Just a few hours ago Commissioner Rob
Manfred officially repealed Pete Rose’s
lifetime ban on baseball, allowing him to be posthumously inducted into the
Hall of Fame should the Veteran’s Committee see fit.
There will no doubt be much debate about
this decision over the weeks and months to come and at a certain point I will
no doubt weigh on it. This article, however, is about what is surely going to
be a footnote on everything involved Rose but that by doing so the Commissioner
has made the greatest possible reason for the ban to be there in the first
place.
Manfred announced that ‘permanent
ineligibility ends on upon the passing of the disciplined individual’ and in
his discussion he only mentions Rose. But as both ESPN and the Times reported
this ruling also applied to the members of the so-called Black Sox and most
significantly Shoeless Joe Jackson.
In an article I wrote just this past year I
made it very clear that I believed that is due to films – particularly Field
Of Dreams – have done much to whitewash Jackson’s legacy among a new
generation of baseball fans who might only know the story of the Black Sox from
Kevin Costner’s film. This was nothing new, there has always been a bandwagon
for Jackson’s reinstatement while he was alive and even after Commissioner
Landis barred him from the game, future commissioners always upheld it despite
the pleas of Jackson’s contemporaries. Happy Chandler, Landis’ successor,
upheld the ban while Jackson was still alive and despite the efforts of his
defenders, all future commissioners continued to do so.
When Rose was banned from baseball by Bart
Giamatti in 1989, this plus the release of Field Of Dreams did much to
put Jackson’s eligibility back in the spotlight. Bill James, one of the great
students of baseball and a man who was always sympathetic to Rose during his
lifetime – he argued for decades the case against him was weak before Rose
admitted guilt – made it very clear that there was a difference between what
Rose did and what Jackson did. In his book on the Hall of Fame he wrote a
chapter about everything Rose did and made an argument for his inclusion. There
was one paragraph on Jackson: “I think the people who want Joe Jackson to be in
the Hall of Fame are like the same kind of women who go to trials hoping to
marry the cute murderer.”
This is a very cold and blunt way to talk
about Shoeless Joe but it was consistent with James who said that if Jackson
ever got into the Hall of Fame, everybody in baseball would have to hold their
noses while doing so. As someone who is sympathetic to Jackson’s cause I’m very
much inclined to hold with James’ argument.
For decades people have made the argument
that given all the other issues baseball has had to deal with during the
Steroid Era, baseball no longer has the high moral ground it did when Rose was
banned. First of all, there’s a difference between using performance enhancing
drugs and betting on games your team is playing: one is a violation and one is
a crime. I’d further argue that rather than induct players who used steroids
that people like Commissioner Selig – who turned a blind eye to what was going on
during this period and did everything in his power to make sure the truth
coming out – should be kicked out of the Hall of Fame. I would make a
similar argument for any of the general managers or owners who have been
inducted during this period who at the very least turned a blind eye or at
worst covered up the crime to advance their bank accounts. They are, in my
opinion, more guilty of crimes then the players are.
Rose later argued that sports betting has
become a corporate sponsorship of baseball shows that they no longer have the
moral high ground. This is essentially ‘the two wrongs make a right’ argument
and makes it clear that all professional sports should stop sponsoring
legalized gambling. It doesn’t de facto mean we should let Rose in.
But at least when it comes to Rose you can
make arguments about him being denied due process before he was banned and
there is the fact that betting on baseball, while morally ambiguous, doesn’t
really hurt the game’s integrity that much. The same can’t be said for what
Jackson, his teammates and all the players who Landis banned from baseball
after the Black Sox scandal broke.
No one denies Jackson’s statistics should
put him in the Hall of Fame. He batted .408 his rookie year, then followed it
up with .393 and .375 averages. All of this was done in the deadball era:
before he was banned during the 1920 season, he was averaging .382. His .356
lifetime average was the third highest of all time (ESPN lists its fourth for
reasons I’m not clear on). He never led the league in batting because of his
great rival Ty Cobb, who won the battle title nine times during the era Jackson
was active. But Cobb himself thought Jackson was the greatest natural hitter he
ever saw.
In his era power didn’t matter but he was
one of the greatest hitters of triples during that period, leading the American
league three times in that category. He managed 200 hits or more four times and
led the American League with 197 in 1913. He hit 168 triples in his career. Of
all the players who had their careers entirely after Jackson’s banned only Stan
Musial hit more with 177 and Roberto Clemente is close to him with 166. Both
had far longer careers than the nine and a half full seasons Jackson played.
Statistically Jackson belongs in the Hall
of Fame I won’t say otherwise. None of this changes the fact that Jackson took
money from gamblers with the intention of throwing the 1919 World Series and
may very well have done so again during the 1920 season.
Jackson’s defenders will argue that he hit
.375 during the series, hit the only home run and was charged with no errors.
In their mind that means he played to win. My answer is: so what? He still took
money with the intention of throwing the series.
