BASEBALL.
A question for the forum: what do we do with Shoeless Joe? I ask because last night, in celebration of my mother's birthday, my family and I visited downtown Greenville, SC in order to tour both the new minor league baseball stadium (designed as a dimension-replica of Fenway Park, presumably in order to 'prep' the members of their single-A club, the Greenville Drive) and the beautifully renovated downtown "Falls Park." As we worked our way down Main Street, I was surprised by a small courtyard that had been set up on the far West End of town dedicated to none other than Joe Jackson. Now, as you may or may not know, Greenville was the birthplace and longtime home of "Shoeless Joe" Jackson, an exceptional Major Leaguer from 1909 until his expulsion from baseball in 1920 as part of the Chicago "Black Sox" team accused of throwing the 1919 World Series. In his eleven years in the Major Leagues, Jackson batted over .350 nine times, won the league batting title twice and was voted MVP of the 1917 World Series, and as a large plaque informed me last night, the courtyard and statue on Main Street stand on the ground where his childhood home had been located before being moved last year to the outfield of West End Park - the pseudo-Fenway mentioned earlier. As part of the Joe-mania of the surrounding area, a large shop window has been decorated with a collection of Jackson memorobilia underneath a slogan reading "HALL YES! INDUCT SHOELESS JOE!" The window also contains various stat sheets from Jackson's career, a retrospective of his "flawless" play in the 1919 Series, and a copy of the U.S. Court report declaring Joe and 7 of his teammates "innocent on all counts of conspiracy" that ended the players' criminal trial in 1920. A petition is also posted on the store's window, requesting signatures from any citizens "wishing to see Joseph Jackson inducted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame."
And as I took all this in last night, reading about Jackson's life and career, witnessing a town celebrating its hero, I couldn't help but hesitate for a moment before I put my name down on that piece of paper - and now, Sunday afternoon, I still can't make up my mind about Shoeless Joe. What is there to say about a cheater? Was he one? These seem like particularly prescient questions for baseball fans, don't they? And what do we make of a career cut short in any fashion, especially one so incredibly controversial? Can the city of Greenville celebrate someone like Joe? And, as that window made so painfully clear, can what made Jackson so undeniably great in his eleven years of play ever be recognized without working through what has made him so infamous in all the time since?
I'm writing this post because I'm not sure - and I really want to love the guy. After all, I'm from a town only twenty minutes away - he's practically my hero, too. But should he be? And what do we do for him (and the list of other offenders, which seems to grow by the year)? Can we recognize merit alone?
These seem like questions worth asking, I think, so there they are. Your thoughts?
3 comments:
Well, you know, if I answer with my head, I say no. But answering with my head keeps Rose out, too. I have a rationalization--the same one everyone has on this side of the argument--that puts them both in, but it really has more to do with what I want. They're both great players; therefore they should be in because of what they did on the field.
That's a pretty crappy answer, though, really, because one of the things they did on the field was compromise the game. (Touche, formidable opponent.)
If I answer with my heart, the answer is similar; I love what they could do with a ball and a bat, but it feels like a punch in the gut to think about how that didn't win out for them.
I don't know, is my answer.
well, to discuss, this you have to cover that ground - and if there was an easy way to do it, we probably wouldn't still be talking about a world series all-star from 1919. i'll say this: i was always a 'what they did on the field' guy; i always assumed rose and shoeless joe should be in. however, this bonds/maguire business has made me pause - cheating is cheating, and as baseball history has told us, its part of the game - until you get caught. getting caught cheating has always been the great sin of the game - and these guys did.
of course, that only tangentially applies to rose - he never gambled on his own play as a player, therefore, as a player, he should probably be in the Hall. of course, his problem has been (and will always be) his refusal to be in any way contrite. the same with shoeless joe, though - the man knew about cheating but he didn't rat his friends out - he batted .356 for the WS - and that hardly seems like grounds for expulsion (particularly if everyone, then and now, is a cheater). i guess what i'm saying is that i believe there's a way to get rose and shoeless joe in (HALL YES!) AND keep out the assholes from the last ten years...but it seems tenuous, at best.
poor shoeless joe...
Post a Comment