What might have been . . .The Black Sox

[cubbieinexile]

About a month or two ago I finally read the book Eight Men Out , something that I had put off for awhile. After reading that book it got me to thinking about what would have happened in the 20's and also how we today would view baseball history. Especially Babe Ruth, the Yankees, and 20's baseball.

First some history to lay the groundwork. Some members of the 1919 Chicago White Sox agreed to fix the World Series. I won't go into detail on who and why since that in itself would touch off a debate. A debate which I am not interested in debating on this thread. The Sox lost the World Series. The next season the White Sox were in contention through out the year and losing out in the end because by that point Comiskey had suspended them from the team and a trial was coming up. After 1920 the White Sox slip into mediocrity for the next 30 years or so. Meantime the Yankees acquire Babe Ruth win a few World Series and ever after dominate baseball talk past and present. That is the history in its most general form.

Here is my theory. Had the White Sox not fixed the World Series in all probability they win the 1919 World Series. Also in 1920 they win the pennant. Why? Because it is also believed and there is some evidence that does suggest this that the 1920 team was also throwing games to keep race to the pennant close. It is possible that they could win the 1920 World Series as well since at this time the AL was a much better league than the NL and the Cleveland Indians had won the World Series in 1920. So now we have a great team that has won 3 World Series in 4 years playing with a set of players that are largely in their prime. In 1921 the two best teams were the New York Yankees and Cleveland Indians. That year the Yankees finished 4.5 games ahead of second place with 98 wins. More importantly though they won 9 games against a mediocre White Sox team. In fact in 1921 the White Sox were the only team they had a losing record against. Part of this I think because of Comiskey Park had such an effect on the sluggers. The Yanks went 4-7 at Comiskey while going 5-6 at home. I think it is entirely possible that either a) the White Sox with their star players still on the team could have won more total games than the Yanks or b)won enough games against the Yanks that somebody else would have won the crown. The last part is a little harder to pull off since the Indians had a great record against the White Sox which would have changed if the real White Sox had played. I think the first part is more likely. Now then I don't know if the White Sox had enough to beat the Giants in the World Series.

Now comes 1922, and in this season the Yanks only win 94 games and win the league by one game over the St. Louis Browns. This time the Sox play the Yanks poorly and they have a losing record. By this time I think even if White Sox had started to show their age they could have wounded the Yanks enough to keep them from the pennant or made the race close enough to make a 50/50 shot.

1923 is probably the first real time where the Yankees would win the pennant even with the real White Sox playing. By this many of the players would have aged considerably and some would have probably been out of baseball. The only argument one could make is that the Sox having had success on the field for many years and the financial windfall that it brings would have brought in more stars to maintain this.

Then of course comes 1924 and 1925 when the Yanks fail to clinch the pennant, and Ruth has a very stressful 1925 season.

After this starts the dynasty and again it is worth noting that both 1926 and 1928 were both close pennant races. Races that even an aging White Sox team or a modified White Sox could have effected.

Which brings me to the point of all this verbiage. Had the White Sox not become the Black Sox it is possible that we could be talking about how great the White Sox were back then not how great the Yankees were. It is entirely possible that the Sox could have won five or 6 World Series from 1918 to 1928, or at the least five or six pennants. Also it is worth noting that the White Sox, New York Giants (the team that beat the Yanks in the WS in 1921 and 1922), and the Cleveland Indians (who won the 1920 WS and was one of the top teams at the start of the 1920's) were all conservative old time baseball teams. They used small ball tactics and relied on pitching and defense, whereas the Yankees relied on power. It is in my opinion that had the Sox maintained their dominance that we would probably be viewing Babe Ruth differently and that the presence of the home run ball would have been stalled in its introduction. If Sox had still been around it is highly likely that Babe and the Yanks would not have won a pennant until 1923, instead of when they actually did in 1921. Even then they might not have won in 1923. Which means their first pennant could have come in 1926 or 1927. If either was the case it is entirely possible that the Yanks could have either changed Ruth's role or traded him. Many baseball insiders at the turn of the decade believed that the Home Run ball was a novelty and not really useful to winning it all. This belief was reinforced by the fact that the New York Giants (small ball wizards) had beaten the Yanks twice in a row in the World Series. What would these insiders be saying if the Yanks were not even able to win the pennant and maybe not even finish in second place behind two small ball teams? Is it possible that they might then switch Babe back to pitching or trade him away? Many teams when they are succeeding will blame their best players, incorrectly fixating on their shortcomings instead of focusing on their strengths. Everyone knows that Babe Ruth was a handful would people want to put up with it if they were not winning championships? Rogers Hornsby bounced around teams a lot, perhaps it is because he didn't bring home the Championship often enough for teams to put up with him.

