h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

First off, I am a big fan of both baseball and the film "Field of Dreams." No other film so perfectly captures that magic of the most American of sports. That said, I must take issue with the film's implication that Shoeless Joe has been undeservingly banned from the Hall of Fame.

Some background for non-American readers: Perhaps the most hallowed honor in all of American sports is induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York. It is a rare prize indeed, because a player may only be inducted by an 80 percent vote by the Baseball Writers Association of America, and each writer may only vote for 10 players each year. The practical effect of this is that of the many players who retire each year, at most two or three will be so honored.

Of the players not in the Hall of Fame, two stand out as men whose career statistics would clearly put them there: "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. Both are ineligible for admission to the Hall because they were banned from baseball for life, Jackson for his part in the 1919 Black Sox scandal and Rose (the all-time career leader in hits) for betting on baseball while a player-manager (although Rose maintains that he never bet on his team to lose). Being banned from the game also bans you from the Hall.

Now, on to the film "Field of Dreams." It's a charming film because it deals with the wonder of baseball that unites so many American fathers and sons (I choke up whenever I watch the scene in which Costner's character and the ghost of his father play catch), but it is also a film with an agenda.

In the film, Costner's character talks to his daughter about the great statistics Shoeless Joe put up in the 1919 World Series, in an attempt to prove that Jackson was not a party to Chicago's deliberate loss of the championship. Later, when Shoeless Joe's ghost appears, the film is replete with Costner's sympathy for Jackson's inability to be a part of the game he loves. Many an impressionable viewer came away from this film feeling righteously indignant over Jackson's exclusion from the Hall of Fame.

But the truth is much simpler. Joe Jackson was a talented athlete whose impressive numbers cannot hide the facts: He was a crosser and a double-crosser who betrayed pretty much everyone and everything.

Though the criminal charges against the Black Sox were unsuccessful, the plot to throw the World Series was acknowledged by the conspirators, and throw it they did. It has never been disputed that Joe Jackson knew about the plot, and whether or not he personally played below his abilities is immaterial. Since he knew of the plot and then went on to play hard, that only means he betrayed both his sport and the gamblers paying him off. Only by exposing the plot could he have been absolved. He chose to let the defilement of the game occur.

One of the greatest baseball minds of our times, writer Bill James, opined that people who want to admit Joe Jackson to the Hall of Fame are baseball's answer to women who show up at murder trials "hoping to marry the cute murderer." In other words, his talents (which were phenomenal) do not excuse his sins. If he had had a full career, he would likely rank with Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Ted Williams among the sport's greatest hitters. But nobody save Jackson himself is to be blamed that he does not.

Those of us who love baseball are used to seeing our sport maligned by outsiders who don't see its charms, but when one of the greatest players cheapens the game, it is the most unkindest cut of all. In 1919, no pastime in America was more important than baseball, most of all the World Series. The other major sports had yet to catch on. It was everything, and Joe Jackson was one of eight men who allowed it to be deeply tarnished, a wound that haunts the sport to this day.

This is great stuff. Perhaps you could write it up in an entry. Possibly flesh out the detail of the plot, the stuff Costner says, and how the Blacksox were underpaid etc for those who've never seen "Field of Dreams / Eight Men Out". You writing is really good, and puts together a convincing argument.

Moving on ... given the fact that Jackson cheapened the sport etc, brought the game into disrepute, etc. Can we expect any of the owners/current players to be banned from the Hall of Fame? (I guess not as they aren't banned for life, yet) given the strikes and so on of current times.

I have to say I always find it intriguing that you can ban someone from a "Hall of Fame" for 'bad' acts. Surely those acts are part of what elevates them to a greater level of fame. Just my semantic view of the word "Fame".

bbs

Just read your other convo entry and see that you work in newspaper. Understably your writing is good, while mine "You writing is good" is not.

BBS

Thanks for posting this - it's fab!

I agree with BBS, you should write an entry on Joe Jackson!

Jims

Thanks for the kind words. I'll consider it. I'm not sure how much interest there would be here in a baseball player whose career ended 80 years ago, and I wrote my note above sort of as an editorial addendum to this excellent "Field of Dreams" Guide Entry. A less-opinionated piece about Jackson might be interesting, however. Just not sure how many folks would find it to be their cup of .

