Did Ty Cobb really earn his 1910 BA Title?

[Bill Burgess]

Some fans are still a little confused as to whether Ty really deserved to win the 1910 title, over Nap Lajoie, player/manager for the Cleveland Indians.

Any thoughts? I'll go first.

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

I think we know what you're gonna say ;)

[Bill Burgess]

I think we know what you're gonna say ;)Maybe you do. But historical discussion is still a good thing, wouldn't you agree?

[Bill Burgess]

You ask if Ban Johnson knew of this affair, then Manager O'Connor should have been banished. Let me assure you, the affair caused a MAJOR stink, all the newspapers blasted Manager Jack O'Connor and his pitching coach, Harry Howell, who O'Connor kept going to the official scorer to make sure they were being scored as hits and not errors. They even offered the scorer a brand new suit to lock in his "hits".

Well you can be sure the word reached Johnson's ears, as most stuff did. Ban called the two culprits into his office, heard them out and a few days later, announced that they were "voluntarily" stepping aside. They never were allowed back in BB ever again. Their BB careers ended on the spot. Rookie infielder Red Corriden, who played 3rd that day, was sent down to the minors for a season as a spanking for following such insanely obvious orders, but was allowed to come back in '12, and finish out his brief career until 1915.
Red Corriden later coached for the Cubs ('32-40), Dodgers ('41-46), Yankees ('47-48), and the White Sox in '50. He also managed the White Sox in '50.

So, no one tried to interfere with Red having his normal career, but rumors were that Manager Jack O'Connor, just starting out on a promising managing career, and side-kick Harry Howell, petitioned to be allowed back into the minors in some capacity and were denied.

Both Landis/Johnson, once they cast someone into exile, seldom paroled anyone from exile. O'Connor had been a ML catcher from 1887-1910.

Personally, I'd like to see this smelly affair handled thusly. Take the "gifted" hits away from Lajoie, since they did not come out of a "real" competitive situation, and give him walks instead. To my way of thinking, that splits the difference. Since the manager wanted him on base, don't punish Larry's OBA, but only his BA., since it wasn't real, just a clever mirage, an hallucination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manager Jack O'Connor of the Browns had conspired to throw the title to Lajoie by having his rookie 3B, Red Corriden play back on the OF grass, inviting Nap to bunt down to 3B. That's OK with anyone?

True, Ban Johnson cheated by awarding Cobb with 2 hits that were already counted. Johnson didn't have the guts to expose the throwing of hits.

The right thing to do would have been to invalidate tainted hits. Convert them to walks. Since the manager wanted Nap onbase, convert the invalid hits to walks, thereby preserving Nap's onbase ave. and restoring his BA to what it was before the scandal.

BTW - Johnson called in O'Connor and his pitching coach, Harry Howell, and expelled them both permanently from organized baseball. And they never did get back in either. Howell had been dispatched to the score-keeper, to offer him a new suit if he would score the hits as hits, and not errors. Even Rookie Corriden was sent back to the minors for a season or so, to teach him to never accept such ignorant orders ever again.

So to those who question Cobb's 1910 title, I say that you're complicit with the Brown's manager in denying what is rightfully earned. Throwing a game, or giving hits to deny someone a title is unethical.

[Bill Burgess]

11-17-2005, 08:04 AM
bkmckenna
Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,147

red corriden was the young third baseman
jack o'connor was the manager
coach harry howell was also fired

o'connor sued and recovered salary $ because he had a multi-year contract - he did find work in federal league which was not part of organized baseball

howell umpired in the minors and found work in federal league as well

no action was taken against corriden or napoleon lajoie

still - MLB recognizes cobb as the victor

i assume that is what happened with ty's 2 hits - but was that really ever proven - witnesses to say so - confession - or is it just conjecture? i don't know - just asking

[Victory Faust]

I wonder: What was Peach Pie O'Conner's true motivation? So the story goes, O'Conner and the Browns simply hated Cobb so much they wanted Lajoie to win the batting crown.

But I'm thinking there had to be more than that. I bet Jackie O and his crony coaches had money bet on the outcome of the batting race. You normally wouldn't offer a new suit to a scorekeeper just because you hate a man.

[Bill Burgess]

I must admit, in all my days, I never even thought of that. Who can say? But maybe you're on to something. Guess I'm a little naive.

Maybe that was why Ban Johnson was so decisive.

[Reed Johnson]

Ty Cobb should be recognized as the 1910 Batting Average champion IMO. I remember reading about this but I can't pinpoint exactly from which book and I haven't even read to many baseball books!

