Notes from the Shadows of Cooperstown
Observations From Outside the Lines |
Carney's newest book,
Burying the Black Sox: How
Baseball's Cover-up of the
1919 World Series Fix Almost Succeeded, will be available soon.
Pre-order your copy today.
Click to subscribe to 1919BlackSox Yahoo Discussion Group
NOTES FROM THE SHADOWS OF COOPERSTOWN
Observations from Outside the Lines
By Two Finger Carney (carneya6@borg.com)
#289 MARCH 4, 2003
PUTTING THE PUZZLE TOGETHER
Since last September, I feel like I have been collecting pieces of a giant puzzle. I've searched books, articles, web sites, e-mail, videos, and tapped numerous people. Surely one of the highlights was talking with the grandson of Hugh Fullerton, and although he knew of no journal or papers in the family, I am still hoping that something will turn up.
I have begun the task of putting those pieces together. So far I have three chapters edited out of all the Notes from issue #268 to the present. Not all the pieces fit, but I'm giving them a look. And I'm still collecting, too.
In this issue, I review the ESPN Classic documentary on the Black Sox Scandal, which aired March 2. One of the talking heads on that program was Eliot Asinof, whose article on the ESPN Classic website is reviewed earlier. "To understand the Black Sox Scandal, the magic word is cover-up." No kidding!
I also take a look here at the suggestion that the very first World Series game ever -- the Pirates beat the Red Sox -- was crooked. That is followed up by a discussion conducted by the SABR Deadball Era Committee (I joined recently) -- to illustrate, more than anything else, what fun SABR committees can be.
The current event discussed in this issue is "41 Men Out" -- the empty election of the Hall's Vets' Committee. My comments are followed up by those of Bill Deane, posted on the SABR-L.
Finally, in "Dueling Reporters," I contrast the reactions of two men who sat together during the 1919 World Series looking for trouble. Reporter Hugh Fullerton was sickened by what he saw, and crusaded as hard as he could after the Series to break the stranglehold he saw gambling had on baseball. Christy Mathewson, icon-turned-reporter, became part of the cover-up -- said it couldn't be done, so it wasn't, and aren't there other explanations for what happened? (Matty had picked the Reds!)
I will not be posting completed chapters of my book on the website, by the way. And I am adding material not found in Notes. I know a number of readers gave up reading the series, saying "I'll wait for the book." I hope that wait is not long. It is fun doing puzzles, taking hundreds of bits of information and shaping them into a picture. As much fun as writing Notes!
ASINOF!
When I mentioned the ESPN Classic documentary on "the Black Sox Scandal," Jeff Kutler directed me to this web site:
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/black_sox_moments.html
It is a site erected, I suppose, as a companion to the ESPN program. There you will find an article by Eliot Asinof ("special to ESPN.com"), one by Rob Neyer (who plays a kind of Devil's Advocate for fans of Shoeless Joe), a link to collectibles, and a link to a short rundown of "baseball scandals" -- highly incomplete, if you've been counting.
The Asinof piece is dated July, and I'm guessing 2001, because I believe that's when ESPN aired their documentary. Now, I have been chiding Mr Asinof a bit for choosing as his title, Eight Men Out, which, like Black Sox Scandal, seems to lay blame squarely on the shoulders of the banned players. I happen to think the event was bigger, and deserves a name that gives the gamblers due credit, not to mention those who covered up the fix so successfully -- nearly a year.
I say "successfully" -- but of course, any cover-up that is not permanent, is a failure, like Teapot Dome or Watergate or Irangate. The only successful cover-up is one that never gets into the newspapers, let alone books or movies. Like ... well, I can't name one! Let's just say, all the ones we can't name.
"To understand the Black Sox Scandal," Asinof begins, "the magic word is cover-up. And so it was from the day the 1919 World Series fix began." This is not Asinof changing his mind -- in Eight Men Out, he constantly uses the image of letting the cat out of the bag. After the dust settled, "the cat was quickly returned to the bag and remained there for over forty years."
The rest of his article -- which I recommend -- tells of his almost two years of "crisscrossing the country" doing his research. The old ballplayers he tracked down were mostly still unwilling to talk; the old gamblers "freely spit up their guts." (Maybe this is why in Eight Men Out we find so much on the gambling connections.)