Last evidence would be the financial side. Comiskey's White Sox before the scandal was one of the best financially run teams in the game. After 1919 the White Sox saw a huge increase in attendance and revenue. I believe they almost double their revenue. By maintaining their success on the field the Sox in all likelihood would have maintained their financial success off of it. If that being the case in all likelihood it would have been easier for the Sox to acquire future star players. Also instead of having to plug 6 or 7 holes like Comiskey had to after the suspensions he would have probably only had to fill a hole once a year or two. Definitely easier than fixing 6 or 7 holes at once. Then consider it from the Yankees side. The Yankees had a huge financial stake in the early Yankees teams. They spent a lot of money acquiring Babe Ruth and other top-tiered talent. The Yankees saw a huge upsurge in attendance when they got Babe and others, but how long would the fickle New York fans continue to flock to the park if they continually failed to win?

Basically to sum it up. Had the White Sox stayed clean it is entirely possible that people could be fondly remembering the great Sox team of the 20's instead of the Yankees and Babe Ruth would be just another footnote in baseball history. Or if that is too much for you then just another great player in the pantheon of baseball greats. Plus Landis would never have become Commissioner and integration might very well have happened a lot sooner than 1947.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Good scenario and well-thought out, cubbieinexile. I don't find your theory far-fetched at all.

You didn't want to get into the actual history of it, and that's fine. Baseball was pretty corrupt around that time, and if the gamblers were kept in check, not just with the Black Sox, but throughout the league, who knows what would have happened? That's a great what-if situation.

[cubbieinexile]

Thanks,
If you want to discuss the Black Sox, the gamblers, and so forth feel free to start a new thread about it. I will gladly engage you in conversation on this new thread about those subjects. On this thread I didn't want the actual scandal to be the main point only its aftermath.

[Captain Cold Nose]

That's been done, though, many times over.

One thing I'd like to see around here is more historical speculation like this. It's interesting, if indeed presented in a manner such as this. It's very easy to say "Sandy Koufax would have broken every pitching record possible if he didn't have arm troubles" or throw out statistics 10 years down the line for him. There's no way to prove anything there.

But historical speculation like the Black Sox is very intriguing when done right. I'm trying to think of a few other situtaions right now. Anything to keep my mind off this training I'm developing.

What other events could have changed history entirely had they not happened? Besides the obvious (Ruth being sold to the Yankees.)

[cubbieinexile]

There is the other obvious.

Free Agency

Just imagine how good the A's of the 70's could have been (or I should say how much greater) and again how that would have impacted the Yankees. Afterall a good deal of the late 70's success was due to former A's players. Just imagine how much worse Steinbrenner would have gotten if he didn't win one back then.

[Chief Wahoo]

Can I have some details on this book? With all the hype about Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe going around, I'd like to look at that book.

[Gingerkid]

They did, no doubt, rob themselves as much as they robbed the fans. The White Sox were special. Had they won all of those pennants and money maybe they would have landed Ruth, hmmmm. The Yankees were always Johnny on the spot. The Red Sox had a fire sale at the end of the teens, the White Sox were decimated by the bannishings and the new ball shifted the balance of power altering the whole baseball world as it was known. The Yankees took advantage of signing the entire Red Sox pitching staff and half of their day to day players and the gaping hole left by the White Sox' absence from the top and made the most of the situation. You have to respect the Yanks I guess but it is easy for fans of both Sox to say what if.

[cubbieinexile]

www.amazon.com

[Gingerkid]

There is some speculation for you Cpt C Nose, what if they hadn't started messing with the ball. What if the "dead ball era" of the first few decades hadn't ended. What if tampering with the ball hadn't been illegalized? Before the new ball and Ruth, 9 homers in one year was an amazing feat. So how much would that have changed the game as we know it? Would Ruth then only be known as the awesome Boston pitcher who won almost 30 games a year? He almost certainly wouldn't have been made a fielder had it not been for the homeruns he was hitting. He more than likely wouldn't have been traded to NY either. Would the Yankees even have lasted as a team? Remember they were still kind of an expansion team at the time and the twenties success is what brought them into their own. Lot's to speculate on there. I'm going out on a limb and saying that the new ball introduced in the 20's and the hitter friendly rule changes from the same time are the biggest altering event in the history of professional baseball. They made and destroyed franchises and changed the sport forever.

