Was Comiskey the Jerk He's Made out to be?

[EarlJam]

Yeah, I know........I could Google it but this has been baseball central of late and, well, I want to ask ya'll.

Comiskey. I'm watching Eight Men Out right now and they are portraying him to be quite the jerk (that's the kind word for it). It's the whole rationale for the Sox players agreeing to fix the Series.

How much of this is fiction for the movie's sake versus reality? Anyone an expert in this matter?

-EarlJam - who is loving all this baseball!

[captmojo]

Not sure but I think he would be one who would have turned out the bugs like they had at Jacob's Field tonight. Especially if it would give him an advantage in the game.:eek:

[JasonEvans]

I am certainly no expert on Comiskey, but his reputation for being cheap with his team is legendary. Not many people know it, but his club was known as the Black Sox before the scandal ever happened. Wanna know why? Comiskey refused to pay to have the team's uniforms cleaned. He told the players they had to take care of the uniforms on their own. Many of the players could not afford good laundry service, especially when they were on the road, so the team always looked dirty. That is how they got to be known as the Black Sox.

OTOH, it is also worth noting that some of the players reportedly only went for the fix becase the gamblers threatened their families-- so it was not just a monetary motivation/hatred of their owner that got these guys to fix the games.

Personally, based on what I have read about the scandal, I think Comiskey's conduct probably created an atmosphere where this kind of thing could happen but it is not like it was all his fault.

--Jason "sports was just so different back then" Evans

[cspan37421]

How ironic. I just watched Eight Men Out yesterday, too, and yes, Comiskey does come across as a cheap SOB. Keep in mind that teams owned players back then - no free agency. Your choices were to accept the contract they offered you, or not play major league baseball.

I'm no lawyer but I was a bit surprised at how Buck Weaver could not get an individual trial, or testify in his own defense. Maybe I don't know enough about conspiracy charges but it seemed odd to me.

[Olympic Fan]

Yeah, Charlie Comisky was a cheap bastard -- so were most of the other owners of that era. For the most part, they weren't rich men -- their survival depended on their ability to milk a profit out of their team (at a time when the only revenue was ticket sales and ballpark ads).

In point of fact, the 1919 Black Sox had the second highest payroll in baseball. "Poor" Joe Jackson had the third highest individual salary in the game (behind Cobb and Speaker and just ahead of a young Babe Ruth).

The bit about dirty uniforms is true, but it's hardly unique to the Black Sox -- as late as the 1930s, Enos Slaughter talks about the Cards' refusal to clean their uniforms on a regular basis -- he said after two or three days of sweating in one of those wool uniforms during spring practice, his pants would stand up on their own.

The flat champagne for the pennant clinching celebration is true -- although it happened in 1917, not 1919. Of course, Comisky was the first owner to furnish champagne for a locker room victory celebration.

As for the bit about the gamblers threatening the players families ... the only instance this is believed to have happened was at the end of the fix, after the players were so disgusted with the gamblers refusal to pay off that that they decided to play to win. Lefty Williams, one of the eight conspirators, was slated to pitch game 8 (the series was best-of-nine in 1919) and he later reported that his wife's life was threatened.

But let's get something straight. The entire fix was not a case of the evil gamblers preying on poor naive players. The idea of the fix originated with the players -- specifically first baseman Chick Gandil -- and they took it to the gamblers.

How much each player did or didn't do to throw the series is in some dispute. The two starting pitchers involved -- Cicotte and Williams -- clearly threw at least two games each. Gandil, Felch and, yes, Joe Jackson equally clearly played below par at certain times during the series.

What most people don't understand is that they didn't throw every game. After the first and second games -- when Cicotte and Williams did most of the damage -- the players felt stiffed by the gamblers, so they came out and played their best in game three. Most uniformed commentators rave about brave Dickie Kerr, winning two games with his teammates conspiring to throw the games behind him -- that's not what happened -- they were trying to win his two games.

After the White Sox won game three behind Kerr's shutout, the players received a fairly large payment from the gamblers ... so they went out and threw game four behind Cicotte and game five behind Williams. At that point, no more money had been received, so the players went out to win game six behind Kerr and game seven behind Cicotte.

At that point, the fix was dead ... until Williams' wife was threatened. He went out and was awful -- he lasted one-third of an inning and gave up four runs. His replacement, Bill James (a hero for the 1914 Miracle Braves) was not in on the fix, but he was equally awful and soon the Sox were in a 10-1 hole.

Keep in mind a couple of other things -- the players (including Jackson) all confessed. Then, presto, the confessions disappeared from the safe of the district attorney and a jury of Chicago sports fans acquitted the eight players from charges that they conspired to defraud the public by throwing the series.

I've seen it suggested that powerful Arnold Rothstein, who bankrolled the fix, had the confessions stolen. More likely, Comisky had them stolen -- hoping to get his star players back.

Why do I think that?

Well, after all eight are banned by Judge Landis, Joe Jackson sues Comisky for the salary he's owed under the three-year contract he signed before the 1919 season. At a trial in a federal court in Milwaukee, that missing confession that he signed turns up as evidence against him.