[Calif_Eagle]

I think that since the 2 games were essentially "thrown" you invalidate them. Treat them as if they never were played. Then calculate the true accurate BA's of Cobb & Lajoie & whoever wins, wins. I dont agree with changing the hits to walks. That would skew the OBP & Total Bases rankings. More harm always comes to the game from trying to cover this sort of thing up, then ever does from saying, "Hey we have found a problem here and we are going to aggressively deal with it in an up front manner." EDIT for added content: In my view, you decide if the hits & games count, or they dont. You dont change them into something they werent, which was walks. They were hits in the field of play & scored as such. The choices, to me at least, are clear. The hits either count or they dont. If they count, Lajoie was the Batting Champion, whether anyone likes that or not. Now... if they dont count, thats a different matter. The Cincinnati Reds are the World Champions for 1919. Their title isnt vacated because the Chisox didnt really try. All those games still count in World Series records & history. It's said Denny McLain purposely grooved one to Mickey Mantle in late 1968 at the end of his career to let him pass Jimmie Foxx on the all time HR list. If this is true, (& I believe it is) all I can say is that that HR still counts today. As far as I know re: Lajoie the hits counted then and count today. If this is the case & MLB wont review it or change it, Lajoie is the Batting Champion, or at least should be. I have a bigger problem with Cobb being credited with phantom hits then with Lajoie being credited with no effort hits. Ban Johnson is as culpable here as O'Connor and company.

[brett]

Some fans are still a little confused as to whether Ty really deserved to win the 1910 title, over Nap Lajoie, player/manager for the Cleveland Indians.

Any thoughts? I'll go first.


1) Who won the games
2) What was Lajoie's batting line for the 2 games? 6-6 or something like that?
3) Did Lajoie have preknowledge of what the other team was doing?
4) Did he know and condone it?
5) Did he bat himself up in the lineup to potentially get more at bats?
6) Is the stat line unusual (as in an absence of extra base hits which may indicate Lajoie was just trying to put the ball in play?)
7) Did Lajoie gain or Cobb stand to gain/lose money if Lajoie beat Cobb?
8) Does Lajoie have any comments on record about the situation?
9) Was Cleveland named the Naps because of Lajoie?

[Dodgerfan1]

Tainted hits should still count. I don't like that, but that's the way it is, IMO. Many homers have been tainted with the stink of steroids, but I don't think they'll be taken away from the cheaters anytime soon, so why should Lajoie be punished? If I saw the third baseman playing in left field, I'd drop a bunt too. I am also pasting an old post I submitted for the Random Trivia thread back in February.....

In 1981, TSN historian Paul MacFarlane uncovered discrepancies, through extensive research, that prove Nap Lajoie did, indeed, win the 1910 batting title outright over Ty Cobb (Lajoie's tainted 8-for-8 doubleheader on the season's final day, notwithstanding). At the time, it was acknowledged that Cobb hit .385 and Lajoie hit .384 (rounding out percentage points). MacFarlane discovered that Cobb was awarded a 'phantom' 2-for-3 game he never had, and had two hitless ABs that were not counted in 1910, which would drop his average to .382. Similarly, a 1-for-8 extra inning game was omitted from Cobb's 1906 BA totals which leaves him at .316 instead of .320. This would not make a huge difference in his career average which should now, according to MacFarlane, put Cobb at .366, instead of .367. Lajoie's 1910 BA is also inaccurate, as MacFarlane discovered a hitless AB for him that was not recorded, which brings his average down to .383; still good enough to beat Cobb's .382. Therefore, Lajoie should have won the Chalmers automobile outright (but then, there's always that final tainted double-header, too...). Then commissioner Bowie Kuhn refused to acknowledge the corrected mistakes, stating that Ban Johnson's decision on the matter should not be overturned. It remains one of baseball's most famous statistical ambiguities, until Bud Selig (not likely) or a subsequent commissioner finds the courage to rectify the errors. This new information would also mean that Cobb did not win 9 consecutive batting titles, but three, followed by another five.

[Bill Burgess]

1) Who won the games
2) What was Lajoie's batting line for the 2 games? 6-6 or something like that?
3) Did Lajoie have preknowledge of what the other team was doing?
4) Did he know and condone it?
5) Did he bat himself up in the lineup to potentially get more at bats?
6) Is the stat line unusual (as in an absence of extra base hits which may indicate Lajoie was just trying to put the ball in play?)
7) Did Lajoie gain or Cobb stand to gain/lose money if Lajoie beat Cobb?
8) Does Lajoie have any comments on record about the situation?
9) Was Cleveland named the Naps because of Lajoie?
Sunday, October 9, 1910, St. Louis.---last day of the season.

Larry Lajoie needed a hit every time up, in the season-ending double-header. And he got them. Lajoie was able to go 8-9, as St. Louis Browns' manager had ordered his infielders to play back at the back of the infield dirt, every time Lajoie was up.

First time up, Larry hit one over the head of CF rookie, Hub Northen, for a triple. Next time up, he hit a slow bounder to SS Bobby Wallace, who had been playing too far back to throw the slow Lajoie out.

