This is the most infamous season in the history of baseball. The Chicago White Sox won the pennant, then lost to the Cincinnati Reds in the World Series. Later, it was revealed that eight members of the White Sox had accepted money from gamblers to intentionally lose the Series. It became the worst scandal in baseball history.
        The complete story of the Black Sox scandal would require a novel, so I'll focus on just a couple of subjects. To save the game's integrity, the owners hired Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis as the first Commissioner of Baseball. Landis banned all eight players for life, including superstar "Shoeless" Joe Jackson.

         Most people have heard of Joe Jackson, and you may even have an opinion on his guilt. He was a great player, and would be in the Hall Of Fame had he not been banished from the game. A lot of people think he should be in the Hall, that he really had nothing to do with the game fixing (as evidence, they point to his .375 batting average in the Series; he was the best hitter on either team). The movie Field Of Dreams portrays Jackson as an innocent and heroic figure (they also portray him as a right-handed hitter, but never mind that).
        There are two problems with the pro-Jackson argument. One, he knew about the conspiracy, and sat in on the secret meetings. Two, he accepted money from the gamblers. These facts were admitted in court, and provide a strong case that he should have been banned. What evidence is there that he deserved leniency?
        The good batting average? Not in my books. There are many ways to lose a ballgame, such as throwing a ball to the wrong base or not breaking up a double play, or whatever. Jackson's batting average is not grounds for a complete acquittal. Maybe he just picked his spots; half of Jackson's RBI (and his only home run) came in the final game, when his team was already losing 10-1.
         The only pro-Jackson argument I can accept is that Jackson, though he took the gamblers' money, only did so because (to be brutally honest) he was dumber than a bag of rocks and didn't know what he was getting involved with. He probably played to win, because it was the only way he knew how to play. He just got himself into an unfortunate situation he couldn't get out of.
        This argument probably has some merit; Jackson was illiterate, and I don't think he had much street sense, either. But I think it's a poor excuse. I'm sympathetic towards Jackson, but rules are rules, and he broke them in the worst way. He should not be in the Hall Of Fame.
         Besides, it doesn't really matter anymore; and Jackson probably has more fans now than he would have if he had never been involved with the whole mess.
        As the game reeled from devastating gambling scandals, the healing process was already underway. As you can see above, a young man named Babe Ruth broke the existing record for home runs in a season, hitting 29 (the previous high was 27, by Ned Williamson in 1884). The dead-ball era was near its end, and the lively ball era was beginning. Ruth also went 9-5 as a pitcher, and is a logical choice as the MVP.

         Eddie Collins had joined the White Sox a few years before; this was his second pennant in Chicago. He and Jackson were the White Sox' best players, but they didn't get along too well. Collins was nicknamed "Cocky", and was a little arrogant. Collins was at the heart of a clique of players within the White Sox' clubhouse that outcast the illiterate Jackson. This is often given as the reason Jackson got mixed up with Chick Gandil and the other outcasts. Well, whatever. Collins was one of the best players in the league, and he never took any gamblers' money, so we can't be too critical.
        Roger Peckinpaugh had his best year as a hitter, and was a premier defensive player as well. He and Del Pratt and Frank Baker all played for the Yankees, who had finally emerged as a good team. Next year, they would buy Ruth from the Red Sox, and a year later would win their first pennant.