I'm not sure Asinof included this detail in Bleeding Between the Lines: 20th Century Fox was gung ho to make the movie, until they were scared off by the threat of a $2 million lawsuit for defaming the character of Dutch Reuther -- because Asinof had included in his book a Ring Lardner quote, revealing that the Reds pitcher had a few drinks before Game 1 -- which he won!
This essay is really a good read for fans of movies, who want lots of tidbits about how directors work with books, go for realism (or not), work with the author on the set, and so on. 8MO may not portray Joe Jackson in all the complexity he deserves -- but at least he bats left-handed! Most definitely a lefty, Ray.
SAY IT AIN'T SO, CY!
As a Pirate fan, I grew up feeling proud that my team was in the very first "modern" World Series, in 1903. OK, they lost, but they were depleted by injuries. Hey, at least they won the very first World Series game ever played, right?
Well, my recent series on crooked World Series games prompted Notes reader Steve to call to my attention, an allegation in Red Sox Century, by Stout and Johnson, that the BoSox threw the first game of the 1903 WS -- and possibly a few more.
The most detailed description of the 1903 Series I have is in the great biography of Honus Wagner by the DeValerias. Sure enough, they write of Boston catcher Lou Criger, "His most significant contribution to the postseason event would not come to light until years later, when he revealed that gamblers had offered him $12,000 to throw the Series to the Pirates."
$12,000? That's more than Cicotte received, sixteen years later. Didn't gamblers know about the rising cost of living? Or inflation? I ought to say right away that other sources say that Criger did not take the bribe. But there is more in the Wagner biography that suggests why the offer was so high.
A headline in The Pittsburg Post declared PITTSBURG MONEY SCARES BOSTON, and a subhead explained, "[Pirate] President Dreyfuss and Party from Smoky City With a $30,000 Roll Quickly Hammer Beantown Betting Odds Down to Even Money."
Dreyfuss was said to have tried to bet $10,000 on the Pirates in Pittsburgh, but no local bookie would accept. The Sporting News favored the Pirates at 2-1 odds if Honus Wagner played, Boston at 2-1 if he didn't. Honus played, but had a miserable Series, and Boston won 5 games to 3.
Getting back to Game 1, the Pirates batted around in the first for four runs off Cy Young, en route to a 7-3 win. In the middle of the early binge, Lou Criger fired a wild throw into center and the Pirates swiped three bases. Hmmm.
Back to Honus -- he felt so badly after the Series (his six errors led both teams and led to several unearned runs), that he said, "I was a joke in that Series. What does it profit a man to hammer along and make a few hits when they are not needed only to fall down when it comes to a pinch." Asked to send his portrait to NL President Harry Pulliam's Hall of Fame (of batting champions), Hans said "I would be ashamed to have my picture up now."
I cannot help but think of Joe Jackson when I read that last paragraph. The best hitter on the team feels worst when the team loses, blames himself. Feels guilty, not worthy of any "Hall of Fame." How many other stars felt like this and said so?
41 MEN OUT
Out of the Hall of Fame, that is. For now. The newly-configured Veterans Committee has voted, and elected no one. There was no meeting, so there was no lobbying or test-ballots.
Gil Hodges came closest on the players ballot, but he was not that close: needing 61+ of the 81 votes cast, Gil got 50. I liked Gil, but never rated him HOF.
Looking over the rest of the players ballot, you could make up a very good All Star team from this roster. I'd pick Dick Allen at first base over Gil and Ted Kluszewski, and what manager wouldn't? Joe Gordon gets 2B by default. I like Ken Boyer at 3B over Ron Santo, though I know a lot of folks think both should be in the Hall. At short, Maury Wills over Marty Marion, but I bet fans who saw Marty play (I didn't) would argue some.
Joe Torre, Wes Ferrell, Elston Howard, Thurman Munson -- who you gonna catch? That's the way they finished in the voting, but it doesn't look good for any of them. Torre might go in as a manager.
The top three vote-getters in the outfield were Tony Oliva, Vada Pinson, and Roger Maris. I could live with all three going in, and Minnie Minoso, too. Surprisingly to me, Curt Flood drew only ten votes. How soon history forgets brave stands that change the game forever!
Carl Mays drew only 16 votes, but no pitcher on the ballot drew more. Allie Reynolds also got 16.
