Did the 1918 Cubs throw the World Series?

[Wade8813]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2004354480_seam17.html

Quite an interesting article.

[EdTarbusz]

I believe that the circumstances were ripe for a fixed World Series in 1918.

The game was being shut down for the duration of WW!, and there was no telling when (or even if) the Major Leagues would be back in operation. The 1918 season had also been cut short by a month, causing the players to lose about 1/6th of their salaries.

1918 was the first year that post-season money would be divided up among the first division teams, and not just the first place teams. This caused a short stoppage of play during the World Series.

In 1918 attendence was poor throughout the Majors. With the division of Series money being changed, the players were expecting record low shares. The Players were also required to take a percentage of their shares in War Bonds. Koppett's Concise History says that because of the attendance problems, the owners decided to charge a higher price for World Series tickets, which contributed to the low player shares.

In Burying the Black Sox, Gene Carney stated that during that period, Boston was the center of organized gambling in the US. I don't know if a Boston team made any difference in gampblers approaching players or not.

[Iron Jaw]

I think the 1969 World Series was fixed.

Just kidding, of course.:dance

But 39 years after, I'm still trying to figure out how the Mets pulled that one off.:cap::shhh:

[Victory Faust]

Hmmmm....the players actually threatened to strike because of the poor gate receipts, so it's certainally possible.

I'm sure there are a lot of things like this we don't know about.

[runningshoes]

Certainly wouldn't surprise me.

[EdTarbusz]

Hmmmm....the players actually threatened to strike because of the poor gate receipts, so it's certainally possible.

I'm sure there are a lot of things like this we don't know about.

The players did strike. They refused to take the field during game four, after discussing the situation on the train ride from Chicago to Boston. A blubbering appeal by Ban Johnson, who told the players that wounded vets were in the stands, got the players to take the field. The strike lasted for about an hour, I believe.

[Wade8813]

This is getting more and more interesting.

Although it would seem to me that going on strike, and throwing games, would conflict with each other. Both have the goal of getting more money, but you have to play games to be able to throw them.

[EdTarbusz]

This is an old story. Ban Johnson is supposed to have suspected a fix during this Series and wanted to investibate the matter, but he couldn't secure any funds form the AL (or National Commission) and quietly dropped the matter.

Bill Veeck wrote that when he purchased the White Sox, some papers of Harry Grabiner were found, and Grabiner had written down his suspicions about the 1918 Series. Veeck never made public what these papers actually said, and the papers have never turned up.

[Steve Jeltz]

In the article, it says that Harry Grabinger's (sp.?) personal diary has been long lost. I believe Graibinger's diary is an important piece of the puzzle that is missing to this story. Maybe the diary was "accidently" misplaced and destroyed since, perhaps, there was some information that some did not want revealed. Graibinger probably went to his grave knowing the real story to this accusation and the Black Sox scandal more than anyone.

[Steve Jeltz]

There has long been a strong suspicion that the 1914 WS between the A's and Braves was fixed as well. On paper, the Braves looked inferior to Connie Mack's powerful A's squad. But, the Braves swept in 4 and Mack believed that some of his players intentionally did not put forth their best effort.

[EdTarbusz]

There has long been a strong suspicion that the 1914 WS between the A's and Braves was fixed as well. On paper, the Braves looked inferior to Connie Mack's powerful A's squad. But, the Braves swept in 4 and Mack believed that some of his players intentionally did not put forth their best effort.

Macht's new bio of Mack said that people were accusing Connie Mack of engineering a thrown game in the 1913 World Series, in the belief that he wanted to extend the Series and increase his team's profits.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

We know where this one is going, suspicions, what some thought were the ripe conditions for a fix means a big fat zero. We don't know, no one knows, thats how it's going to end. Too much water has gone under the bridge. Who can really know what really took place so many years ago.

To discuss fine, thats what makes the board. To prove one way or another, I doubt that.