Believe me, it'll go down really well, if this little snippet is anything to go by. The best thing about the Guide is it's open to all sorts of material, obscure or otherwise. There are a few entries on long-retired sports people already, and though I'm not a baseball fan, even *I've* heard of Joe Jackson... admittedly because of Field of Dreams and Eight Men Out

If you write it, we will come and read it...

Jimster

I walked straight into that one.

To answer your other earlier questions ...

The potential strike next week is, however idiotic on the parts of its participants, wholly legal and legitimate under U.S. labor law. Certain public employees (such as teachers and air-traffic controllers) can be prevented by law from striking, but employees of private companies (such as Major League Baseball's 30 clubs) can walk off the job any time they please. Naturally, they'll be forfeiting their lucrative salaries for the rest of the season, but their hope is to avoid a slowdown in salary growth for the future.

Players do not get placed on baseball's Ineligible List (the formal term for getting banned) for labor strife or off-the-field transgressions. The Ineligible List is reserved for actions that compromise the integrity of the game on the field: E.g., gambling, game-fixing, extreme violence. Drug use may soon be added to the list.

One of the problems facing baseball is that because it is so much older than the other major sports, issues addressed in other sports' labor rules were simply not problems more than a century ago when baseball's work rules and traditions were laid down. Drug use and astronomical salaries were not problems in the 19th Century, and by the 1970s when they became a problem, everyone was so used to the entrenched, minimal restrictions on both players and owners that it has been difficult to enact any changes.

I wish I would have known about this thread earlier!

I don't agree with your arguments of course - Comiskey was awfully manipulative of the whole scandal so he came out as a 'victim' when clearly he knew about things early on into the events surrounding the Series as well.

From all the records I've been able to find, Jackson went to Comiskey and was dismissed - though no record of their conversation exist.

Did Jackson make a mistake?
Certainly, but he was also a semi-literate ballplayer being manipulated by professional gamblers, possibly his owner, and the teammates who he trusted.

Does he deserve to be banned for being stupid?
Perhaps not. I'm much more willing to make a case for him than I am for Pete Rose (though if baseball keeps trotting him out for special events, I reckon Pete will be in the HoF before Shoeless Joe)



- Jimi X

I'm afraid I still disagree. Neither Rose nor Jackson should ever be reinstated to baseball. It matters not if Jackson was manipulated. He allowed a farce of a World Series to go forward. If Comiskey wouldn't hear him out, he could have gone to the papers, the law, or league officials. If he was intimidated out of saying anything, that is unfortunate, but it does not clear him. Loyalty to his sport should pre-empt loyalty to his teammates. He chose otherwise, and his is the price to pay.

Stupidity and cowardice do not excuse wrongdoing. Do we pardon gang members because they were peer-pressured to kill? No, nor should we.

In 1919, baseball was everything in America. No other sports mattered, and Jackson permitted the betrayal of what at that time was the nation's secular religion. It remains baseball's darkest hour, and it should never be forgiven.

As for Pete Rose, the rules of baseball are crystal clear. If you gamble on baseball, you're banned for a year. If you gamble on a baseball game you're involved in, you're banned for life. It makes no difference whether Rose bet for or against the Reds -- betting on them either way is equally forbidden under the rules. Everyone forgets that.

Of course, we live in a society that thinks a person's skills should be weighed against their moral shortcomings. This disgusts me, and I want no part of it.

We Americans style ourselves a nation governed by the rule of law, not popular opinion, and reinstating Rose would betray that principle. Rose was punished exactly as the rules provide. If we reinstate him, we are making an exception because he was such a talented player. That would be wrong, and it would be a perfect example of everything that is misplaced in contemporary American values. The rules do not say the punishment can be rescinded if the player says he's sorry. Sorry don't make it so.

Jackson was a cowardly stooge, and Rose is a callous, defiant tax-cheat and gambler. These are not men deserving of our sympathy, no matter how Hollywood or the media plead their respective cases.

Most importantly, each of them helped make baseball something less than it was before they touched it. Their statistics do not ameliorate that.

Keep them out, forever.

Only one way to solve this disagreement maturely....


fight!!

What about the concept that life in the 1910s was vastly different to that of today? There were hierarchies and families and one shouldn't step beyond one's place ...

Thinking of this reminds of the other great scandal of the era. 1912 - Jim Thorpe wins Olympic gold medals in the pentathlon and decathlon. One year later, it is found that he wasn't actually an amateur so he was stripped of them.. 1983ish - his family finally managed to get them back. How does it compare?