[cubbieinexile]

But even with the new ball the 1920 White Sox were one of the best teams in the AL and didn't lose the pennant until the players had been suspended. Also it is believed that they were throwing games throughout most of the season. Plus look at teams that did win the 1920-21-22 World Series. They were old-fashioned dead ball teams.

[cubbieinexile]

Originally posted by Gingerkid
There is some speculation for you Cpt C Nose, what if they hadn't started messing with the ball. What if the "dead ball era" of the first few decades hadn't ended. What if tampering with the ball hadn't been illegalized? Before the new ball and Ruth, 9 homers in one year was an amazing feat. So how much would that have changed the game as we know it? Would Ruth then only be known as the awesome Boston pitcher who won almost 30 games a year? He almost certainly wouldn't have been made a fielder had it not been for the homeruns he was hitting. He more than likely wouldn't have been traded to NY either. Would the Yankees even have lasted as a team? Remember they were still kind of an expansion team at the time and the twenties success is what brought them into their own. Lot's to speculate on there. I'm going out on a limb and saying that the new ball introduced in the 20's and the hitter friendly rule changes from the same time are the biggest altering event in the history of professional baseball. They made and destroyed franchises and changed the sport forever.

The New York Yankees were a well funded team back then, they were one of the haves, not one of the have-nots. It is one of the reasons why they were able to acquire players. Boston because of its owners underfunded situation (which lasted until Yawkey took over) would have likely sold him off regardless of whether he was a star pitcher or star hitter. Back then teams like the White Sox and Yankees were well funded while teams like the A's and Red Sox were not.

[bluezebra]

There would have been no throwing of the 1919 World Series, and therefore no "Black Sox", if Charlie Comiskey wasn't, arguably, the cheapest s.o.b to own an MLB team. At least until Marge Schott, the reincarnation of Ilsa Koch.

Bob

[cubbieinexile]

Charlie Comiskey was not the cheapest s.o.b. in the MLB. That has been the excuse most people use to excuse the throwing of the World Series. Many many years later Bill Veeck found contracts stashed away in an unused elevator shaft that revealed how much a lot of the players on the Sox were getting paid at the time. Plus during the trial their salaries were revealed also. While some were on the low side they were not excessively so. Plus he had several contracts they paid the player in question quite well. While others, mainly Joe Jackson, had contracts that dated back to other teams. So if they were being paid poorly it wasn't because of Comiskey but because of a players former team. The whole cheapskate thing is BS. Games were being thrown left and right in that era because the money was easy and you were not going to get caught. Heck the it is believe that the Giants threw the 1917 World Series against the Sox, and you don't hear anything about how cheap the owners were of the Giants.

Was Comiskey cheap by our standards? Yes and no. He had the money but saw no reason to waste it. Was Comiskey cheap the standards of his day? Absolutely not.

[Appling]

Originally posted by cubbieinexile
Here is my theory. Had the White Sox not fixed the World Series in all probability they win the 1919 World Series. Also in 1920 they win the pennant.

Basically to sum it up. Had the White Sox stayed clean it is entirely possible that people could be fondly remembering the great Sox team of the 20's instead of the Yankees and Babe Ruth would be just another footnote in baseball history.


I first became a baseball in 1946, in sixth grade on the South Side of Chicago. AT that time the White Sox were a terrible team, and had not won an AL pennant for nearly 30 years. Somehow we all "understood" that this was continuing punishment for the Black Sox sins of 1919. If not for that, things would be different!

What if the Chicago Bulls had a similar fate to the White Sox of 1919? If Michael Jordan were the modern Joe Jackson there would be no "Three-peat" NBA titles for Chicago. Too bad for Chicago that the White Sox didn't stay "clean" -- they "could'a been a contender" for many years.

[Appling]

Originally posted by cubbieinexile
But even with the new ball the 1920 White Sox were one of the best teams in the AL and didn't lose the pennant until the players had been suspended.

Look at the change in Rogers Hornsby's hitting stats once the live ball appeared. I think Joe Jackson with the livelier ball would have been AT LEAST AS GOOD A HITTER AS HORNSBY -- with more power than Hornsby. Too bad, too bad. What a waste!

