Is 100 Years long enough? The Shoeless Joe Thread.

[chrisfont9]

Actually, no and no. As I pointed out up thread, Eliot Asinof's goal wasn't to write a bulletproof documentary of the scandal with "Eight Men Out". Much of it was fictionalized and has been debunked with things like payroll records that have only become available more recently than Asinof's time. Of course, all players were underpaid and lacked bargaining rights, and Comiskey should have been banned for guilty knowledge, but the White Sox were one of the highest paid teams in the league. I believe Cicotte was the second highest paid pitcher in the league at the time, and the late season bonus dispute only existed decades later in the pages of Asinof's book (not only is there no evidence of the bonus, but Cicotte's late season usage didn't match up with the story).

We'll never fully know their motivations, but throwing games was a quick and not uncommon way for ballplayers to make money at the time, so the fix really didn't require some deep-seated rebellion against a nefarious owner.

*

Well whatever, my original point is that the reserve clause is evidence of an exploitative system, and if ballplayers went looking for ways to get paid, the owners basically invited misbehavior.

 

[Reverend]

I say put him in, and also tell the story of 1919. Clearly outside of the 1919 postseason he was a HOF player. It also seems pretty likely that the story of the Black Sox was convoluted enough and involved enough bullshit on multiple sides to not hang it all on the players. The existence of the Reserve Clause (dating back to the 1870s) is offensive enough by modern standards that I think we can change our minds about the conditions under which the alleged offenses took place. I wouldn't give him a pass, but I also don't see why a museum has to only tell polished happy stories and not include some of the game's warts.

It's also not clear that that year was the only year where players threw games.

An exhibit that looked at the several year period (including our own home town heroes in 1918)--a period that many commentators at the time claimed would mean the death of baseball due to greed and corruption and corporatism--could be a fantastic and, arguably, necessary addition to the baseball museum.

 

[chrisfont9]

It's also not clear that that year was the only year where players threw games.

An exhibit that looked at the several year period (including our own home town heroes in 1918)--a period that many commentators at the time claimed would mean the death of baseball due to greed and corruption and corporatism--could be a fantastic and, arguably, necessary addition to the baseball museum.

That would be great! Most sports, and baseball perhaps more than others (but not more than football) often default to just whitewashing their history. This would be a smart move.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Well that’s one quote from a book written 75 years later. The reserve clause was a well documented system for the owners to deny their players any sort of freedom and to pay them whatever they felt like. I don’t know what these people felt, but I don’t see why I should take Bill James’ word and just assume the players were treated fairly and for no reason decided to fuck over poor Charles Comiskey. Did he not have Cicotte benched to deny him a bonus? Did he not have the players pay to have their uniforms cleaned? Did he not underpay Jackson and several others, with the reserve clause preventing the players from having any recourse?

This is a complete non-answer to what I wrote. I did not say that the players were treated fairly, nor that they decided to "fuck over poor Charles Comiskey."

Not every dissenting argument is the one you want to refute.

 

[chrisfont9]

This is a complete non-answer to what I wrote. I did not say that the players were treated fairly, nor that they decided to "fuck over poor Charles Comiskey."

Not every dissenting argument is the one you want to refute.

You asked "How does the reserve clause make it OK for the players to deceive the fans and sell out their teammates?" and I answered that the Reserve Clause created a toxic environment for player-management relations. That James quote seemed to suggest that the players were just greedy for no reason. Apart from that, I am happy to have this debate with you, but I don't know what you said that I was supposed to answer.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

You asked "How does the reserve clause make it OK for the players to deceive the fans and sell out their teammates?" and I answered that the Reserve Clause created a toxic environment for player-management relations.

Note the disconnect between the parties I refer to and the ones you refer to. If the primary victim of throwing the series had been management, it would still be a stain on the players' integrity, but at least an understandable and maybe on some level acceptable one. But I think this is a hard case to make.

That James quote seemed to suggest that the players were just greedy for no reason.

There's no inherent contradiction between being exploited and being greedy--a person can be both of those things. The James quote doesn't assume players were treated fairly -- in fact, if you read the essay the quote is taken from, he makes the opposite point very clearly and eloquently.*

Also, no one needs a reason to be greedy; we are greedy by nature. But our greed is normally kept in check by conscience. So if what you're saying is that being exploited by the owners disabled the players' consciences, I'm saying that's not a valid plea. The fact that someone hurts you doesn't give you a moral blank check.

Apart from that, I am happy to have this debate with you, but I don't know what you said that I was supposed to answer.

You weren't supposed to answer anything I said, but when you start a post by quoting something I wrote, I tend to assume that what follows is a response to that.

*Found it online, and it's worth quoting at length because I think James strikes exactly the right balance here:

It is a hard thing to know that another man is making money off of your labor, and has no intention of dealing fairly with you. This is not to say that Joe Jackson or Happy Felsch or Heinie Zimmerman were not guilty of their own crimes, because they were. But the arch-villain of this villainous era was Charles Albert Comiskey. He had no reason in the world not to deal fairly with his players. The White Sox drew the largest crowds in baseball in this period—even larger than the Giants—yet the White Sox were one of the lowest-paying teams. Comiskey held all the power in the relationship between owner and players, and he had to rub their noses in it.

….Put Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame? How about if we kick Comiskey out? Bury them all in a common grave, and put up a marker with an eleven-word epitaph. They all wanted the money, and they all wanted it all.