Ghosts of Scandals Past
The Mitchell Report on steroid use in baseball will be released tomorrow and is expected to name at least 50 major league players, and perhaps as many as 80. But this morning, I’ve been thinking about a different scandal.
As part of Hall of Fame week on UmpBump, we posted a poll asking you to vote for players who ought to be in the Hall, but aren’t. The results surprised me. As of this writing, Shoeless Joe Jackson in the lead with 57% of the vote. I, like most baseball fans, know the outline of the story of the Chicago Black Sox and the 1919 World Series, but not the details. The one bit I remember most clearly is the story of the little boy who looked up at Shoeless Joe and pleaded, “Say it ain’t so.” Joe, as you might remember, is supposed to have replied, “It’s so, kid.”
So I started reading up on the scandal this morning, trying to string together half-remembered scraps of gossip from nearly 100 years ago. I came across an excellent repository at the the website of the Chicago Historical Society. The following paragraph especially 
caught my eye:
Throughout the Series, Hugh Fullerton, a sports writer for the Chicago Herald and Examiner, had been paying close attention to the rumors of a fix. He hinted about the selling of the Series in his newspaper columns and urged club owners to do something about gamblers’ involvement in baseball. Most people didn’t believe fixing the World Series was possible. Club owners, who knew better, were afraid the public would turn their backs on baseball if they admitted any wrongdoing, and refused to acknowledge a problem. (Emphasis added.)
Switch the dates and a couple of names, and the above paragraph could be about our own Steroid Era. And the similarities don’t end with club owners turning a blind eye out of fear.
1. Gambling was a problem in baseball for years and yet no one did anything. Rumors of thrown games went back to the 1800s and the earliest days of the game. Similarly, abuse of steroids, amphetamines, and HGH were a problem for years before any action was 
taken.
2. Fans of the game were initially skeptical about gambling’s impact on baseball. Even today some still maintain that you cannot really put in a fix on a baseball game because it’s such a game of inches and averages. How can one player—or even one manager, in the case of Pete Rose—really guarantee a loss? Likewise, even now, there are some fans who insist that steroids do not have much of an impact on baseball because, after all, you still have to hit the ball.
3. It took a major crisis for baseball to expunge gambling from the game. Interest in the 1919 World Series—the first after World War I—ran so high, the league made it a best-of-nine series instead of a best-of-seven. When it became clear that the Series had been fixed—and when next season, thrown games continued to be an issue—baseball finally took action, putting several players from the 1919 White Sox on trial. That’s strikingly like the Steroids Era. Executives at every level knew there was a problem, but it took a major crisis—a threat to one of baseball’s most storied records, the career home-run record—for real action to be taken. And again, the issue is being sorted out in court with the indictment of Barry Bonds.
4. Shoeless Joe and his fellow “Black Sox” were scapegoats for a problem that was bigger than themselves. Joe Jackson was born dirt poor and went to work in a textile mill at the age of 13. At a time when most players made between $6,000 and $15,000 a year, he was offered $20,000 just to throw a few games. And the Black Sox were far from the only players to give in to temptation. Yet Joe and his compatriots were caught and banned from baseball (even though they were never convicted by a judge). Today, players like Bonds, Jose Canseco, Rafael Palmeiro, Jason Giambi, and Mark McGwire have become lightning rods for their steroid use, even when we know that players at all levels used steroids and even though neither Bonds nor McGwire ever failed a drug test. And while players these days are highly paid, thanks to the strongest workers’ union in America, many star baseball players are still born into poverty, have huge extended families to take care of, and have an almost overwhelming financial incentive to cheat.
5. Even now, fans are ambivalent about the presence of gambling in the game. Many are content with Hall of Fame bans for gamblers and juicers alike. But as is clear from our poll, many feel that admitted gamblers like Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose should be eligible for the Hall, despite their lifetime bans from baseball. Many feel that these players should be forgiven—Shoeless Joe was, without a doubt, the best hitter of his era and set a record for rookie batting average when he hit .408 in his first full season in the majors. Pete Rose is one of the best hitters of any era, maintaining a .304 average over 24 seasons and amassing a record 4,256 career hits. Similarly, many fans want Barry Bonds and his 756 career home runs in the Hall of Fame. And many want Mark McGwire and his then-single-season record 70 home runs in Cooperstown.