On the composite ballot, former umpire Doug Harvey drew 48 votes, 12 shy of the number needed. Marvin Miller, another rebel who changed the game, finished third, behind Walter O'Malley and ahead of Buzzie Bavasi. Very strange. At least Miller had this consolation: Bowie Kuhn received just 20 votes. Next came a trio of managers that I think deserve the Hall: Dick Williams, Whitey Herzog and Billy Martin.
'Way back in Notes' rookie season (it was born in March 1993), I proposed a Hall for All. That's right, everybody who ever played the game gets in. The cream of the crop keep their bronze plaques. The rest get smaller ones, with the very worst players rating just their framed baseball card. There are hands-on computers in the Hall now, and these can be adjusted so visitors an look up anybody, just like in Total Baseball.
I've also proposed a Fans' Wing, but the only Hall I know with one of those is The Baseball Reliquary, which bestows annually, the Hilda Chester Award.
So Induction Day 2003 will go a bit swifter, thanks to the folks who voted this time around in such a shotgun fashion. And if it's sweltering hot that day, it's not such a bad thing.
BILL DEANE'S TAKE ON THE RECENT NON-ELECTION
[I spotted this perceptive post on the SABR-L Digest and reprint it here with the permission of Bill Deane.]
As we know, the new Veterans' Committee, after months of weeding out candidates and preparing ballots, failed to elect anyone to the Hall of Fame this year. Hall Chairman Jane Clark spun this as some sort of victory for the new system, saying "We believe the process works by upholding high standards for earning election."
The fact that no player made it wasn't shocking. The 81 voters, without the opportunity to discuss candidates among themselves (as the former committee had), were choosing from among 26 players who had been by-passed by the writers 15 times apiece. How could we expect 75% of them to agree that any one of these players actually deserved enshrinement? The voters made an average of 5.35 selections out of a maximum ten, and only Gil Hodges (61%), Tony Oliva (59%), and Ron Santo (57%) got more than 36% of the vote. These players, plus those newly eligible next time (including Luis Tiant, Jim Kaat, Sparky Lyle, Lee May, and Reggie Smith), will now have to wait until 2005 for another chance.
But will any of them have a chance to move up? In the BBWAA voting, there are several factors that enable players to move up over time, including:
1. Other players get elected, freeing up votes for returning candidates in the next election.
2. Other players get eliminated due to lack of support or completion of their eligibility period, freeing up votes for returning candidates in the next election.
3. Some writers prefer not to vote for a player on his first try out of principle, then support him later on.
4. Players who come very close to election one year often pick up a groundswell of support sufficient to put them over the top.
None of these factors apply to the new Veterans' Committee system. Nobody got elected, nobody gets eliminated, nobody is being considered for the first time, and nobody really came close to election. I see no reason for optimism that anybody will ever get elected under this system. Incidentally, players who played all of their careers before World War II received a TOTAL of 42 votes. That, of course, reflects the fact that few of the voters saw anybody play before World War II. And, as time goes by, there will be fewer and fewer voters who saw Gil Hodges play.
The result of the non-players' balloting was much more surprising, at least to me. With only 15 candidates, and each voter allowed to make up to ten selections, there seemed ample opportunity. But not only didn't anybody make it, but candidates will now have to wait until 2007 for another chance. A big reason was that the average voter made only 4.24 selections. Only Doug Harvey, at 61%, got even half of the votes. And, again, I see no reason to expect a different result next time, especially with Negro Leaguers added to the mix.If the new committee continues to shut out the candidates, will the Hall's brass change the procedure? Wouldn't that be a slap in the face to the Hall of Famers and other VIPs, whom they need to come back every year?
THE QUESTIONS NOT ASKED
Thanks to a friend in my office, Jerry Switzer, I was able to view the ESPN Classic documentary on "The Black Sox Scandal" the day after it aired. (My cable station does not carry ESPN-C.)
It was great, seeing the faces of a number of people that I have been e-mailing -- Mike Nola, David Fleitz, Daniel Nathan, and others -- as well as a number of folks I've met or corresponded with over the years. (I also jotted down a bunch of names I'd not seen before, which baffles me, since I thought that I had now read all the main books on the subject.)
I most enjoyed Eliot Asinof, when he was not just telling the story, but telling us where he got some of his information. For example, he said he heard about the threat on Lefty Williams from his wife. Gandil was "the man," the ringleader of the fix, according to Happy Felsch. But why did the producers not ask Asinof for more of those missing footnotes? "How about it, Eliot, who told you Jackson asked to be benched before Game One? What about the story that he tried to see Comiskey right after the Series, but was turned away by Grabiner?" Here was the golden opportunity to put Asinof on the record in a documentary!
I am not sure why the producers paraded so many different people in front of their cameras. I'm sure they all had credentials, and that is supposed to give their statements weight, but often they stated what anyone who watched Eight Men Out might say. I'd have done it differently -- I'd have asked them all to fill out a brief questionnaire, to find out the range of opinions, then sit down the six or eight best at a round table. Give them some drinks and snacks, at turn on the camera and microphone. That would have produced something more worthwhile, I think.
Not that the forty-some minutes were wasted -- they were not. They talked about the Cicotte bonus for winning 30 in 1919 (Asinof had 1917 in the book, remember; the movie has 1919.) Jim Cicotte, Eddie's grandnephew, is sure that denied bonus was behind Eddie's decision to throw in with Gandil. But no one pointed out that in both 1917 and 1919, Cicotte did have his shots at that 30th win. You can look it up.
A family friend of the Jacksons, Joe Thompson, recalls that Joe told his father that he found Lefty's $5,000 under his pillow. Well fine. So let's explore a bit -- why did Jackson say in a grand jury hearing and in a trial that Lefty "threw down an envelope"? Maybe Joe heard about Cicotte getting his money delivered under his pillow, and liked that idea -- you know, blame it on the tooth fairy ... what gamblers? -- and changed his version later in his life. It really doesn't matter!
Louis Hegeman, the lawyer who scripted the "Trial of Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver" and who pressed Jackson's case with MLB in a legal brief, was very disappointing. Hegeman states that Jackson took his $500 to Comiskey after the Series and was turned away by Harry Grabiner. But he says that was in Grabiner's diary, and not Asinof's book. That is not in The Hustler's Handbook, where Bill Veeck tantalizes us with excerpts from Harry's Diary." When Hegeman talks about the three players going before the grand jury where "the fear of the Lord" was put into them, he has the order wrong (it was Cicotte, then Jackson, then Williams, next day.) And the GJ did not intimidate the players, as near as I can tell. They just listened politely and asked strange questions.
Jerome Holtzman, currently MLB's official historian and thus probably Jackson's gatekeeper for reinstatement, came off as biased against Jackson -- as has been suggested here before. He quoted Joe's post-testimony statements, as if they were Bible, and without noting that just minutes before, Jackson denied doing anything crooked in any game, played to win, at bat and in the field. That seems unfair to me.
One person (Fleitz?) said that Jackson told one story in Chicago in 1920, and another in Milwaukee in 1924, and one of them had to be untrue. That's not accurate. Joe told two stories on the grand jury stand in 1920, and nobody was bothered by that. And the grand jury foreman later said he did not think Jackson had "confessed," which was what the papers headlined the next day.
A number of times during the program, I stopped the tape to examine documents on the screen. Newspaper clippings (one, following the Cicotte testimony, listed what each player was supposed to have received for the fix: Eddie and Lefty, $10,000 each; Jackson & Weaver (!), $6,000; the screen got blurry, but it looked like Happy $1,000 (!), Swede $3,000, Gandil $50,000, and McMullin $16,000. Those numbers just do not make any sense. But it shows what "leaked" facts and an active imagination can produce under the pressure of a deadline. Was that reporter fired the next day?
Talking about the indictments, the camera slowly panned a document that listed as witnesses Comiskey, Ban Johnson, Rothstein, DuBuc, Crusinberry, Gleason and Bill Veeck, and a few others. At first, it looks like these folks were just handy to verify that the indictments were logged properly, but then you realize that they all testified before the GJ. Hey, good to see Arnold R. on the list -- makes you confident, y'know?
When Jerome Holtzman trotted out Jackson's batting stats for the first five games (no runs batted in), as if that was proof, I was stunned. A hidden voice should have interrupted: "Mr Holtzman, Joe's performance in those games was still better than that of both Eddie Collins and Edd Roush. Were they laying down, too?" It was just sloppy. Thank goodness Leonard Koppett followed up by rightly pointing out that we "cannot judge anything by observing the actions of players" ... that's the nature of fixed games. So much said. So much unsaid. The nature of documentaries?
A DEADBALL ERA COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
I have recommended the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) to others here in Notes dozens of times over the years, for the friendships, the networking, the publications, the meetings (national and local), the lending library, the internet digest (SABR-L), and more. Now I want to show what being on one of the SABR committees can mean. I recently joined the Deadball Era Committee. Here's what happened when I tossed out the question about whether the first game of the 1903 World Series was thrown (see above.)
