Trump's leaning on the Commissioner of Baseball to get this done would be wrong, but since he's going after law firms he dislikes, which is even more wrong, why stop now? At least Schilling is a worthy cause.
Great post, with Paul's usual sifting and winnowing. My guess is that the case of Shoeless Joe will be reopened now that he's on the eligible list. From what I've read Jackson's involvement in throwing the world series has been disputed ever since Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis banned him from baseball. Modern day commissioners have apparently refused to open the case on the ground that, with this remove in time, the case is a sleeping dog. I suspect there will be voices trying to rouse that dog. Jim Dueholm
Thanks, Jim. My understanding is that Jackson definitely took money to throw the Series. What's disputed is whether he held up his end of the bargain -- that is, whether he gave less than his best effort in any game
My understanding is based on a considerable amount of reading about the Series and about Jackson. However, I haven't read everything and my sources might be in error.
By the way, the guy the Commissioner truly wronged was Buck Weaver. From what I've read, his only sin was being offered a bribe and not reporting it. There's no way he should have been banned for life on these facts (if true).
All I know about Jackson's case is what I gleaned casually from reading over the years and what I learned from Google today. While Jackson denied any involvement in the fix, he did admit in grand jury proceedings that he received $5,000. He later repudiated his testimony, claiming his counsel had a conflict of interest and plied him with booze to elicit his testimony. As you note, Jackson denied he helped throw any game, and he had impressive statistics during the series, though some people claim there were some of his plays that were questionable. Apparently a statistician recently reviewed the record and concluded it tended to confirm Jackson's innocence. I'm not here to make a case for Jackson, but only predicting there will be Jackson supporters pushing to reopen the matter, and I suspect there will be cases made for both innocence and guilt, with the baseball writers rendering the final verdict. Jim Dueholm
Rarely is there an injustice that is pretty much universally recognized--at least in the baseball universe. Curt Schilling not being in the Hall of Fame is the apogee of such an injustice. Woke derangement has infected the sportswriter's world for some time now, and it's an utter disgrace. If only they had the capacity for shame, or a small sliver of personal integrity, but no, far too many of them do not.
I don't think character should be removed as a criteria though it should be limited to things that took place during the players career and how it reflects on baseball. That Schilling has been denied entry because baseball writers don't like his outspoken politics is dispicable. It would be semi understandable if left wing loudmouths were also excluded but we know thats not the case. It's just another example of how virtually every institution in this country has been conquered by the leftist country. I also would admit Rose at this point as his issues were entirely after his playing career. I agree with you on Jackson. The only mitigating factor is he may have been too stupid to understand what he was taking money for. After all, he played extremely well in the series and did not appear to throw it at all. But no one alive really cares about Shoeless Joe so he will probably stay as he is.
Thanks for the comment, Doug. I've read a fair amount about Jackson. From my reading, I gather that, despite being illiterate, he was a fairly savvy business man (as ball players went in that era). Of course, my sources might be in error or be overstating Jackson's acumen.
Jackson did play very well in the Series and probably did not throw it. But I think it likely that he knew what he had been paid to do.
There was no need to bribe eight men, including a shortstop who rarely played. (He was bribed at the insistence of one of his corrupt teammates who was a friend, I think.) It might be that Jackson knew the Sox would lose based on the bribes to other key players and decided to play his best because his performance didn't matter. Or it might be that he had second thoughts.
Trump's leaning on the Commissioner of Baseball to get this done would be wrong, but since he's going after law firms he dislikes, which is even more wrong, why stop now? At least Schilling is a worthy cause.
Great post, with Paul's usual sifting and winnowing. My guess is that the case of Shoeless Joe will be reopened now that he's on the eligible list. From what I've read Jackson's involvement in throwing the world series has been disputed ever since Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis banned him from baseball. Modern day commissioners have apparently refused to open the case on the ground that, with this remove in time, the case is a sleeping dog. I suspect there will be voices trying to rouse that dog. Jim Dueholm
Thanks, Jim. My understanding is that Jackson definitely took money to throw the Series. What's disputed is whether he held up his end of the bargain -- that is, whether he gave less than his best effort in any game
My understanding is based on a considerable amount of reading about the Series and about Jackson. However, I haven't read everything and my sources might be in error.
By the way, the guy the Commissioner truly wronged was Buck Weaver. From what I've read, his only sin was being offered a bribe and not reporting it. There's no way he should have been banned for life on these facts (if true).
All I know about Jackson's case is what I gleaned casually from reading over the years and what I learned from Google today. While Jackson denied any involvement in the fix, he did admit in grand jury proceedings that he received $5,000. He later repudiated his testimony, claiming his counsel had a conflict of interest and plied him with booze to elicit his testimony. As you note, Jackson denied he helped throw any game, and he had impressive statistics during the series, though some people claim there were some of his plays that were questionable. Apparently a statistician recently reviewed the record and concluded it tended to confirm Jackson's innocence. I'm not here to make a case for Jackson, but only predicting there will be Jackson supporters pushing to reopen the matter, and I suspect there will be cases made for both innocence and guilt, with the baseball writers rendering the final verdict. Jim Dueholm
Rarely is there an injustice that is pretty much universally recognized--at least in the baseball universe. Curt Schilling not being in the Hall of Fame is the apogee of such an injustice. Woke derangement has infected the sportswriter's world for some time now, and it's an utter disgrace. If only they had the capacity for shame, or a small sliver of personal integrity, but no, far too many of them do not.
I don't think character should be removed as a criteria though it should be limited to things that took place during the players career and how it reflects on baseball. That Schilling has been denied entry because baseball writers don't like his outspoken politics is dispicable. It would be semi understandable if left wing loudmouths were also excluded but we know thats not the case. It's just another example of how virtually every institution in this country has been conquered by the leftist country. I also would admit Rose at this point as his issues were entirely after his playing career. I agree with you on Jackson. The only mitigating factor is he may have been too stupid to understand what he was taking money for. After all, he played extremely well in the series and did not appear to throw it at all. But no one alive really cares about Shoeless Joe so he will probably stay as he is.
Thanks for the comment, Doug. I've read a fair amount about Jackson. From my reading, I gather that, despite being illiterate, he was a fairly savvy business man (as ball players went in that era). Of course, my sources might be in error or be overstating Jackson's acumen.
Jackson did play very well in the Series and probably did not throw it. But I think it likely that he knew what he had been paid to do.
There was no need to bribe eight men, including a shortstop who rarely played. (He was bribed at the insistence of one of his corrupt teammates who was a friend, I think.) It might be that Jackson knew the Sox would lose based on the bribes to other key players and decided to play his best because his performance didn't matter. Or it might be that he had second thoughts.
We will never know for sure.
I basically agree Paul. It's over one hundred years ago so shadowed in myth. I don't think Jackson will ever get a single vote.