[SouthsideTom]

I agree with Appling on Shoeless Joe...remember that Ruth claimed to have modeled his swing on Jackson's.....might have been interesting....


I also send some profs to Cubbieinexile.....that was a well thought out argument, and I had forgotten all of the events that had been impacted by the Black Sox (the point about Landis and integration is particularly intriguing).....Appling correctly pointed out the waste of Jackson never really playing the live ball era......imagine if Paige, Gibson and the rest had been able to play their whole careers in the Majors.

[cubbieinexile]

The integration part is the biggest stretch for me personally. Meaning that without Landis it probably would have happened sooner but not by much. Maybe after the war but I can't really see it happening sooner. Not with the KKK and other hate groups at the height of their power and then the depression in the 30's. Also in baseball history their appears to be only 2 men capable of integrating baseball. Branch Rickey and Bill Veeck. Bill Veeck was in no position to integrate major league baseball in the 30's nor did he own a team until he got the Indians. Branch Rickey never really had the power until he moved on to the Dodgers to integrated. Also neither man would have been strong enough to hold off the dissenters to this plan. Without a strong central leadership (comissioner) there would be no insitutional setup to bind all players and owners together into doing something. In otherwords the proposed boycotts and so forth that were threatened when Jackie came could have actually gather steam instead of dying out once the ruling came down. So we could see a repeat of the Cap Anson boycott in the 20th century.

[Appling]

It seems a stretch to speculate how the Black Sox scandal might have affected the timing of MLB integration. The main point of the original post seemed to be how the fortunes of MLB franchises (especially in the American League and in Chicago) might have been different had the scandal not occured.

Maybe this stuff could make a novel -- something like "Back to the Future".

[SouthsideTom]

Originally posted by cubbieinexile
Bill Veeck was in no position to integrate major league baseball in the 30's nor did he own a team until he got the Indians. Branch Rickey never really had the power until he moved on to the Dodgers to integrated.

Bill Veeck did try to acquire the Browns at one point with the intent of bringing in players from the Negro Leagues (of course the owners and Commissioner blocked him)....Rickey was the G.M. for the Cardinals, and a successful one at that. I think the reason he waited was because Landis had to go before he could be sure that his attempt wouldn't be stopped. When Chandler became Commish, that was when the opportunity arose.

Of course, the question was, how open would hte cardinals management have been to integrating if their G.M. approached them on that? What's to say that if Landis hadn't been brought in that an even more dictatorial racist wouldn't have come to power as a League President or some such.

I agree.....there are too many variables to properly analyze, but your argument is certainly good food for thought.

[cubbieinexile]

Bill had tried to buy the Phillies in 1943 and had stated much later after the fact that had he got the team he would have field many black ball players, and because of this the league stopped him. Again though that was in 1943 only 4 years sooner. Also Branch was the GM of the Cards but he did not control them and had numerous power struggles with the owner. Which ended pushing him out of the Cards where he bought into the Dodgers. Though of course Walter O'Malley would eventually push him out of there too.

[drillerman]

interesting

[Brad Harris]

Kudos for all your hard work here, cubbieinexile!

While I disagree with the premise that the White Sox would have had claim to the title of "team of the Twenties" or that they somehow would have significantly dented the legendary status of Ruth and the Yankees, I do agree with a number of your other premises.

Baseball most certainly would have integrated sooner, perhaps as early as the first-half of the Thirties. The driving force in professional baseball was then (as it is today) money. Owners who were pinched would have looked for talent elsewhere (i.e. the Negro leagues) to help boost attendance and gain a competitive edge on their rivals.

What seems to be missing from all this is the impact the lack of a "Black Sox" scandal would have had on the gambling problems of the era. The owners would have taken far longer to curb the problems of throwing games and the influence of gambling elements into the professional ranks. Baseball would have been setting itself up, by not "having" this scandal in 1919, for a fall at some future date. So who knows how much longer that would have been.

While the Sox dynasty would have remained intact, I'm not as convinced you'd be looking at one of the greatest runs ever. Your projection of several World Championships (or at least pennants) beyond 1920 is pure speculation. (Though it's fun to do.) I concur they would have won the league in 1920, in all probability and, yes, they almost certainly would have won the '19 Series, but I'm not at all certain they could have competed for the pennant for several years beyond that.