What do I think? I think Chicago White Sox owner Charles Comiskey was a jerk—a jerk and a tightwad who promised his players bonuses and then reneged on his end of the 
bargain. According to the Chicago Historical Society:
Comiskey frequently made promises to his players that he had no intention of keeping. He once promised his team a big bonus if they won the pennant. When they did win, the bonus turned out to be a case of cheap champagne. Comiskey even charged his players for laundering their uniforms. In protest, for several weeks the players wore the same increasingly dirty uniforms. Comiskey removed the uniforms from their lockers and fined the players.
[...]
Comiskey had once promised [Sox pitcher Eddie] Cicotte that if he won thirty games, he would receive a $10,000 bonus. When Cicotte won twenty-nine games, Comiskey benched him with the excuse that Cicotte should rest up for the pennant games…Cicotte’s personal request, regarding the fix, was $10,000 up front.
I think it’s a travesty that Comiskey is in the Hall of Fame and Shoeless Joe isn’t. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Apologists can portray Shoeless Joe as an underpaid, naive, reluctant conspirator, who was acquitted a judge and hit .385 in the Series. However, Joe admitted to taking money to fix World Series games and admitted to throwing those games. And for that, he is and always should be banned from Cooperstown.
UmpBumpers, what do you think about the lifetime bans of Jackson and Rose? And should those named in the Mitchell Report suffer a similar fate?
December 12th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Nicely done, Sarah. We’ll probably continue to disagree on the Hall letting Rose and Jackson in, but you gave me a nice history lesson.
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Thanks, Paul. This is perhaps a bit of an oversimplification, but it seems that your take, in your Big Mac post, was that you have to let in all Cooperstown-caliber players from the steroids era because we don’t know exactly who did what and you can’t keep some players out while letting others in; in other words, the choice is between banning *everyone* or admitting *everyone.* And as Nick has written elsewhere, “Keep them all out of the Hall, is what I say,” so I guess that would put him on the other side of that issue.
But I think it’s really a false dichotomy. Though imperfect, baseball’s response to the gambling problem (however delayed) is actually not a bad solution. If you gamble (and get caught) you will be banned, no matter how good you are. If you use steroids (and get caught) you should be banned. Does this mean that some perpetrators are never caught and never punished? Yes. Does it mean that the few who are caught will be punished for the sins of many? Yes. Unfortunately, we can’t turn back the clock and institute a steroid policy that baseball needed 20 years ago. But we can try to fix things going forward.
I am content to add Bonds and McGwire to the list of infamous players who, though they may have been victims of their time and circumstance, ultimately chose to cheat of their own free will. Keeping them out of Cooperstown might not solve the steroids problem, but it would at least serve as a warning to the players of tomorrow. You can have exhibits on the steroid era or on the Black Sox scandal, but you shouldn’t give the implicated players their own brass plaques.
Keeping players who used steroids out of the Hall of Fame would mean that, as with those who fixed games, there was at least *some* punishment for *some* players. And something is better than nothing.
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
But by your standards, did Bonds or McGwire actually get caught?
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Paul, your question might be easier to answer this time tomorrow.
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Sarah, what about records? If Bonds is found to have definitively used steroids, do we get rid of his home run records? Ditto with McGwire?
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Coley, no, I don’t think you can get rid of the records. But I don’t think you need to, either. The asterisk will be there whether it’s there in black-and-white or only there in spirit. I think a useful parallel is segregation in baseball. Think of how different all these records would look if African American players had either been allowed to play in the majors, or if their statistics had at least been included in the official record books! To my mind, even supposedly pure, pre-steroid records were asterisked by the fact that they only took into account the accomplishments white players.
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Bonds admitted using steroids under oath, is that not proof?
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
But he also said under oath that he didn’t know what he was taking at the time, which isn’t an admission of “guilt”. It’s maddening, I know, but that’s just the way it works.
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
The current federal indictment for perjury claims to have blood samples of Bonds taken by BALCO that contain PED. If this is true it is definitive proof he took PED whether he claims to have known what he was ingesting. I also believe that part of the reason he is being charged with perjury is the fact that he claimed he didn’t knowingly take steroids. Either way he did admit taking them. It will be interesting to see what additional proof comes out of the pending indictment. Federal prosecutors have a conviction rate in excess of 90% so it’s highly likely they have definitive proof.