"Two Finger Carney asked about sources for the possibility of the 1st game of 1903 WS being crooked. I can't find the source at the moment, but I recall reading about a team meeting in which the players were asked about rumors of game fixing. Cy Young disclosed that he had been approached about throwing the game. Young claimed he told the gamblers that if they wanted to make some money, they had better bet on him to win." -- Wayne McElreavy
"Dick Johnson and Glenn Stout list their resources and provide a bibliography at the end of their book, but to my memory (and I'd have to look it up) they cite nothing specifically. It is an unfortunate blemish on an otherwise excellent history." -- Mike Foster
"I don't have the book at hand, but I recall that Reed Browning's wonderful book on Cy Young explores Criger's story about being approached by gamblers. My recollection supports Wayne's account -- that Criger and Young told the fixers where to go." -- Trey Strecker
"It's unfortunate that such statements appear in print with no basis to them. The same is true of the 1914 World Series; hints of rumors of Connie Mack suspecting the A's of throwing the series have sometimes been written in the form of more definite-sounding allegations, with no basis to them. One such reference appears in Total Baseball. I have found nothing to substantiate
it, and don't believe it." -- Norman Macht
"I don't know it this sheds any light on the subject but here is an
excerpt from a letter from Lee Allen to Tom Shea. It's undated but looks to
be from the early 1960s.
James Niels Peterson runs the swankiest restaurant in Palm Beach and told me a couple of weeks ago that he handled Connie Mack's personal correspondence for 20 years and that the 1914 World Series was fixed. He named Bender, but I do not believe it. Bender was a good friend of mine, which is meaningless, but he was coaching for the Athletics and Connie was still alive. I'm sure he would not have taken the Chief back if Peterson had the right dope."
-- Dick Thompson
"Thanks. I know of James Peterson. He self-aggrandized. I don't believe he 'handled' Connie Mack's personal correspondence for 20 years. Mack wrote his own personal letters. I have copies of many of them covering the last 25 or so years of his life, including the last year. Peterson's saying it was
fixed certainly doesn't make it so. For what it's worth, I interviewed the last survivor of the 1914 team, a rookie who played little but was there. He told me he didn't see it, but he heard that Oldring and Bender, who were drinking buddies, were out drinking till late the night before the series opener. Since they had been suspended by Mack for the same behavior in 1912, that I can believe. Apart from Bender's terrible outing in Game 1, the rest of the box scores and play by play show that the entire IF and OF made only one error, and the only player who's wild throw brought in a game-winning run was Joe Bush, and I don't believe Joe Bush threw that 12-inning game. Bender didn't pitch again in the series, and as Allen points out, he returned to the A's as a coach. To indict the whole team is to indict Barry and Baker and Collins, the heart of the team, and that's too far-fetched to be worth talking about." -- Norman Macht
"There is an interesting thing about Joe Bush. There is a good chance he threw the 1921 World Series with Carl Mays. In Baseball as I Have Known It, by Fred Lieb, Miller Huggins is quoted as saying something bad about Bush and Mays. Lieb had Col. Huston tell him that players threw the 21 and 22 world series, so maybe Bush threw it in 22, and not 21. If he did anything, where did he get the idea to throw games? From the 1919 White Sox, or maybe in a deal he wasn't a part of in 1914? I don't know. I'm just raising some questions." -- Stuart Schimler
"Regarding all the talk about who went in the dumpster, and trying to judge who 'threw' a game and who didn't, try this exercise. Read the play by play of the 1919 WS looking for errors made at bad times and try not to notice the name of the culprit. Just mark the error. Then after you've done that go back and read the name of the player who dropped the ball so often. IMHO, a guy named Eddie Collins looks very bad. No, I'm not pointing a finger. No one ever even hinted that he went yellow. My point is that I don't think you can't look at these type of data and make an absolute judgement about whether or not there were deliberate flubs, or ordinary errors that happen naturally as the game is played. Maybe Eddie just had a bad series in 1919." -- Bob Schaefer
"That doesn't work. You actually have to watch the game and look at the
context of the errors. Joe Jackson didn't have any, but some say he would
slow down in the field -- not run down the play. Didn't Christy Mathewson
finger some of these guys out?" -- Stuart Schimler
"I went through Neft/Cohen's World Series play-by-play. Collins made two errors, as follows: Game 5, top of 9th, Cincinnati leading 4-0. Roush led off and was 'safe on an error by E. Collins.' Roush ended up scoring; final score 5-0. Game 7, bottom of 1st, Chicago leading 1-0. Rath led off and was 'safe on E. Collins' error.' Rath was left on base. Chicago won, 4-1.
