US Senate Resolution to honor Shoeless Joe Jackson

[qwerty]

Ya, they are.

 

FWIW, which I'm sure is a well-known fact on Soxtalk, is that, IIRC, Shoeless got his name because he either caught flyball or he was running around the bases after he kicked off his shoes.

They got their name Black Sox from Comiskey being a cheap POS and not paying laundry, thus their socks(or "Sox") remaining dirty, never becoming "white", but remaining "black."  Hench, Black Sox.

 

 

Back in 1908 Joe was playing for a team in his hometown of Greenville, South Carolina and he had bought a new pair of spikes. He had worn the spikes one day and the next day his team was playing the Anderson, South Carolina team. The new pair of spikes had rubbed blisters on Joe's feet, so he wanted to sit this game out, however his team was short some players and Joe had to play. Joe tried to play in the new spikes but they hurt his feet real bad. During one inning Joe took the spikes off and played in just his socks, he came up to bat and hit a triple and as he was pulling up at third an Anderson fan hollered "You shoeless son of a gun you!" It was the only day Joe played in his stockinged feet, but the name stuck forever. Joe did not like this handle he carried all his life, but that is how the world knew him......"Shoeless" Joe Jackson.

 

Contrary to popular belief, the name Black Sox was not given to the 1919 White Sox because of the 1919 World Series scandal. The name was given to them because they played in dirty uniforms because their owner Charles Comiskey used to charge the players .25 cents for cleaning their uniforms. The players refused to pay to have their uniforms cleaned and chose instead to play in dirty uniforms, hence the name Black Sox.

[SpringfieldFan]

So, what's the deal here? In that transcript Joe said he took money to throw the series. He did not say he actually followed through, though. If he really took the cash and renigged, did he still do wrong?

 

SFF

[rangercal]

Why isn't it in color?

[rangercal]

[TLAK]

So, what's the deal here?  In that transcript Joe said he took money to throw the series.  He did not say he actually followed through, though.  If he really took the cash and renigged, did he still do wrong?

 

SFF

 

When the banned the players, Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis released this statement to the press:

 

"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."

 

Landis did not try to discern any varying degrees of guilt, he banned everyone who was mixed up in this mess in any way. To this day a sign is posted in every Major League club house reiterating baseball's gambling policy.

[supernuke]

From Joe Jackson's signed and sworn Grand Jury testimony on September 28, 1920:

The original document is available at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...shoelessjoe.pdf

 

I don't want to rehash the whole black sox scandel, but my opinion is the 8 men were certainly on the take, got off in court only because throwing a baseball game was not a crime and got their justice in the life time bans. 

 

Movies and myths are quite entertaining but the first source documents are not refutable.

 

He was coached to say these things by Comiskey's lawyer who was looking to protect Comiskey not Joe. Comiskey knew about everything during the series and did nothing to stop it and when the scandel broke he and his lawyers acted to protect him. They told Joe what to say in his testimony and told him that going along with them was the only way he would be able to keep playing.

 

Also to those who say he only hit when it didn't matter, if that is so then he should be recognized as the greatest hitter this game has ever seen. I find it hard to beleive that someone could hit that well in a series when they are only trying part of the time.

 

Read Say it ain't so, Joe! The true story of Shoeless Joe Jackson. The grand jury testimony is only a small part of everything that went on.

[Kid Gleason]

7 were on the "take". Weaver was NOT. Weaver ended up in his situation for not ratting out his team mates. That brings out the question of what showed more integrity on his part. He stood by the people in his situation, and didn't turn them into the people that treated them like crap.

 

8 men were suspended: 7 were accused of taking a fall, 1 was accused of not being a fink.

[The Critic]

From Joe Jackson's signed and sworn Grand Jury testimony on September 28, 1920:

The original document is available at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...shoelessjoe.pdf

 

I don't want to rehash the whole black sox scandel, but my opinion is the 8 men were certainly on the take, got off in court only because throwing a baseball game was not a crime and got their justice in the life time bans. 

 

Movies and myths are quite entertaining but the first source documents are not refutable.

Did Joe write his own transcript? Lots of typos in there...

 

I don't know what this says, but I had the irresistable urge today to pop "Eight Men Out" in the DVD player.

"Siddown, Buck, no one cares about your batting average...."

and of course one of my favorite movie lines ever:

"Twenty-nine is not thirty, Eddie."