Secondly, this was not the first time that players threw games in that era. It was rampant for players in meaningless late-season games to conspire with each other to throw games and cash in on it. Both Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker, the two greatest players in the 'teens, almost certainly was involved in such chicanery (and when the evidence came out, Landis buried it). Christy Mathewson, managing the Reds just before WWI, tried to get first baseman Hal Chase banned for fixing games (not all of them meaningless) on a regular basis -- the president of the national league (this is before Landis) covered it up.

There is some evidence that the Red Sox and Giants fixed a game in the 1912 world series to extend the series to its limit. Baseball hushed it up, but immediately instituted the rule that the players would only take a share from the first four games of the series to avoid a repetition of the fix.

I've been struck with how baseball's response to the steroid scandal has mirrored their response to the gambling problems in the WWI era. In both cases, they've done their best to cover up and look the other way so they don't have to ban their stars.

A final word -- I agree that Buck Weaver got a raw deal. The evidence is that he sat in on the meeting where Gandil, Felsh and several others planned the fix. But all agree that he refused to participate. Seven of the eight men out took money from the gamblers ... Weaver did not.

Should he have been penalized for knowing about the fix and doing nothing about it? Yes ... but I don't think he deserved the same lifetime ban as the seven fixers received.

[cspan37421]

take with a large grain of salt, but FWIW the Wikipedia entry suggests Comisky (-ey?) knew of the fix just before the series started, as did the manager. If true, then why were they not punished under the same reasoning as Weaver?

I totally agree with you about the parallels to the steroid era. There's one key difference: Bud Selig is no Kennesaw Mountain Landis, not by a country mile.

[Indoor66]

Bud Selig is no Kennesaw Mountain Landis, not by a country mile.

A good friend of mine always call Selig "Bud Light." Seling always seems to do what is wrong....

[cspan37421]

Well, I hated the wildcard, but it has proven to be worthwhile, keeping both the end of the season relevant and the successes of wildcard teams demonstrates that the best teams in October aren't always the ones who compiled the best records since April.

But I think he has no backbone (w/r/t steroids), and he's too aligned with ownership through his history and his family. Probably the few good ideas he might have had were shot down by the players union, which just underscores the need for a strong, independent commissioner.

[accfanfrom1970]

There's a good book "Lords of the Realm" I think that goes into the history of management in baseball, including Comiskey....and he's portryed as one of the worst owners ever.....

[Olympic Fan]

Well, I hated the wildcard, but it has proven to be worthwhile, keeping both the end of the season relevant and the successes of wildcard teams demonstrates that the best teams in October aren't always the ones who compiled the best records since April.

I still hate the wild card ...

No question it creates drama by artifically keeping a bunch of mediocre teams in the race, but if that's your goal, then why not have eight wild cards -- you could keep almost everybody in the race until the end.

I strongly disagree with the claim that "the successes of wildcard teams demonstrates that the best teams in October aren't always the ones who compiled the best records since April."

What it demonstrates is that baseball is a game subject to wild fluctuations in a short series. Did the Nats' success against the Mets in the last week of the season demonstrate that they were a better team than the Mets? The Blue Jays swept the Red Sox (when the Red Sox were still playing hard to hold off the charging Yankees) in the final days of the season -- does that prove the Blue Jays were really better than the Red Sox?

When you have a short series, you are going to get some bizarre results. I resent the fact that teams that have proved their strength over a 162-game season are put at risk against lessor teams that are given a pass to the playoffs by Selig's lame wild card plan.

[EarlJam]

I still hate the wild card ...

No question it creates drama by artifically keeping a bunch of mediocre teams in the race, but if that's your goal, then why not have eight wild cards -- you could keep almost everybody in the race until the end.

I strongly disagree with the claim that "the successes of wildcard teams demonstrates that the best teams in October aren't always the ones who compiled the best records since April."

What it demonstrates is that baseball is a game subject to wild fluctuations in a short series. Did the Nats' success against the Mets in the last week of the season demonstrate that they were a better team than the Mets? The Blue Jays swept the Red Sox (when the Red Sox were still playing hard to hold off the charging Yankees) in the final days of the season -- does that prove the Blue Jays were really better than the Red Sox?

When you have a short series, you are going to get some bizarre results. I resent the fact that teams that have proved their strength over a 162-game season are put at risk against lessor teams that are given a pass to the playoffs by Selig's lame wild card plan.

Great post, very well said, DITTO, amen and all that.

I'd add to it, but I'd just be repeating what you said and I don't think it can be said more clearly. It DOES punish teams who proved their worth over the course of six months. I hate to see a good division-winning team get knocked off in a brief 5-game series by some mediocre team that just got hot.

Anyway, yes, the wildcard in baseball. Me no like.

-EarlJam

[YmoBeThere]

It DOES punish teams who proved their worth over the course of six months. I hate to see a good division-winning team get knocked off in a brief 5-game series by some mediocre team that just got hot.

There is huge variability in baseball, that is why they play the 162 game schedule. The argument can be made that a 92-70 record is not significantly different from an 89-73 record.

And for what it is worth, this year the NL wild card winner had a better record over 162 games than the NL Central winner and an equal record to the NL East winner. Mere geography should dictate who are the "better" teams meritorious of additional game play? You have to draw lines somewhere, I personally am fine with the wild card system as it stands.

[4decadedukie]

Bud Selig is no Kennesaw Mountain Landis, not by a country mile.

True enough, but Selig is also not a confirmed and egregious racist, as Judge Landis certainly was.