[Report comment]
December 12th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I’ve done a lot of research on the “Black Sox” and when I talk about it to groups, invariably someone will compare 1919 to the steroid mess. My focus in my book “Burying the Black Sox” (2006, Potomac Books) was on Baseball’s COVER-UP of the Fix, which lasted nearly a year.
Jackson never admitted throwing games, he told the grand jury in 1920 that he played to win, but the “leaks” (which proved to be in error) condemned him in the press. Maybe it’s bad luck to be a LF on your way to Cooperstown, with a grand jury detour.
“Eight Men Out” is a great movie but it is not very accurate — probably no Cicotte bonus, Comiskey probably not exceptionally tight. By the way, Hal Chase, the poster boy for tossed games, in NOT on baseball’s ineligible list!
[Report comment]
December 13th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Gene, I would be interested to know what resources there are out there that prove Jackson’s innocence. (Your book seems to be extremely well-sourced!) The main source of my information, the Chicago Historical Society, whose website I quoted above, is certainly sympathetic to the players. (I sometimes found it overly sympathetic, such was when they seemed to suggest that Comiskey fomented resentment among his players by paying some of them more than twice as much as others, and that this resentment naturally fed into the “underpaid” players taking money to fix games. I put “underpaid” in quotes because their examples of highly-paid and underpaid players are Eddie Collins and Chick Gandil, respectively. Now, Collins is a Hall of Famer. Gandil retired after 9 seasons and a .277 batting average–not exactly the sort of career that would compel a huge payday.) Nonetheless, I found their treatment of the Black Sox scandal fairly even-handed and well sourced with external links to primary sources, including the transcript Joe Jackson’s court testimony. On the other hand, their bio of Shoeless Joe seems extremely sympathetic (rather than objective) and contains numerous suppositions with no clear evidentiary support. I would like to believe the article’s claims that Jackson repeatedly tried to tell Comiskey about the conspiracy, tried to refuse the envelope of money, and only “confessed” to fixing games because that’s what Comiskey’s lawyer told him to do, but without any footnotes or sourcing, I must remain skeptical. Yes, his individual stats in the Series were very good, but without some external corroboration, I can’t just take Jackson’s word that he wanted no part of the conspiracy. After all, the one primary document I have seen, Joe’s grand jury testimony, does contain an admission: “We went ahead and threw the second game.” Admittedly, however, given the other statements Joe makes in his testimony, this sentence seems more mysterious than illuminating. I guess I will just have to buy the book!
[Report comment]
December 13th, 2007 at 10:39 am
gambling complete destroys the game. steroids make it more fun to watch. these arent even close to comparable.
i couldnt care less that people roided when there was no testing.
[Report comment]
December 13th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Interesting stance, Ken. But if I bet someone that my team will win, is that such a big deal? If I said I’d throw the game, then you have a point. Did Pete Rose actually throw a game? Not that I’ve heard of at least. Unless you’re counting all those times he wrote his own name in the lineup to pad his stats.
[Report comment]
December 13th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Paul, Rose did not bet on games he expected his team to lose (based on, for instance, the identity of the starting pitcher). Is that the same as throwing games? No. But is it still really bad? Yes. Plus, he did it well after the Black Sox scandal. He knew what would happen if he was caught. He just didn’t care.
Ken, your viewpoint is one that is very trendy right now. However, based on the fact that these players are human beings with families and ought to serve as role models, I find your cavalier attitude toward their health distasteful.
[Report comment]
January 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Sarah,
Just now reading your response to my post. There are no resources the PROVE Jackson’s innocence, but I think the evidence that is available should at least force MLB to end his ban (if his death didn’t already end it). See issue #387 of my NOTES at http://www.baseball1.com/notes for a summary of his case (MLB has a copy).
Last month, the Chicago Historical Society bought, for $100,000, a huge collection of B-Sox documents. I’ve only seen a tiny fraction (see issues #425-426), am itching to get at the rest.
I think “Eight Men Out” portrayed Comiskey as a major Scrooge, unfairly — he was just an ordinary owner/skinflint. The Sox did not plot to Fix the Series to get even with Commy, they just saw a chance to get some easy money.
Regarding Jackson, we cannot corroborate his attempts to warn the team, but I do believe there is evidence he asked to be benched before Game One, which is almost the same as a warning that something shady was in the works. If you’ve seen my book, you know there is evidence that the fix was known to Comiskey & Ban Johnson (AL Prez) before Game One, and they could have headed it off with a full investigation. Instead, we got a one-year cover-up.
Gene
[Report comment]