Black Sox: ‘It ain’t so, kid, it just ain’t so’
September 1, 2009
By: Daniel J. Voelker and Paul A. Duffy
Eliot Asinof’s book, “Eight Men Out” (“8MO”), released in 1963, was considered a ground-breaking piece of work, once and for all painting a definitive picture of the scandal that rocked professional baseball and abruptly ended the careers of the players who were involved.
“8MO”’s release — and its widespread acceptance as the previously untold, true story of the Black Sox scandal of 1919 — were likely the last nails in the coffin of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson’s prospects of obtaining reinstatement in the league and, more importantly, posthumous admission into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Asinof’s files containing research and interviews that played an integral part in his creation of “8MO” have only now come to light, and they suggest that Asinof inaccurately accused “Shoeless” Joe and others of being involved in, or having caused, the World Series fix.
This article examines the research and interviews that played an integral part in Asinof’s creation of “8MO,” as well as factual information to make a case for “Shoeless” Joe’s rightful place in American history. The history books have, for years, erroneously reported the story that “Shoeless” Joe was among eight players who actually threw the 1919 World Series and forever condemned the team to be known as the “Black Sox.” Two Chicago-based attorneys want to correct this dark mark on Chicago’s sports history.
They discuss various accounts of the scandal that rocked the Windy City, and provide a strong argument for “Shoeless” Joe’s recognition as a baseball legend, as well as the belief that his innocence puts him in the running for a seat in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Newly available material — Asinof’s notes of his writing of “8MO” and materials that have come to light following his death in 2008 — along with skepticism of his thesis, suggest that his portrayal of events in “8MO” may not be accurate and, indeed, was more than slightly fictional.
“8MO” details how, in one fell swoop, one of the finest baseball teams of all time, the 1919 Chicago White Sox — three lesser-known, but clearly innocent, members of the team, catcher Ray Schalk, second baseman Eddie Collins, and pitcher Urban “Red” Faber, were inducted into the Hall of Fame — became known as the Black Sox!
At the time, the three questions on everyone’s mind were: 1) Who was involved? 2)Why would they do it? and 3) Would professional baseball survive?
Asinof’s “8MO” portrays eight White Sox players, who history now records as having thrown the 1919 World Series, as sympathetic characters who were driven to cheat by the greed of Charles Comiskey, the wealthy White Sox owner and supposed skinflint.
Notwithstanding the lack of a single footnote, Asinof alluded that only through painstaking research was he able to delve “into the scandal’s causes and morality,” and “explode its myths and distortions” to arrive at the “real truth.”
Asinof provided a partial memoir of the making of “8MO” in his 1979 publication of “Bleeding Between The Lines” (“BBL”), an account of his tribulations in defending a series of lawsuits concerning “8MO” and his rights to the book.
Excellent critique. I remember that 20 years ago a young Chicago lawyer was agitting to have the second basemean forthe Sox cleared of any obloquy and have his ascension to the Hall of Fame reconsidered. I forget both the names of the Chicago lawyer and of the second baseman. Does any other reader remember?
Ron Stackler, Malibu, California
The second baseman of the 1919 White Sox was Eddie Collins, who was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1939. And as for Jackson, just read his testimony in the 1921 trial (in which he was acquitted of fraud, not of throwing the WS) in which he admits to taking an active part in throwing game 2.
That would be the third baseman: Buck Weaver.
Which illustrates that memory isn’t terribly reliable, despite one’s ability to incorporate “obloquy” into a sentence.
Nice try on this piece. But among the accusations against Asinof are revisionist history. The author here falls into the same trap. Still I applaud another line of thinking on this.
There are “students of the game” who obsess over the 1919 Sox, whose thoughts I have read, and they unfortunately have adopted assumptions as fact. The begin with the desire to make this a David-Goliath issue. Comiskey=bad. Players=good. They need to start from scratch on that notion. They also need to understand life in the U.S. in 1919.
Of course, so does the author of this article. It was a “keep-the-man-down” era of union-busting and also of employee revolt, just for starters. And “for starters” is where researchers must start, including the author here.