Lajoie then bunted the rest of the two games to rookie John 'Red' Corriden. Despite everything, the rookie didn't change his deep position, and Lajoie just kept bunting down the 3B line, going 7 straight bunt hits to rookie 'Red' Corriden.

One was a fielder's choice. Browns' pitching coach, Harry Howell, sent their batboy with a note to the official scorer, E. V. Parrish, promising a suit of clothes if he changed his ruling. Mr. Parrish refused, but Larry ended his day 8-9. Larry was having his best season since 1901, having been released from his managerial duties in Cleveland.

St. Louis won the first game, and Cleveland won the second game. And there was a material compensation.

1910 was the first season that auto magnate, Hugh Chalmers, offered a new car, his 'Chalmers 30", to whomever had the highest BA in the MLs.

Due to the incident, the league changed the rules to offer the car to the most valuable player of the league, instead of the winner of the BA title. And that, my fellow readers, is how the MVP got its start.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

"A hit is a hit." "A win is a win".

Or is it? Is a hit always a hit? We assume it comes out of a winning effort. If a gambler bribes a player to lose, is a hit still a hit? Is it a real hit, or a thrown one?

Is a win still a win if one teams is bribes to throw a game, to lay down? Should such a game count? Just because they were counted in the 1919 World Series, should everyone simply accept it?

Just because certain league officials abide by a certain rule in one moment, does that create such a powerful precedent that no intelligent person can question such a decision.

Author Gene Carney and myself feel that other options exist.

1. If suspicions exist as to the legitimacy of games being played honestly, a delay could be called, and those in question could be examined, or temporarily suspended, pending a more serious investigation.

2. The games could be cancelled.

3. The suspected players could be replaced with substitutes.

Options exist, if the honesty of sports events are suspected.

I disagree that a hit is always a hit, and a win is always a win.

[brett]

Its somewhat important for me to know if Corriden was the regular, or a regular third baseman that year and if he struggled there.

Did they play back for other hitters?

Did they play back farther than they ever would in a normal game?

I understand the conspiracy, but was it a valid strategy to play him back?

Do we know if anyone else got bunt hits off of him that day?

It may turn out to be immaterial, but I want as many facts as possible.

Would it have been different if Nap had gone into the game ahead in the race and if the Browns IBBed him in every plate appearance?

Can you tell me what runners were on base during Nap's 7 bunts?

[The Kid]

I think that Ty should still be recognized as the AL batting champion of 1910. Lajoie's final hits should be nulified, and turned into walks, as the St. Louis fielders were playing incredebily deep, automatically taking away any possibility of putting Lajoie out if he hit a grounder to any one of them.

[Bench 5]

Here are some of the stories from the papers. The first is the game day account which shows that Lajoie was credited with going 8 for 8. One of the bunts that was muffed by Corriden credited as a sacrifice. The runner on second scored on the play. According to the game account he was playing on the grass - almost playing a short left field. The scorer was pressured into making the sacrifice a hit which would have made him 9 for 9. He kept it a sacrifice so he went 8 for 8.

[Bench 5]

Here are a couple quotes from Cobb and Lajoie on the incident. Note that Lajoie thought that he should have been credited with 9 for 9. Despite Cobb's reputation, he was quite the diplomat.

[Bench 5]

Here is a statement from the official scorer. According to a subsequent article that I will post, he was not at the game. Reporter E.V. Parrish was the actual scorer who was covering the game for Collins.

[Bench 5]

Here is an article that has details about the suit bribe that Bill mentions above.

[Bench 5]

Lajoie's response to the assertion that he contacted the official scorer to discuss the scorer's decision to count the muffed bunt a sacrifice rather than a hit. This would have given Nap 9 for 9 rather than 8 for 8.

[Brian McKenna]

Howell and O'Connor were out of control. First, to think of the idea, second to follow through and third Howell was bouncing in and out of the official scorer's box, making sure hits were registered.

There hasn't been any betting uncovered; however, Howell had been arrested back in 1906 for bookmaking.

The best I can figure from the affair is that the Browns held a grudge against Cobb - hatred for Cobb and the fact that everyone revered and adored Lajoie.

O'Connor was a tough guy like many of the era:
-expelled by the AA in 1892 for drunkenness
-member of the aggressive Spiders who rivaled the Orioles for raucous behavior
-once broke umpire Jack McNulty's jaw

O'Connor sued and recovered $5,000 in loss salary as he was in a multi-year contract.

Since Chalmer was offering an automobile for MVP from 1911-14 (discontinued with the start of war in Europe), it was stipulated that a player couldn't win two. MLB kept this stipulation when it began its own award system in 1922.

