For years I’ve had something of a fascination with Shoeless Joe Jackson. It’s one of what seem like thousands of sports history related obsessions I’ve harbored since my dad bought me my first pack of Topps cards and the “All Star Baseball” spinner game in 1977.
My interest in Shoeless Joe perks up around Hall of Fame selection time, or whenever I research through deadball era stats or photos, or if I see that Field of Dreams or Eight Men Out is being shown on TV.
There have been some good books, articles and full websites devoted to Joe and/or the 1919 Sox. Most portray him in a positive light, arguing that his .375 average and errorless play prove he wasn’t throwing the World Series. Others note the fact that he took money from the gamblers, which lumped him in with the others who are generally believed to have fixed the games.
It was a different era, with numerous other scandals rumored involving star players such as Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker and Hal Chase. The thought of a player being influenced by a gambler’s cash in that time is much more viable than in today’s multi-million dollar salary environment. I lean towards the sentiment that Jackson may have been less culpable than his contemporaries who went largely unpunished, but didn’t have the clout to keep the authorities at bay.
I’ve always been interested in the tie between Jackson’s situation and that of Pete Rose. People arguing for — or against — Rose’s Hall of Fame candidacy often bring Jackson into the discussion, the common reference being gambling. Both are on Major League Baseball’s “Permanently Ineligible” list.
I’ve found this connection to be dubious. Rose has never liked the comparison, since Jackson was involved, even tangentially, in the fixing of games, while Rose maintains that he never bet against the Reds; indeed, the idea of not playing to win is anathema to a man who lived to win. I have always felt that unless Rose bet on every single game, the same amount, this still leaves open the possibility of player usage (particularly pitchers) and other decisions that affect other games, being applied differently based on these bets rather than what is best for the overall team. Thus I see both bans as valid.
But the point here is that they are quite different circumstances. More court documents and info from the famed “Black Sox” trials have surfaced recenty, and it is hardly in dispute that Jackson took and spent the money. Rose, after many years of denying he bet on the game, admitted that he wagered on the Reds to win.
I thought about the connection again today when I read a blog post about a new Jackson baseball card Upper Deck will issue for 2010. The author, Sports Collectibiles Digest editor T.S. O’Connell, wonders if a “modern” Rose card should also be created.
Rose has done well for himself with memorabilia and collectibles, and more power to him. Jackson, of course, never had that chance, passing away in 1951, decades before the explosion of the business.
He never really had the chance to defend himself, either.