If you don’t have a good, detailed understanding of 1919, you can’t speak about the 1919 Black Sox, because the tendency of people is to overlay their 1990s-2000s outlooks onto 1919.
Unfortunately, this article, too, contains the David-Goliath theme. It’s just the author who appears to lean to the right politically, wants to dispel that notion so badly that this work doesn’t withstand scrutiny any better than - according to his claim here - Asinof’s does.
Ron, the 2nd baseman was Eddie Collins, he was never implicated in the fix, and he is in the Hall of Fame. You may be thinking of the 3rd baseman, Buck Weaver, who knew about the fix but wanted no part of it, but was banned for not turning his teammates in. Had Weaver not been banned, he might have gone on to a Hall-worthy career, but I wouldn’t say it was highly probable.
“Direct evidence, such as “Shoeless” Joe’s performance during the 1919 Series and his repeated denials of wrongdoing,suggest nothing more than Joe’s bad judgment in taking money from his teammate and roommate, Williams, and not being more aggressive and timely in reporting his suspicion of the “fix” to Comiskey, White Sox Secretary (General Manager) Harry Grabiner, or William “Kid” Gleason, the White Sox manager in 1919.”
This doesn’t do a whole lot to convince me of Joe’s innocence. His performance during the series is significantly inflated by how he played during the games won. He played much worse in the games that the Sox allegedly agreed to lose (don’t have the exact stats handy).
As for his “repeated denials”, is that really evidence of anything? Pete Rose adamantly denied betting on baseball for many years and we all know how that turned out.
-Scot
Jeez, yet another floundering attempt to vindicate Jackson. What a surprise. This statement says it all:
“The book’s portrayal of “Shoeless” Joe as having helped to throw the Series ignores the very real possibility that he may have been guilty only of taking $5,000 from a teammate after the Series (as he testified in the 1924 civil trial), and not of deliberately botching a single play, much less a game or the entire Series.”
1) Accepting the $5,000 alone should have been enough to ban Jackson.
2) You need to read the first-hand account of the game (outside of Asinof) which detailed several fielding miscues, including an almost unheard of triple to left, a double over Jackson’s head and a fly that dropped between him and Felsch. You can also neatly divide Jackson’s games into one the conspirators were trying to win (to either bump up the odds or resist the gamblers) and ones they were trying to lose. The player of the bad games hit .250, 1/6 with runners on, no RBI and struck out twice — after only 10 K’s all year. The Jackson of the good games was 9/16, 6/10 with runners on, drove in 6 runs, scored three, scored from first on a double, reached on a sac bunt and threw out a runner at the plate.
At best, Jackson’s record was inconclusive.
This certainly reads as if written by a lawyer. The writer harms his (her?) credibility on the very first page, referring to Hall of Famer and all-time great Eddie Collins as “less famous” than the Black Sox who were banned. Less famous where? Collins was at the time the most well-known of the Sox, having been part of the great Philadelphia A’s teams of the early part of the 1910s, and his acquisition had triggered the rise of the White Sox to prominence. The rest of this article is filled mostly with innuendo and supposition of the type the writer accuses author Asinof of using. I am not convinced.
*Eddie Collins* was their second baseman (and one of the two or three best at the position in baseball history, as well as being completely blameless). I think you must be thinking of Buck Weaver, who played third and short.
This is a lawyerly essay, attacking the book to cast doubt on all events while ignoring the bigger picture.
Was the 1919 Series thrown? There’s plenty of evidence that it was. Discrediting this book, written in the 1960s, doesn’t change that.
Very interesting. Even after everything that’s been written about this story, we still know relatively very little.
When I see the element of media furor, in which they become a central character in an event, I always pause ands ask “what is the true cause of this orchestration?” because I have watched them cover up most scandals than report them. In this case, they almost seem to be trying to sell news papers? It’s difficult for me to imagine who might have had it in for these guys or what motivation the media would have to embellish the story. So far in the future, it’s difficult to see all the subtleties and what would really be helpful is to see the pre-scandal mindset.
