1919 World Series film found in the...Yukon!!!!

[Rayzor]

Found in the Great White North in the Yukon in somebody's igloo, a rare film of the 1919 World Series.

Baseball history unearthed: Rare footage of infamous 1919 ?Black Sox? World Series found in Yukon permafrost | National Post

[Dyzalot]

That's a pretty amazing find.

[Trebro]

Holy crap. I've heard for years about those baseball boards, but never saw one!

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Rayzor

Found in the Great White North in the Yukon in somebody's igloo, a rare film of the 1919 World Series.

Baseball history unearthed: Rare footage of infamous 1919 ?Black Sox? World Series found in Yukon permafrost | National Post

Exciting news because analysis of this film may have an impact on the Black Sox scandal, perhaps finally exonerating Shoeless Joe Jackson if he was in fact innocent of participating in the conspiracy to throw the Series.

[MaddiLynn]

Originally Posted by panelpatter

Holy crap. I've heard for years about those baseball boards, but never saw one!

That ball flying everywhere confuses me as to how it works lol

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Exciting news because analysis of this film may have an impact on the Black Sox scandal, perhaps finally exonerating Shoeless Joe Jackson if he was in fact innocent of participating in the conspiracy to throw the Series.

Nah, now that I have seen the film, or at least the portion/episode which is posted on that web site.

• It's a newsreel. I was thinking (absurdly, really) of a game-length, play-by-play recording.
• The film quality is poor, despite what the article says. Up to about 40% of the picture has been "eaten away" by something on both edges.
• The shots of game play look like they were taken from the upper deck, they are so far away.

Sorry, Shoeless Joe.

[DreamTeams]

So that's what it looked like in moving pictures. Very cool. Nice little transport back in time.

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Nah, now that I have seen the film, or at least the portion/episode which is posted on that web site.

• It's a newsreel. I was thinking (absurdly, really) of a game-length, play-by-play recording.
• The film quality is poor, despite what the article says. Up to about 40% of the picture has been "eaten away" by something on both edges.
• The shots of game play look like they were taken from the upper deck, they are so far away.

Sorry, Shoeless Joe.

Honestly, I don't know what you were expecting to see in game footage that would have exonerated him or any of his teammates. If you believe the idea that he took money from gamblers, it doesn't really matter how he played as he compromised the game. If you don't believe he took any money, game footage isn't going to prove that.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Rayzor

Found in the Great White North in the Yukon in somebody's igloo, a rare film of the 1919 World Series.

Baseball history unearthed: Rare footage of infamous 1919 ?Black Sox? World Series found in Yukon permafrost | National Post

Absolutely amazing! Love the story about them tossingh the film into a pool that became a ice skating rick.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by fhomess

Honestly, I don't know what you were expecting to see in game footage that would have exonerated him or any of his teammates. If you believe the idea that he took money from gamblers, it doesn't really matter how he played as he compromised the game. If you don't believe he took any money, game footage isn't going to prove that.

Not sure how he compromises the game if he takes money and then plays like he would have played if he didn't take money. Might have compromised his own life by doing such a thing but not sure how it affects MLB.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by fhomess

Honestly, I don't know what you were expecting to see in game footage that would have exonerated him or any of his teammates. If you believe the idea that he took money from gamblers, it doesn't really matter how he played as he compromised the game. If you don't believe he took any money, game footage isn't going to prove that.

Come to think of it, you're right. He wasn't banned for what he did on the field:

During the series Jackson had 12 hits (a Series record) and a .375 batting average—leading individual statistics for both teams. He committed no errors and threw out a runner at the plate.

It was whether he accepted that $5,000 bribe or not, which he denied doing for the rest of his life. Essentially, he was banned for "guilt by association." Thanks, I should have done more research before getting excited.

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Not sure how he compromises the game if he takes money and then plays like he would have played if he didn't take money. Might have compromised his own life by doing such a thing but not sure how it affects MLB.

Nah. If he did take that money (and we may never know for sure), then he was guilty as heck and deserved his punishment. See Peter Rose.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Nah. If he did take that money (and we may never know for sure), then he was guilty as heck and deserved his punishment. See Peter Rose.

If he took the money and played as if he didn't then the only ones who were defrauded were the ones that gave him the money to throw the games. Not saying it would have been "right", just that there would have been no harm done to MLB.

[DCG12]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

If he took the money and played as if he didn't then the only ones who were defrauded were the ones that gave him the money to throw the games. Not saying it would have been "right", just that there would have been no harm done to MLB.

Couldn't disagree with this any more then I do. MLB was harmed in that if there is an appearance of the the games not being on the up and up then the public loses faith/interest and the game suffers.

You're using what I call the Pete Rose arguement, i.e. He didn't bet against his team so it's all good. To me it doesn't matter what team he bet on only that he put himself in a conflict of interest and potentially left himself open to coersion by people who he might have owed money.

Same holds true for Shoeless Joe, he knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by DCG12

Couldn't disagree with this any more then I do. MLB was harmed in that if there is an appearance of the the games not being on the up and up then the public loses faith/interest and the game suffers.

You're using what I call the Pete Rose arguement, i.e. He didn't bet against his team so it's all good. To me it doesn't matter what team he bet on only that he put himself in a conflict of interest and potentially left himself open to coersion by people who he might have owed money.

Same holds true for Shoeless Joe, he knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it.

I agree with this. It's important to the integrity of the game that nothing be allowed to call into question whether it is crooked or not. If that means people like Jackson and Rose are dealt with harshly, it is for the good of the game.

The only difference between these two is that Rose confessed and Jackson did not, at least outside of the courtroom. But he was involved to a certain degree and he failed to sufficiently distance himself from it.

Jackson really is a tragic story, though. I'm thinking that he did turn down the offer but did little to bring the conspiracy to light from fear that he would be viewed as a "rat."

Put yourself in his shoes (no pun intended). If he tells, then everyone of his teammates who are involved are his enemies. Even worse, the rest of his teammates and players around the league will despise him for turning in the conspirators.

Landis might actually have done him a favor in that regard. If Landis had banned the seven other guys and not Jackson, I bet he would have worn the "rat" label for the rest of his career and the rest of his life.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by DCG12

Couldn't disagree with this any more then I do. MLB was harmed in that if there is an appearance of the the games not being on the up and up then the public loses faith/interest and the game suffers.

You're using what I call the Pete Rose arguement, i.e. He didn't bet against his team so it's all good. To me it doesn't matter what team he bet on only that he put himself in a conflict of interest and potentially left himself open to coersion by people who he might have owed money.

Same holds true for Shoeless Joe, he knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it.

Pete Rose didn't bet on his team every game. Therefore he was betting against his team sometimes.