Talk:Joe Harris (first baseman)

Latest comment: 9 years ago by DiffuseGoose in topic "Lifetime" ban

"Lifetime" ban edit

As currently described in this article, the "lifetime ban" is probably false. And the claim that he was the first to be reinstated after receiving such a ban is flatly wrong. These erroneous claims appear to have originated with the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.

What is true is that Harris became ineligible when he signed a contract to play in 1920 for a team outside of "organized baseball", violating the reserve clause of his 1919 contract with Cleveland. Like many players over the preceding decades, Harris was placed on the ineligible list (blacklisted). In the period between 1905 and 1920 the baseball commission ruled on many reinstatement request of players on this list, and quite a few were reinstated. What distinguishes Harris's case from the others is that baseball's governing body changed in 1920, the three man commission being replaced by a one man commissioner, Landis.

Some contemporary articles describe Harris's ban as having a 3 year period. Harris applied for reinstatement following the 1920 season but his request was either denied or ignored. He applied again following the 1921 season and gained reinstatement from Landis. This might have been the first reinstatement by Landis's office.DiffuseGoose (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thus the claim currently in the article, that Landis "promptly banned" Harris, is an historical anachronism. Landis wasn't in office at the time Harris became ineligible. In fact the office of the commissioner did not even exist until mid November of 1920. The "ban", if that's what it should be called, was automatic. If there was a specific action that made the ban official it would have been when Cleveland requested Harris be placed on the ineligible list. No one would have "promptly banned" Harris, any more than anyone would have "promptly banned" any of the hundred of other players on the ineligible list.DiffuseGoose (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply