In Defense Of Shoeless Joe
Blog post description.
12/11/20251 min read


In Defense Of Shoeless Joe
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson earned his nickname when he removed his shoes during a game because he had blisters on his feet. Jackson was accused of "fixing" the 1919 World Series, despite setting a World Series record that stood until 1964 by compiling 12 hits and hitting .375. He did not commit an error, and threw out a runner at the plate. So it is very hard to understand how he "threw" anything.
Jackson's involvement in the scandal remains controversial to this day. He reportedly refused the $5,000 bribe on two occasions. Jackson then tried to alert White Sox owner Charles Comiskey to the fix, but Comiskey refused to discuss it. Unable to afford legal counsel, Jackson was poorly represented by team attorney Alfred Austrian—a clear conflict of interest. Before Jackson's grand jury testimony, Austrian allegedly tried to get Jackson's to confess by plying him with whiskey.
Years later, the other seven players implicated in the scandal confirmed that Jackson was never at any of their meetings. Williams said that they only mentioned Jackson's name to give their plot more credibility, although he did not say why Jackson would have been paid $5,000 had that been the case.
In 1921, a Chicago jury acquitted Jackson and seven other teammates of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, the newly appointed Baseball Commissioner, imposed a lifetime ban on Jackson and the White Sox players. "Regardless of the verdict of juries," Landis declared, "no player that throws a ballgame; no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame; no player that sits in a conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing games are planned and discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."
Jackson has a lifetime batting average of .356 which dwarfs most other hitters in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Why Major League Baseball has never re-examined his case is more than puzzling, a further sorry injustice to the man (most likely innocent) and his incredible career.