[Dodgerfan1]

The article states that Cubs pitcher 'Shufflin' Phil Douglas made a very suspicious error that allowed the only two runs scored by Boston in a 2-1 victory. Douglas, of course, proved he was not averse to intentionally influencing the outcome of games when he sent that infamous letter to St. Louis' Les Mann in 1922. Would anyone really be surprised if Douglas did intentionally misplay a ball in the 1918 WS leading directly to a Red Sox victory? I didn't think so.

[mdb]

I believe anything is possible regarding any World Series being thrown in that era. I think the Black Sox thing had the same effect as Barry Bonds. The powers that be in MLB wanted the public to think that the Black Sox, and only the Black Sox, had thrown the Series in the most corrupt generation ever. It is like today with Bonds. Although many don't buy it, it seems that he is presented as the ultimate cheater, and, along with McGwire, Sosa and a few others, some of the only cheaters, when really, many probably have cheated.

So yes, the 1918 Series may have been thrown, but of course, as was already pointed out, it was far too long ago for us to ever know.

[Brian McKenna]

That article shows little actual insight into anything. There is no meat - to me no legit story, just speculation. The article completely turned me off with it's conclusion wrapped up in a quote from a T-shirt salesman.

Frankly, Cicotte mouthing off and deflecting blame to a supposed event prior to 1919 doesn't hold much water with me.

Attributing an error to Douglas 90 years later as "suspicious" is completely without merit or base. Just jaw flapping - for some that might be enough to assign guilt but I'm no so sure.

[Dodgerfan1]

Attributing an error to Douglas 90 years later as "suspicious" is completely without merit or base. Just jaw flapping - for some that might be enough to assign guilt but I'm no so sure.

Brian, I am not assigning guilt to Douglas for intentionally making the error, I am merely stating that given what I have read about him I would not be surprised a bit if he tanked a play for personal gain. I doubt we will ever know for certain, but I wouldn't just blow it off as 'jaw-flapping' either, although I do understand your point and basically agree with it.

[Macker]

Years from now, people will provide 'evidence' that the 1988 & 1990 WS were fixed. Heck, I know people who think the 2004 ALCS was fixed.

[Baseball Guru]

Years from now, people will provide 'evidence' that the 1988 & 1990 WS were fixed. Heck, I know people who think the 2004 ALCS was fixed.

I always thought the 1906 series was fixed.. After all, no way a Cubs team that won 116 games could possibly lose to their crosstown rivals;)

[Brian McKenna]

I am not assigning guilt to Douglas for intentionally making the error,

I know - you do make a good point. When I first read the story, I knew Douglas was involved with something a little later but wasn't sure if I was confusing him with Jimmy O'Connell or not.

As you note, the issue of integrity is very important. Once you lose it, the benefit of the doubt always weighs against you. That's part of the whole problem isn't it. The "good" guys steer clear of the b.s. and he "questionable" guys are the ones we get much of our clues from - but their word is already tainted. That mars that whole era and much of the problem researching the 1919 WS - no one knows who to believe.

[Wade8813]

That article shows little actual insight into anything. There is no meat - to me no legit story, just speculation. The article completely turned me off with it's conclusion wrapped up in a quote from a T-shirt salesman.
The article certainly doesn't go into depth at all, but works fine as a starting point. I had no idea that there was speculation that the Cubs might have thrown the series - this article worked as a starting point.



Frankly, Cicotte mouthing off and deflecting blame to a supposed event prior to 1919 doesn't hold much water with me.
It could be Cicotte deflecting blame, but it could just as easily be completely legitimate. In fact, it could be both - he could be deflecting blame with a real example.

[Victory Faust]

This is getting more and more interesting.

Although it would seem to me that going on strike, and throwing games, would conflict with each other. Both have the goal of getting more money, but you have to play games to be able to throw them.