I don’t think it really hurt baseball though, as is often portrayed. The 1920’s are argued by some (they have a good case too) to be baseball’s golden age and without the “Black Sox” scandal, maybe history ended up in a different direction.
AN example of the power of the media to make a lot of people believe something that isn’t true can be found here:
http://patriotsquestion911.com
The percentage of people seeking truth over sensations caused by headlines is far too low.
Just listing Jackson’s .375 Series batting average doesn’t tell the whole story. In games the White Sox won, he batted .545; in games they lost, .286.
In such a small sample size, that may well be a fluke. But if you’re going to use Jackson’s stats as evidence that he was trying to win, you should also mention that the stats indicate he was trying quite a bit harder in games his team was supposed to win.
The second baseman for the Sox was Eddie Collins who was one of the clean players.
Ron, perhaps you are referring to the third baseman, Buck Weaver.
You fail to mention the fact that Shoeless Joe batted great in the games that the White Sox won, but he batted very poorly in the games they lost. This, in itself, is not proof he threw the games, but stating that he didn’t throw the games because he played well is disingenuous.
The second baseman for the White Sox was Eddie Collins, who was not involved in the fix and is in the Hall of Fame. It’s probably Buck Weaver, who was the third baseman and long seen as the man who played hard but was banned because he attended meetings but did not tell about the fix to anybody else. I don’t know about the lawyer from Chicago trying to get Weaver reinstated, but I did read about a Senator from Chicago making a plea to Commissioner Bud Selig. The Senator’s name is Barack Obama.
I doubt if Dickie Kerr could be considered one of the Sox players who was not involved in the fix, since he played for the Cincinnati Reds in 1919 and pitched for them in the World Series.
Woops, my bad, what was I thinking, Dickie Kerr indeed pitched for the Sox.
When I read this article I cried thinking of Shooless Joe Jackson not making the Hall of Fame and adding to the list of White Sox that are induced there now. (And I think that Dick Allen, my favorite player of all time, even though he was a smoker, should be inshrined too!)
As a life-long Chicagoan native now living in Washington DC for the last 35 years (where I am a Democrat and a devout Catholic) I am happy that Joe Jackson will get his just rewards, just like I hope that President Obama will get healthcare reform done in the next two weeks!
Hi Mom!
The authors and other readers interested in this topic might find it instructive to read “The Year Thet Fixed the World Series.” by James Kirby, a law professor at he University of Tennessee, in the February 1, 1988, ABA Journal. Kirby looks carefully at the documents invloved in the litigation, including Jackson’s confession, and comes to a different conclusion. It appears that Jackson’s “error” was not that he played poorly in the Series, but that he accepted money as part of the conspiracy and did not reveal the conspiracy when he made his own decision not to participate in the “fix.”
Richard Badger
This was an a very good piece and is a good example of why you should not believe everything that you read or people say.
I think that Joe Jackson should be in the HOF and it would be a shame to keep him out any longer.
Wasn’t the 2nd baseman the great, and clean, Eddie Collins, long in the Hall? Maybe you mean 3rd baseman Buck Weaver, who was banned by KM Landis. Would be great if a way could be found the get Shoeless Joe the plaque he (otherwise) deserves.
I believe that Mr. Stackler is referring to Buck Weaver, the third baseman for the 1919 White Sox. Dr. David Fletcher was “visited” by the ghost of Buck Weaver during his wedding. The guy has been all over trying to clear Weaver’s name
Sorry but while somewhat interesting, this is way short of the mark of any sort of “exoneration” of Joe Jackson.
But first, to the issue of Comiskey - I don’t think Comiskey is lacking for recognition. They kept his name on the park all those years, didn’t they? So Comiskey wasn’t quite so bad skinflint? Just like the rest of baseball, his players got paid poorly enough that they had offseason jobs. Back then any player’s salary was low enough that a gambler’s offer might be considered. The facts don’t need a skinflint Comiskey to make it believable that players were on the take.