And the reason we know this is that he
confessed to a Chicago grand jury. Eliot Asinof has a complete transcript
of this confession and the brunt of it is repeated for all to hear in Ken
Burns’ Baseball. “They promised me twenty thousand dollars and paid me
five.” His wife was there when he got the money and according to Jackson: ‘she
said it was an awful thing to do.”
I don’t know why a hundred years after the
fact we still think this is a morally gray area. The moment Jackson took the
money from Lefty Williams he was an accomplice to the crime. Whatever
renunciation he gave came years after the fact and is almost entirely from
Jackson’s own lips. The argument seems to be that we should take the words of a
man who took a bribe that he didn’t rig the World Series. The fact that Jackson
lied about it for more than a year afterwards does nothing to make his halo
shine brighter: it was only after the consequences of his actions became clear
that he suddenly argued: “Yes, I took the money to fix the game, but I didn’t
actually fix it.”
And the thing is, where as Rose never
really had his day in court, the Black Sox technically had theirs. No one went
to jail but being found not guilty doesn’t mean your innocent as we all know.
Then, as now, the celebrity factor was apparent and it helped immensely that
the grand jury testimony, including the confessions of Jackson and Eddie
Cicotte ‘mysteriously vanished’ before the 1921 trial. This was, it’s worth
remembering, Chicago during the roaring twenties which was notoriously corrupt
even before Al Capone ended up there. It no doubt didn’t take much money to
find a White Sox fan in the Chicago judicial system willing ‘to help our boys’.
All eight White Sox were acquitted. And as I wrote in my article last year:
“And that’s why I think Kenesaw Mountain
Landis, who was named Commissioner of baseball even before the scandal broke,
acted correctly when he banned the White Sox for life. He had every intention
of doing so before the verdict which is why his famous statement began:
“Regardless of the verdict of juries…”
…his decision to ban the Black Sox for life
was absolutely the right call…. Imagine if they had been acquitted and allowed
to return to play ball in the 1922 season… Imagine it, eight ballplayers known
for being willing to sell out the national game just showing up to their old
jobs as if nothing had happened.
…Landis really had no choice. These men had
sold out the game. And we all know that just because you’re acquitted of a
crime or scandal is no guarantee they won’t do it again.”
The decision by every commissioner that has
followed Landis to make sure that Jackson never enters the Hall of Fame might
seem unduly harsh as the era passed into distant memory and only the statistics
and the images remain. But it was nevertheless the right one. No matter how
extenuating the circumstances their defenders might want to make involving the
stinginess of the owners and Comiskey in particular, no matter how much people may
argue that Jackson was an illiterate who couldn’t possibly understand the
consequences of his actions, it’s irrelevant when it comes to determining
Jackson’s guilt. He took money to throw a game, the one sin that is absolutely
irredeemable in the eyes of professional sports at all times in the game’s
history. It’s a crime, it’s illegal and being banned from every aspect of the
sport is the only fitting punishment.
By revoking this ban with Rose, Manfred has
for all intents and purposes done the same thing for Jackson, the man who
represents the biggest symbol of the worst aspects of the national pastime. Not
Bonds, not McGwire, not Sosa or anyone from the steroids era, not even Rose
himself.
Now I am aware that in a hyper-partisan
era, morality and criminal behavior can increasingly be excused depending on
your race, gender or political party. But I’d like to think even a century
after the original crime was committed, we can still find agreement that if a
man agrees to ‘play with the faith of fifty million people’ as F. Scott
Fitzgerald once referred to another man key in the Black Sox scandal, should
never be allowed to have a plaque anywhere near all of the men who did much to
make baseball the great game it has always been. And considering that last year
major league baseball did much to rectify its greatest original sin by allowing
the statistics of Negro League players to count as part of the official major
league record, the decision to allow for men like Jackson into the same Hall
where so many of these men now have plaques seems at least three giant steps
back for the game.
I truly think Manfred, who has already made
some questionable decisions as Commissioner since he took office, has made by
far his worst one with this blanket ruling. He would have done better to solely
make it about Pete Rose alone and leave Jackson and the other ineligible
players out of his statement altogether. There will no doubt be blowback about
this statement in the days and weeks to come, but much of it will have to do
with Rose.
My one comfort is that while he has lifted
the ban of ineligibility he has left the responsibility to the voters and
writers who make up the branch of Cooperstown. If there is one constant among
them, particularly the Veterans Committee, it is that they have their own
opinions of who belongs in the Hall of Fame and they have a memory that is
frequently longer than that of any Commissioner. (It should be historically
they tend to outlast most of them.) I suspect they have their own opinions
about who belongs in and this statement will do very little to influence that.
Putting my faith in the same people who
have inducted men like George Kelly, Rabbit Maranville and Rick Ferrell in
Cooperstown is a thin branch to hang my hopes on. (Who are those players, you
may ask? My point exactly.) But I’m clinging to it mainly because I’d like to
think if nothing else, these writers have more of an institutional memory and a
respect for the game then the average fan does. I don’t know what they’ll do
for Pete Rose yet. I hope they stand
firm when it comes to Joe Jackson. They’ve stood on that line for nearly a
century; I hope they keep standing on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment