's not damning information, but I think it is revealing as to what his
interests were, and his main interest was not for protecting the integrity
of baseball.
For me, that is an important point, because it's exactly what the conspira-
tors get slammed for. They were, after all, looking out for their own
interests, and so endangered the game. Comiskey did the same thing, although
-- and this may pardon him in some eyes -- he only endangered the game
by adding to an atmosphere of greed and corruption, rather than committing
any "crimes" per se. He never, after all, fraternized with gamblers,
and perhaps that's the only criteria that is considered important anymore.
I don't really think it should be that way; issues of guilt and innocence
are subtler than most one-dimensional laws allow for.
I don't really like this kind of attempt to determine who's to blame, though;
at times the list seems so long that, like with the Holocaust, it seems the
whole human race is guilty. I was intrigued, therefore, by your description
of Comiskey's past glories. I hadn't realized that his track record was
so good. It doesn't persuade me, though, that he's a legitimate Hall of
Famer, any more than reading Joe Jackson's statistics persuades me (anymore,
at least. They certainly used to persuade me). Perhaps, if Gary Huckaby
can ever get his two-tiered Hall of Fame going, they could both go into
the outer circle. I might learn to live with that.
--
Tommy J.M.D. Strong
tst...@reed.edu
David Andrew Leonardo Marasco
In article <6ab3q1$br$1...@tivoli.tivoli.com>,
Chris Saunders <chr...@tivoli.com> wrote:
>Three consecutive no-hitters is not technically illegal, but might as well be.
>
>The selection process for picking managers would preclude the
>sheer stupidity required. Starting your ace three times in three sequential
>games? And letting him pitch nigh-complete games every time? No manager
>in MLB would be that stupid, now that pitcher rotation has developed from
>an experiment to an established science.
The rotation was not an experiment when Vandermeer pitched his two no-no's
back in the 30's. No hitters in 3 consecutives starts is crazy enough,
body is requiring that it be done in three consecutive games.
No hittters by NL'ers in the 1930's:
Vandermeer -2
Paul Dean -1
And that's all folks.....
David Marasco mar...@nwu.edu http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~dmarasco
"An object at rest cannot be stopped." - The Tick
Buck Chuckles
>I'd be shocked if the HR record doesn't fall in the next thirty years,
>probably more than once, probably by at least one active player.
>
>JHB
I would be truly AMAZED if an inactive player broke the record.....
Michael
p.s. yeah, I know what your going to say......What a smartass/dumbass.
(circle one)