As for Shoeless Joe, he convinced two juries he was not guilty? So what? Look at OJ Simpson for an example of a screwy jury verdict. And what were the circumstances of those trials and those juries? Could White Sox fans who didn’t want to face the truth have managed to sway the jury deliberations?
Joe always maintained his innocence? A lot of guilty people have gone to the electric chair maintaining their innocence. Its not evidence of anything.
He didn’t find or use the Grand Jury transcript? Well, Jackson was indicted, wasn’t he? So there is evidence in the Grand Jury transcript, wherever it is, for Jackson’s guilt. Its unlikely there is any great evidence for his innocence.
What of the contemporaneous opinions of the sportswriters, some of whom wrote question marks or otherwise highlighted plays in their scorebooks they felt didn’t include full effort. How many of those involved Jackson? How many of those writers (wish I could remember the famous one) believed Jackson was in on it, because they watched him play so much and they saw the difference, despite his BA and runs scored and whatever else Jackson apologists point out.
And why is nothing said about Judge Landis? Judge Landis made a decision long before 8MO. The author of 8MO essentially supported, after the fact, Landis’ findings. As lawyers, you ought to appreciate the difference between a finding of guilt beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt and a finding that, all things considered, those eight players were involved, to one extent or another, in the fixing of a World Series. Landis recognized that such a situation could never be tolerated - the game would be destroyed if there were doubts about the honest efforts of its participants. An unmistakable message had to be sent, and Jackson suffered for it.
Jackson, like Rose before him, got involved with gamblers. Rose did it willingly. I submit that even if it boils down to not reporting what he knew, Jackson deserved his penalty and still does.
The second baseman was Hall of Famer Eddie Collins, who was not part of the fix. I think you meant the third baseman, Buck Weaver, who was a very sympathetic figure according to the book.
Buck Weaver played third base for the 1919 White Sox. He was banned for knowing about the fix, but not reporting it. Supporters are also trying to get Weaver reinstated to MLB.
Sorry, can’t help you out with the attorney’s name.
The second baseman was Eddie Collins, who was never implicated in the scandal. You’re probably thinking of Buck Weaver, the third baseman.
The team’s second baseman, Eddie Collins, was cleared by Landis and never named in the criminal complaint– he’s actually in the HOF.
I believe that you’re thinking of Buck Weaver, the team’s shortstop (the common wisdom holds that his play in the Series– he had an excellent week with the bat AND glove– stands as circumstantial “proof” that he didn’t conspire to throw the games). Chicagoan David Fletcher wrote the petition to which I believe you’re referring. (See clearbuck.com for the petition and other information about this.)
Ron, please reread paragraph six on the first page for the second basemans name.
Great job. At the very least there should be a thorough investigation by Commissioner Selig about these major inconsistencies of the scandal. And in turn, at long last, enshrine one of the all time baseball greats, Joe Jackson. Baseball says it cares so much for stats in their history, .356 is a big number thats been forgotten too long.
The case for Joe Jackson, the 1919 White Sox and owner Comiskey has been well stated by the authors. While I found “8MO” fascinating reading many years ago and rate the 1988 movie by the same name as The Best [Fictional] Baseball Movie ever made, I am compelled to agree with all the points raised by “Black Sox: It Ain’t So, Kid, It Just Ain’t So”.
Two points in particular are key: (1) Joe Jackson’s 1919 World Series record and subsequent denials of involvement and (2) The authors’ commentary that “In reality, the lack of any solid, direct evidence in his [Asinof's] notes, as well as the lack of a single footnote in “8MO,” strongly suggests that his story was largely fiction.
Finally, in answer to Mr. Stackler’s post (above) I think he may be referring to the THIRD baseman, Buck Weaver. The regular Sox second baseman was Eddie Collins, a very early inductee (1939) of the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
Again, thank you for stating the case so well and for attempting to set the record straight. Hopefully, the baseball establishment will do its part.