"The errors weren't exactly at bad times. In Game 7, Collins did let the tying run aboard, but it was only the 1st inning. There was no other mention of any misplay by Collins. The closest it gets is this play -- Game 8, top of 6th, Cincinnati leading 6-1 with bases loaded & 1 out. Roush singled 'off E. Collins' glove into right, Eller and Rath scoring as Daubert got to third.' Cincinnati won 10-5.
"Let's assume for a moment that Collins was tanking it. In Game 5, why wait until the 9th inning? Why not drop the throw for a force in the 5th? Or Neale's grounder leading off the 7th? Or Rariden's grounder to end the 9th? In Game 7, why stop after booting a 1st inning grounder? In Game 8, no mention of a muff. That might have been a solid hit. Wouldn't it be real easy to botch that rundown in the 2nd inning? Why would Collins turn 7 double plays in the Series? It would be real easy to get one, but let the other runner make it on base. Granted, Collins didn't hit well in the Series. Unless, Neft/Cohen is missing something, I don't see anything wrong with his fielding."
-- Wayne McElreavy
"Discussions of whether the 1903 World Series was fixed date from the
moment Game 1 of that series concluded. Few could believe how poorly the Boston Americans played and reporters wondered if the game was on the level. Glenn Stout bases his suspicion that the first game was thrown 'in all likelihood' (note his qualifier) on the play of the Americans in the top of the first. With two out, Lou Criger committed two errors and Cy Young, a master of control, walked a batter. The Pirates scored four runs and never looked back. The Americans were favored to win the first game and, in the context of the public gambling that was taking place, with thousands upon thousands of dollars being wagered, the miscues, Stout argues, suggest malfeasance. Of course, other explanations are equally possible. The Americans hadn't played in over a week and newspapers thought that the first inning disaster had more to do with nerves, playing in front of more than 16,000 home fans, than anything else. Criger settled down and played brilliantly the rest of the Series. And Young simply did not have his best stuff that day; he surrendered twelve hits and yielded three walks, two of them to Honus Wagner.
"The issue of Lou Criger's affidavit issued in 1924, saying he was approached by gamblers to throw the games, has nothing to do with Stout's argument about Game 1. Criger said he was approached in Pittsburgh and offered $12,000 to make certain Boston lost. This was probably prior to Game 7, when Young was scheduled to pitch and momentum in the Series had shifted from the Pirates, who returned home and won Game 4 to go ahead three games to one in the best of nine series, to the Americans who had tied the series at three games apiece. Reed Browning, in his biography of Cy Young, offers a good analysis of the issue and concludes Criger probably was approached and that he certainly did not try to fix any of the games in Pittsburgh. Young too may have been approached. None of this should surprise us. Not only did fans bet on the games, owners and players did as well. The culture of gambling was rampant. Indeed, one Boston partisan named Sport Sullivan made thousands betting on the Americans to win in 1903. In 1919, he would do more than simply wager on the games.
"The 1903 World Series attracted unprecedented attention. Of course
there were suspicions. Even Jimmy Collins pulled one of his pitchers after two innings and never gave him another chance to pitch, saying the pitcher was "too sporty," a reference no doubt to his gambling. But betting on games and being approached to throw games is not the same as fixing a game or series. Fans at the times accepted the games as legitimate. The scrutiny was intense and the excitement over the first World Series set a precedent that has lasted for a hundred years. For further information, please see my book, Autumn Glory: Baseball's First World Series, to be published by Hill & Wang in May."
-- Lou Masur
"Christy Mathewson did indeed point some of these out for the New York
Times. After Game One, however, he believed that 'The Reds Hitting Power Will Lead Team To Victory.' By reading his articles I don't get the feeling he knew about the fixing, but historical documents show otherwise. I don't know.