Cicotte was 36 in 1920 and doubtfully would have remained a very good pitcher for long. In fact, by the time the White Sox had Faber and Lyons (two Hall of Famers) leading the rotation, Cicotte would have been retired in all likelihood. Dickie Kerr was ashed up early. Lefty Williams (who was 27 when he was banned) would have been a strong presence, probably, for a number of years - bridging the gap between Cicotte/Faber and Lyons/Faber. The rest of the pitchers were pretty much crap in their short stints with the team - both before and after the scandal. Still...having three quality pitchers in the rotation throughout the 1920s would have been a positive sign of a contending team.

It was the hitters that were missed the most, I think. Comiskey Park was a pretty much average park (with a very slight edge towards pitchers, which grew as the 1920s wore on). No discussion of the hitters can start with anyone besides Joe Jackson, who was 30 at the time he was banned. Jackson very likely would have added some power, as most of the top hitters did (though it's no guarantee that he'd have been hitting 30 homers a year). His slugging percentages were good for the deadball era and he rivaled Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker as the game's best hitters at the time the scandal broke.

Happy Felsch was 28 in 1920 and a damn fine hitter in his own right, definately the second-best hitter among the "Black" Sox. Playing center field only made him that much more valuable.

Swede Risberg was 25 and Buck Weaver was 29. Though Risberg didn't hit, Weaver did and you're looking at the sudden loss of four key players - the CF, SS and 3B plus your team's MVP (Jackson).

Gandil was out of baseball before 1920 anyway and Shano Collins (a fair replacement) took over 1B for the 1920 season. After Comiskey lost his "Black Sox," he traded Collins and RFer Nemo Leibold to Boston for Harry Hooper, who at 33 was still well on his way to a Hall of Fame career.

Comiskey apparently scrambled to fill the empty spots on the team. Earl Sheely, the first baseman in 1921 was a rookie (at age 28). Eddie Mulligan, 26, replaced Weaver at third and hasn't played in the majors since 69 games with the 1915-16 Cubs. Ernie Johnson, 1921's starting shortstop was a 33 year-old who had a few cups of coffee between 1912-18 on and off and who's only decent season had come in the Federal League.

Bibb Falk, Jackson's replacement, had come up as a rookie (7 games) with the Sox in '20. Johnny Mostil, a rookie with the Sox in 1918, had only seen 33 at bats in the bigs since then; he took over CF for Felsch.

For the rest of the 1920s, the White Sox made due with poor starting players. Collins and Schalk played for a few more seasons before moving on later in the decade. Willie Kamm (debuted in 1923) managed to replace Weaver well enough; he's a borderline 3B candidate for the Hall, if you cared to dig enough for one. Carl Reynolds had a few really good seasons for the team as the Depression started.

So the Sox missed Jackson/Felsch/Weaver badly for their bats. Weaver may or may not have made a good hitter in the lively ball era, while I'm confident Jackson and Felsch would have transitioned well enough. The loss of Weaver, however, was minimized by the emergence of Kamm. Risberg was all glove, as were his successors at SS. Sheely was a career .300 hitter at first.

I guess what I'm left to consider is the fact that (a) did the Sox lose that much and (b) how much of what they lost was replaced/replaceable?

And that leaves me with the inescapable conclusion that the White Sox didn't compete with a group of players who were still fairly good after they regrouped post-1920. 1921 obviously wasn't the year this happened as it took some time to develop these players, but the White Sox would have had Jackson, Felsch and Weaver on the wrong side of 30 as the decade dragged on. The Sox almost definately wouldn't have been winning post-1924 or 1925.

As for stretching their 1919 pennants into a few more first-place finishes? While it's possible, I wouldn't say they would have been the team to beat for much longer. They wouldn't have held up the Yankee juggernaut for long. Perhaps a win in 1921, but that's about it. I really can't see more than an additional pennant (perhaps two, if you include 1920), not with so much competition.

You'd really have to speculate that Jackson would turn into a Rogers Hornsby for the second-half of his career and that Comiskey would have made moves to improve the club that he didn't make when he did need to later on. The Sox' system produced little real talent: the real reason they didn't compete again for a long, long time. The Hooper trade seems to be the most Comiskey tried to do in the post-scandal era...a time when he should have been doing everything possible to rebuild the club.

Of course, Comiskey didn't count wins so much as he did pennies and the fact that, despite the scandal, the team remained among the top three in attendance per game thru 1928 (excepting a drop to 4th in 1921-22, immediately after the scandal) tells me Comiskey was more worried about the bottom line than about fielding a World Champion (as few here would probably argue.)