You gentlemen, who are lawyers, should have read Joe Jackson’s confession, which was read into the 1921 court record. Joe Jackson was guilty of conspiracy by his own admissions, not once, but twice under oath. You can’t vindicate someone–saying he didn’t throw games–when he was never charged with throwing games in the first place. If you want to vindicate Joe Jackson, you must clear him of conspiracy–which can’t be done since he admitted his involvement twice under oath. You can’t count the 1924 trial, since the case was thrown out for perjury, Joe Jackson further stated, “I tried to tell the truth once.” Since he told two different stories, the first one, told in substance twice–in which he admits to being in the conspiracy–must be assumed as the correct one. It is like a man who is driving the getaway car at a bank robbery–when he gets caught he claims that he can’t be charged because he didn’t rob the bank! The court keeps telling him that he is not being charged with robbing the bank, he’s being charged with conspiracy. He keeps screaming you can’t charge me with robbing the bank, I didn’t do it. He obviously doesn’t understand–and apparently those who keep trying to vindicate him–even though they are lawyers–that he was involved in the conspiracy.
To Mr. Stackler — the second baseman was Eddie Collins, who *is* in the Hall of Fame, and whose candidacy was never brought into question over the Black Sox scandal. Might you be thinking of Buck Weaver, the *third* baseman who maintained his innocence throughout (and whose performance backed it up), but was implicated for his silence on the scheme?
I don’t know the name of the lawyer, but I think the player you’re thinking of is Buck Weaver, the 3rd baseman, not 2nd.
As for the article, one of the things about Joe Jackson’s WS performance in 1919 that always stood out was his hitting. Critics (i.e. those who believe he was involved) claim he only hit when it didn’t matter, and didn’t hit when it counted. If that is true, then Joe was the greatest hitter of all time, and there isn’t even a close second. Rather than just be bad, he picked and chose his spots to be great to cover it up. That is giving him a LOT of credit, and assigning to him an innate ability that no other athlete has ever had in any sport.
For those who are interested, much of the grand jury transcript relating to Joe has been available for years, for example in Donald Gropman’s revised edition of “Say It Ain’t So, Joe,” which also includes the petition Ted Williams and Bob Feller wrote to the Commissioner.
It was the 3rd basemen. Buck Weaver
Sports history can play tricks on us, indeed. It can turn a quite bright judge-turned-commissioner into a cooky, flighty self-preservationist. Similarly, it can turn a spectacular ballplayer-turned-crook into a saint. Reality lies somewhere in between.
Ted Curtis
Professor of Sports Management
Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL
“At best, Jackson’s record was inconclusive.”
Reasonable doubt = innocent
The problem with the article is exactly the same criticism they make of Asinoff.
Most glaringly they say that Jackson never confessed. While there are real questions of the validity of the confession, that he did, in fact, confess to the grand jury is not in doubt. I have read the confession, and it certainly reads like a legitimate one.
In addition, to say that Asinoff paints all the players the same way is clearly false.
Ultimately, the story of 8MO is told largely through the eyes of Buck Weaver, who most historians DO actually view as innocent.
If there is a player with a good case for reinstatement, it would be him.
There is a simple quack test here. Why would Jackson have taken the $5000 if he did not conspire, throw, participate in, or had tried to report the efforts of the fixers?
That he is guilty of something is beyond doubt.
The question of reinstatement can’t come from denying his guilt, it simply doesn’t pass the most basic tests of credibility.
You can argue that he was unduly punished, that he took the money and didn’t actively work to “throw” games, etc, but you flat out cannot say he is totally innocent.
Let us assume that Joe Jackson played at his best in the 1919 World Series. It follows that, as Bernie Lincicome wrote in the Chicago Tribune of June 2, 1999, “Jackson took the bribe and then stiffed the crooks, making him twice dishonest.” At the least, Jackson possessed “guilty knowledge,” which Judge Landis considered sufficient ground for expelling Buck Weaver from Organized Baseball for ever.
The Chicago jury did acquit Jackson; indeed, it acquitted all of the eight White Sox players under indictment. That is to say, they were held not guilty, meaning that, in the jurors’ view, the state had not successfully borne its burden of proof. Do the authors of the present article actually believe that all eight–Gandil et al.–were objectively innocent?
