View Single Post
02-06-2013, 01:28 PM
Epictetus's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,563
vCash: 511
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
I'm asking if he was mostly hitting when the team was out if it and if he suddenly disappeared when the team was still in it.
He had a Series-leading .375 batting average – including the Series' only home run – threw out five baserunners, and handled 30 chances in the outfield with no errors. However, he batted far worse in the five games that the White Sox lost, with a batting average of .286 in those games (although this was still an above-average batting average; the National and American Leagues hit a combined .263 in the 1919 season[8]). Three of his six RBIs came in the losses, including the aforementioned home run, and a double in Game 8 when the Reds had a large lead and the series was all but over.

Still, in that game a long foul ball was caught at the fence with runners on second and third, depriving Jackson of a chance to drive in the runners. Statistics also show that in the other games that the White Sox lost, only five of Jackson's at-bats came with a man in scoring position, and he advanced the runners twice.

One play in particular has been subjected to much scrutiny. In the fifth inning of Game 4, with a Cincinnati player on second, Jackson fielded a single hit to left field and threw home. Chick Gandil, another leader of the fix, later admitted to yelling at Cicotte to intercept the throw. The run scored and the White Sox lost the game 2–0.[9] Cicotte, whose guilt is undisputed, made two errors in that fifth inning alone.
I recognize the bias that appears in this, but the numbers are correct.

Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
And even if that wasn't the case, he still was party to a plan to throw the World Series. Him playing well doesn't negate that.
How? His involvement in the scandal is controversial, meaning this is not absolute. Players and the like all have differing stories. Just because he is banned, does not mean that it was the correct decision, immune to change.

I am not arguing against the fact that 'Player x' breaking said rule should be banned. I am saying there is lots of controversy over his guilt. It's possible he is innocent.

I'm not sure if you are arguing that if he did know about it, and refused to inform anyone, that he still deserves to be punished.

Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Also..... what betting against your own team? Jackson wasn't betting and Rose didn't bet against his team.
Intentionally throwing the game, my apologies.

Epictetus is offline   Reply With Quote