I'm just guessing here, but maybe the players tried to go on strike, and when Ban Johnson pulled out the "patriotism card" about the wounded vets in the stands, the ballplayers realized a strike was not viable. So they went for Option B: throwing the Series.

Had they gone on strike, Johnson would have almost certainly tried to pit public opinion agains the players by using that same patriotism card: "The players thumbed their noses at the wounded vets in the stands." And the press would even more surely came down on the side of the owners, as the press always did in those days.

From what I've heard about Johnson's speech imploring the players to return, the players weren't exactly inspired by his grandiloquent plea. In fact, I seem to remember someone saying it make the players want to puke.

But when Ban brought up the wounded veterans, perhaps the players realized it wouldn't be in their best interests to strike, given the patriotic mood of the country.

So, perhaps, they chose Door No. 2: A fix.

This is just a theory...but it does show there's at least one scenerio where throwing a game after threatening to strike wouldn't be illogical.

[Wade8813]

Yeah, that makes sense.

[EdTarbusz]

I'm just guessing here, but maybe the players tried to go on strike, and when Ban Johnson pulled out the "patriotism card" about the wounded vets in the stands, the ballplayers realized a strike was not viable. So they went for Option B: throwing the Series.

Had they gone on strike, Johnson would have almost certainly tried to pit public opinion agains the players by using that same patriotism card: "The players thumbed their noses at the wounded vets in the stands." And the press would even more surely came down on the side of the owners, as the press always did in those days.

From what I've heard about Johnson's speech imploring the players to return, the players weren't exactly inspired by his grandiloquent plea. In fact, I seem to remember someone saying it make the players want to puke.

But when Ban brought up the wounded veterans, perhaps the players realized it wouldn't be in their best interests to strike, given the patriotic mood of the country.

So, perhaps, they chose Door No. 2: A fix.

This is just a theory...but it does show there's at least one scenerio where throwing a game after threatening to strike wouldn't be illogical.

I don't think this is how a game fixing scenario would have worked. Going on memory, I believe that the War Department's Work or Fight order had shut down the nations race-tracks during the 1918 season and gamblers had relocated to ballparks to ply their trade.

To say that the mood of the country was patroitic at the time is one of the great understatements of all time. This period may have been most super-heated patriotic period in US history. The players would have been vilified by the press. Look at the press and public perception of Joe Jackson when he played shipyard ball.

I think the most likely reason that there may have been a fix in 1918 is because the game was being shut down. I don't think that the most optimistic or out of touch player would have predicted that the war would be over a mere two months after the World Series.

[EdTarbusz]

Years from now, people will provide 'evidence' that the 1988 & 1990 WS were fixed. Heck, I know people who think the 2004 ALCS was fixed.

The difference is that gambling was a known and accepted activity in late 19th century and early 20th century baseball. There are several World Series' and World Series games with smelly reputations from the period of around 1903 to 1922. In my opinion, gambling tainted this entire era, just like this era of baseball has been tainted by steroids.

[soberdennis]

Heck, I know people who think the 2004 ALCS was fixed.
You mean it wasn't? j/k

[soberdennis]

When I think of the 1918 Series the thing that sticks in my mind was the offensive ineptitude of both teams. 19 runs were scored in six games! The winning Red Sox scored 9. In 1905, a series known for its pitching, the Giants got that in one game.
How's that for production from a team that featured a man who would soon become the greatest offensive power in the game, albeit as a pitcher and part time outfielder?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The difference is that gambling was a known and accepted activity in late 19th century and early 20th century baseball. There are several World Series' and World Series games with smelly reputations from the period of around 1903 to 1922. In my opinion, gambling tainted this entire era, just like this era of baseball has been tainted by steroids.

I don't see the comparison, believing something may have taken place fixing compared to something there is no doubt that took place steroids.

We could pick any game or World Series in that time and say the atmosphere was right for a fix and means nothing, thats what we think, that doesn't mean it took place. We do know of 1919 and it didn't take long to find that one.