In a comment submitted September 7, Scot Martin asks: “As to his ‘repeated denials,’ is that really evidence of anything? Pete Rose adamantly denied betting on baseball for years and we all know how that turned out.” Just so. They are evidence of nothing except the fact of their utterance.
Long ago I concluded that much of the sentimentality regarding Joseph Jefferson Wofford Jackson (his full name, according to his 1992 biography by Harvey Frommer) was being unrelievedly generated by the automatic, relentless reference to him as Shoeless Joe Jackson, as though “Shoeless” were his first name. This usage has had the effect of transmogrifying a man who was a functional illiterate, of no public interest apart from his superior ability to play baseball, into a picturesque genre figure straight out of early Mark Twain.
Gentlemen: Please spare us the “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” yarn. Its inauthenticity is quite irrelevant.
Bill Simpson
Does anybody here know the name of the Chicago White Sox 2nd baseman in the 1919 World Series? I can’t find it in the comments section anywhere.
Jackson took the money. Case closed.
Now here’s a far more interesting point. For two reasons, his remarkable nickname and his involvement in the scandal, Joe Jackson today is better remembered than practically anyone in Cooperstown. What athlete who played nearly ninety years ago in any other sport is even in his league? Maybe Boxer Jack Johnson and possibly the great Jim Thorpe and that’s it.
How many films have been made about him? I count “The Natural” and “Eight Men Out” and “Field of Dreams” and “Damn Yankees” as well (’Shoeless Joe from Hannibal Mo” goes the great song). That’s more than Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig or anyone else in sports. And what about the books? “Shoeless Joe” and
“The Natural” and “Eight Men Out.”
He’s as close to immortality as anyone in sports history.
And he could really hit too!
If hitting .375 is not evidence of innocence than hitting. then hitting .286 in the games the Sox lost is not evidence of guilt. If playing errorless baseball is not evidence of innocence is a double over his head evidence of guilt? Can a hitter just say I’m gonna hit .500 today. tomorrow I’m only gonna hit .250. I believe that both Joe and Buck weaver were treated unfairly. However we may never now for sure. It does bother me that Jackson can’t be in the Hall but they can display his bat and glove which I of course must pay money to see. I also believe that if we are willing to forgive Pete Rose and let him in the HOF than we should forgive Jackson for what ever he may have done and let him in.
Let us not forget that the Milwaukee District Attorney’s office filed perjury charges against Joe Jackson as a result of his civil trial testimony (which conflicted dramatically with his Grand Jury testimony). The charges were refiled in December 1924. The plea agreement has been kept silent all these years. Why?
And ARod denied he used steroids on National TV. Why would anyone believe “Shoeless” Joe just because he said he didn’t do it. Only someone who lives in these times of moral relevancy could claim it was just bad judgment that Jackson took 5,000 dollars from a teammate after the Series. Why else would he take it if he wasn’t part of the fix? While Jackson hit well in the Series, he didn’t hit as well in the games they lost. Connection? Probably.
On 11/22/2009 Dennis Callaghan wrote: “. . . If we can forgive Pete Rose and let him into the HOF, . . .” I was not aware (and certainly hope there’s no prospect) of Pete Rose EVER getting into the HOF. Not only was Pete Rose banned from baseball, but he was also convicted AND served time in prison for gambling on baseball. There is NO way that should be ignored in the future if the subject of Pete Rose being in the HOF is considered. This is quite different from Joe Jackson and particularly Buck Weaver. Joe Jackson could not read or write; he signed his “X” where told to do so to acknowledge his statement to the grand jury was the truth. He had NO way of knowing what was typed on the papers he signed; he could only assume that what was said was accurately represented on the forms. He took money, but he seemed to play up to his ability by all accounts. He professed his innocence until the end of his life. Unlike Buck Weaver, who took no money, batted .324, and committed NO errors, there is a bit of a cloud over Joe Jackson. I don’t believe he could have decided to play well in certain games and not play well in others, and maybe the errors attributed to him were just that — innocent errors. He never claimed to be perfect; he just said that he played his best to win. Can we really judge what he felt?