So...while I don't doubt the Sox would have been more competitive had those players not been banned, I doubt that it'd lead to anything resembling a dynasty.

[cubbieinexile]

A couple of things.

First Eddie was a shine baller so he relied on guile more than speed. These types of pitchers tend to age well. When studying this though I pretty much figured that after 1922 Cicotte would be done as an effective Pitcher.

The second point I have already mentioned is about integration. I do not believe that integration could have happened sooner than right after WWII. I believe it even more so if the game would be lacking a strong centralized power while trying to do it. America was just too fiercely rascist in those days before WWII, heck we were still rascist after WWII but inroads were made. I also think that the teams that were the weakest would also be the least likely to integrate since they had the most to fear. If the team tried to integrate they risked alienating their fan base, which might possibly cost them revenue. I think it would take a well-built successful team to integrate.

Another point is about gambling. As you might or might not know is that the Black Sox investigation did not begin after the World Series. But an investigation into a Cub pitcher supposedly being paid to throw a ball game, is what got the wheel spinning. I think one way or another the gambling problem would have come to a head very soon. Possibly with Cobb and Speaker.

The final point I would like to bring up is the impact on Comiskey himself. Comiskey was a changed man because of this scandal. His health started failing and he was less focused on the game. Plus because of the scandal his position as a powerful man in baseball was broken. Before the scandal Comiskey was constantly upgrading and working hard on creating a great team. He made shrewd decisive moves that helped the ball club. After the scandal he never really did so again. Gone were the days when Comiskey would sieze a chance to snatch up a great ball player like he did in the teens. I think that without the scandal the teams transactions on the whole would have been better. For starters the team would not need to replace so much and it would allow them to concentrate on a few specific needs. Secondly because Comiskey himself would have been in better shape both physically and mentally, not to mention financially as well.

In the end I think in 1917 White Sox champions, 1919 White Sox champions, 1920 White Sox "possible" champions. 1921 I think the Sox could have beaten out the Yanks. For starters even though the team was broken they played the Yanks well and were the only ones who had a winning record against them. Throw in the players that they lost who a year before had won 96 games and probably would have won over 100 games if they hadn't been throwing games during the season and then been suspended and I think they could have topped the Yanks. Would they have been able to beat the Giants in the WS? I don't know. 1922 is another possible chance for the Sox. The league as a whole was pretty closely bunched that year and the Sox just a year removed from the scandal had been able to get .500 ball. The Yanks had only won 94 games that year and a surprising Browns team managed to finish a game back. The Sox would have been a contender for sure and it is possible that they could have missed the pennant but it also means that it is possible that the Yanks miss the pennant and the Browns or Sox go instead.

So in the end for me it is the Sox clear winners in 2 WS, a probably winner in another one, a 50/50 chance on another one, and a 33% chance of getting to another 50/50 shot. That is 3 to 4 World Series Championships in 5 visits to the WS in 6 seasons.

After this it gets a bit more cryptic and guess work. 1923 the Yankees win 98 games and like I said in the first post probably would have won the pennant, but who knows. 1924 showcases another mediocre AL. The winner is the Senators at 92 wins for the year. NY only manages 89 wins and detroit is next at 84 wins. At this point there is transition going on in Chicago. Some of the newer "great" Sox players are introduced while some of the older players are decling . All signs really point to this being a season in which the Sox slump. So I would not expect them to make it, but with the pennant only getting 92 wins who knows. A Comiskey who was fully dedicated to his team both mentally and financially probably would have put his team in a better position.
1925 looks to be a nice rebound year for the Sox. Babe Ruth and the Yankees have their hands full with a whole bunch of problems and the pennant winner is the Senators again with 96 wins. Some of the great Black Sox would have been in decline by now and probably would have been replaced by now to make room for the newer players. Players like Mostil and Kamm. Possibly they could have moved Weaver over to first. Lyons has developed fully and Blankenship is entering his prime. With the old Comiskey who knows. After this though it gets a little to mirky to predict but remember that the Yanks only won 91 games in 1926 to take the pennant. Again a better Sox team had a chance at the pennant or at the very least would have been a bigger factor in deciding who goes to the World Series.