IMO the 1910 incident was game-fixing and there should be concequences for the fraud. Lajoie had a huge stake in that weekend - title and car - so I can't completely clear him. The fraud should not be allowed to stand in the record books. PEDs weigh against the integrity of the game for sure and should be acknowledged, understood and performances should come under a cloud, but are they game-fixing per say?

Corriden, on the other hand, had nothing to gain. He was just an rookie brought to the bigs three weeks prior to the incident. To my knowledge, Corriden hit just .155 and was sent to the minors for baseball reasons. Bill, are you speculating about Corriden being demoted as backlash for the incident?

Ban Johnson pretty much ruled with an iron fist over the AL and everyone can see how petty the man was by reviewing the last decade of his career as his power waned. He was not above manipulation and outright underhanded dealing. Fixing the stats would not be above him; in fact, it would be an easy out during a PR nightmare - stats weren't then as revered and examined as they are today. He could just tweak them and no one would know anyway.

[HDH]

I really don't think the public got the whole story. Its too simple and doesn't really explain anything. "The player's hated Cobb and loved LaJoie... " C'mon, how feeble minded we must all be. Certainly, it reeks of bookkeeper's interference.

[TRfromBR]

Fascinating info, Bill. Wasn't a $40 suit quite a suit back in 1910? And why a suit anyway, when cash requires so many less measurements?

To me, you're right, Ty comes off as quite the gentleman and diplomat, while the Napster was obviously overeaching with that cheap 9-for-9 ploy.

P.S. With Ty's car breaking down on his way out of Buffalo, I guess that Chalmers was right on time.

[Brian McKenna]

I really don't think the publicc got the whole story. Its too simple and doesn't really explain anything. "The player's hated Cobb and loved LaJoie... " C'mon, how feeble minded we must all be. Certainly, it reeks of bookkeeper's interference.

As the adjudication of the case ran through Johnson and ended with Johnson, you have a strong point. My guess is that there are many such questionable instances in baseball history that:
1) we never heard about, or
2) we were misinformed about on purpose, or
3) that were purposely muddled as to totally befuddle those trying to unreavel the truth

[Bench 5]

As the adjudication of the case ran through Johnson and ended with Johnson, you have a strong point. My guess is that there are many such questionable instances in baseball history that:
1) we never heard about, or
2) we were misinformed about on purpose, or
3) that were purposely muddled as to totally befuddle those trying to unreavel the truth

Hmm. Sounds pretty familiar to present day baseball. :laugh

[Brian McKenna]

And why a suit anyway, when cash requires so many less measurements?

Probably because the cost of the suit wouldn't come out of O'Connor's pocket.

and/or, It was considered classy to offer men such things as suits and hats as payment for favors.

[Bill Burgess]

Corriden, on the other hand, had nothing to gain. He was just an rookie brought to the bigs three weeks prior to the incident. To my knowledge, Corriden hit just .155 and was sent to the minors for baseball reasons. Bill, are you speculating about Corriden being demoted as backlash for the incident?
I am basing my speculations on the fact that AL President Ban Johnson called everyone into his office for an interrogation. O'Connor, Howell, Corriden, Parrish, Lajoie. And the other Browns' players.

Johnson wanted to know on whose word, young Corriden was playing so deep after the pattern was obvious. Johnson was satisfied that Corriden was acting on O'Connor's orders, and not his own instincts.

And Parrish confirmed the bribe, and turned over the note. Johnson went easy on Corriden and allowed him to come back to the MLs, after he had more seasoning.

But to answer your question, I do not know for a fact that Johnson disciplined Corriden. It is also plausible that he just wasn't cutting it at that time. But I only suspect that Johnson was pissed at a player accepting meekly a game-fixing manuver, and also for not reporting it to league officials, as Johnson would have expected and liked him to.

Ban Johnson pretty much ruled with an iron fist over the AL and everyone can see how petty the man was by reviewing the last decade of his career as his power waned. He was not above manipulation and outright underhanded dealing. Fixing the stats would not be above him; in fact, it would be an easy out during a PR nightmare - stats weren't then as revered and examined as they are today. He could just tweak them and no one would know anyway.I agree that Ban Johnson was an autocratic, dictatorial control freak.

He expected all major trades to go through his office. And he wanted personal oversight. He had a huge influence in the trades of Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins, and Joe Jackson. He also tried mightily to block the transfer of Carl Mays to the Yankees, from the Red Sox.

I also believe that there is a huge story behind the sale of Ruth to the Yankee Colonels that has never come out. I once read such an article, but only wish I saved it. Was a powerful expose, that had much more than Frazee's desire to finance Broadway plays. Much more. Real dynamite, if I could find it.

I am trying to get my friend, Gene Carney to do a Ban Johnson bio. He could dig out the dirt, if anyone could, and we'd all have the true history of the AL, which we don't now.