"I've looked through my photocopies of the 1919 New York Times' issues on that particular World Series. Unfortunately I only have games one, five, and eight. Here is one thing Mathewson wrote about the fielding of the White Sox:
The showing of the White Sox outfield was a disappointment to me after hearing so much about their great work. The fielding of Felsch and Jackson ws not up to the advertisement. Jackson allowed one to go over him without even seeming to get started after the ball until it was past him and Felsch misjudged one hit by Roush that put an end to all (can't make this part out, but the idea comes across)....
"I wrote earlier that judging Mathewson's writing I couldn't detect any sense that he knew the 'fix' was going on, despite historical interpretations of what really happened. Mathewson goes on to write: 'Possibly the Sox outfielders are getting a little discouraged because of their failure to hit any kind of pitching" (and then it cuts off, for some reason I was unable to photocopy the whole article, I will do it again probably this weekend and get all the articles he wrote from the series and perhaps write something up for the newsletter.)
"Another thing that causes me to believe Mathewson wasn't really aware was this comment that he wrote after the eight game was completed: 'The Cincinnati Reds are champions of the base ball world. They have earned this title by displaying what base ball men call the punch, which means ability to produce base hits when hits mean runs.' Perhaps I am taking too much out of these types of comments. Perhaps Mathewson just refused to believe that a team would 'throw' a series. Perhaps he didn't want to hurt the game by writing about how crooked the players were. And, then, perhaps he really just didn't
know." -- Steve Brooks
"It sounded to me as if he didn't want to accuse anyone. It would also be wrong to write that DURING the world series, which could also have a big impact on the odds for the subsequent games. The question is what was he doing behind the scenes? What did he tell his friends at the time. Very interesting! Thanks a lot for posting this!" -- Stuart Schimler
"I am doing extensive research on the career of one of the "Yannigans" on the 1903 Boston team, Garland 'Jake' Stahl. My work supports no 'fix' in the 1903 series. It does support a pair of tough veterans with a bad case of 'nerves.' Given all that was at stake at the time, and the tumultuous events leading up to the game, they simply made a couple of mistakes."
-- John Harry Stahl
DUELING REPORTERS?
In the Deadball Committee discussion above there is mention of Christy Mathewson's coverage of the 1919 Series for the NY Times. Rod Nelson recently e-mailed me the whole series of Matty's articles.
Remember, Matty had been recruited by Hugh Fullerton to sit with Hughie and look for phony plays, for any evidence that would give substance to the rumors that the fix was in. Now, while Matty had some experience with fixers, he believed, like many others, that baseball games were very hard to fix, and to fix a nine-game Series was impossible -- too many players would need to be involved, and there would surely be leaks.
Matty also had predicted -- against the early odds -- that the Reds, the team he had managed 1916-18, would win the Series.
Did Mathewson have "guilty knowledge"? Here is what he wrote on September 28, 1919, just before the Series: "There is no question that Cicotte will be a powerful figure in the series." The headline on the day of Game One: "Pitchers Are the Important Factors," and the sub-heading: "Cicotte May Not Be Fit." Eddie's ailment was the cover story for those odds sinking so quickly as Game One drew close.
Of course, the fix was in -- everybody would find this out the following September. But as Hugh Fullerton wrote mightily about the suspicious play by the Sox in the Series just ended, Matty took off in the opposite direction. "Baseball Not Crooked In Spite of Big Bets on Games, Declares Christy Mathewson" was the headline of his October 16 Times column. "I honestly think that if ball players on a world series team found their fellows trying to toss one off, they would kill the guilty ones." And, "Assuming some ball players could be fixed, not enough could be reached." He wrote what everyone wanted to hear, to believe.
His October 19 column defended the Reds' "riding" of White Sox players. The bench jockeys had been especially harsh on Collins and Jackson. Matty said it was all part of the game.
October 23, Matty gives another reason why the Sox lost. "Overconfidence is the bane of champions." And he gives all kinds of examples from history. The Sox are just the latest one. Over-confidence "did in the Sox, and almost did in the Reds when they were up four games to one."
On December 15, Hugh Fullerton's strongest charges to date appeared in a New York paper -- Chicago wouldn't touch them. Three days later, Matty responded: "Baseball Gambling Opposed by Matty" was the headine. But he doesn't get to gambling until deep into the article. Then he quotes the Reds' manager Pat Moran: "I was looking close, saw nothing." Matty called for a 60-40 split of proceeds between winning and losing teams, so the incentive to stretch the Series out longer (for more revenue) would be gone. Moran again: "Little wagers by fans don't do any harm."