So here we are now entering the 1926 season and the Yankees have yet to win a Championship and quite possibly have not even gone to the World Series. The Yankee window is rapidly closing after 1926 only the 1927 and 28 season are dominating for the Yankees an even then they only take the pennant by 2.5 games in 1928. The A's are rapidly becoming the best team in the AL and by 1929 will be on top and stay on top until after 1931. It has been twelve seasons in New York now for Babe Ruth and it is possible that the Babe has only 2 or three World Series appearances and two World Series victory to his credit. Instead of the 6 appearances and 3 victories he really had. I would think that if this is the case the way we view the Yankees of this era would totally changed. They would not be the stuff of legend and of course that would make Babe own image suffer. Plus who knows what would happen in New York if the Babe had failed to get the Yankees to the World Series until 1927. Wouldn't that alter our view of Babe Ruth?

[Brad Harris]

Cubbieinexile...thanks for the info. I was in the dark about the post-scandal Comiskey and your point about a lack of a central authority figure permitting integration is well taken.

This is such a interesting speculation that I may take it upon myself to investigate the possibility of running a simulation of those seasons under the pretension that no players were blacklisted.

[cubbieinexile]

I am currently reading a book that has a piece on the 1919 White Sox. The author projected Joe Jackson into post-1920 baseball and these were the stats he came up with.

1406 hits in 3805 at bats for a .369 AVG after 1920. Which suggests that Joe Jackson career would end around 1927.

[SoxRule21]

Its nice to here all that stuff about what could of been. But the bottom line is that the White Sox are still the most cursed team in baseball. They are famous for things that you don't want to be famous for. This is a team that has thrown a world series since they last won one. And i don't see them winning one any time soon.

[cubbieinexile]

Nothing to add just bumping it back up for some new people to read, plus I've been thinking about the 1984 Cubs and the what might have beens for them and thought that this might get my brain moving.

[Bill Burgess]

Nice work here, Cubbie. Kudos. It's fun to speculate. There was a lot going on back then. I guess in baseball, like life, it's always a power struggle to come in on top. And those owners were hardly less earnest to beat each other than they are today.

Some of the main dynamics, driving events back then were:

1. A war ended late 1918, thereby transforming the national mood from austerity mode, tighening your belts, to suddenly, waxing expansive, wanting to get entertained, but good.

2. Owners were battered by the Federal L. war, and WWI. They curtailed their '18-19 seasons, lost money thereby, and were in a big hurry to make it up.

3. With the availability of good strong yarn, they were able to put the new ball in play for 1919. Never dreamed it's effect would change the game.

1919 - With the help of the new ball, Babe Ruth causes a mania, not by the frequency of his shots, but by their distance, and pleasing aesthetic beauty of the transjectory. But he's limited by his home park, with it's 500 foot fence to 9 HRs at home, and 20 on the road. So, we can speculate that he'd have hit 40 in 1919, with a reasonable home park configuration.

Fans are so ready, so pumped/ripe/jazzed to get out and go out. The new ball so invigorates baseball offense, that attendance explodes in both leagues.
Sadly, for BoSox owner, Harry Frazee, his team settles for 5th place, and 5th in attendance, despite both leagues setting records for attendance.

Behind the scenes, Frazee conspire to send Ruth to NYC. If the mania is to be cashed in on, both Ruppert/Huston/Huggins feel that the NY media center is the place to do it best. Frazee is sceptical that Ruth can be the draw he needs. Ruth couldn't budge Frazee's gate above 5th.

So Babe goes to the Big Apple. Priming the coming storm. Meanwhile, back in Chicago, the White Sox get infected with cheaters. We'll set aside the Jackson controversy, so as not to hijack this into a Jackson trial. But the White Sox were throwing games before the Series, which is what attracted the gamblers in the first place, and they continued to do so into 1920. That is what Eddie Collins said many years later. He didn't realize it in '19, but was definitely aware of it in '20. But they didn't get busted until the last week of '20. Which effectively killed their shot as repeat winners.

One of the dynamics which you left out, Cubbie, but Gingerkid brought up, is the allowance of the rape of the great championship Red Sox team by corporate raider, Jack Ruppert. Ruppert was the Steinbrenner of his day. A former Congressman, a huge beer baron, he and his co-owner, Colonel Huston, were set on taking the top end of the totem pole.

Up to that time, the power in baseball was McGraw's Giants. They had an authentic dynasty established. Their record was the envy of balldom. Between '03-32, they only finished lower than 3rd, something liks 5 times. And Ruppert/Huston took dead aim on replacing McGraw at the top of the BB heap.

The Ruppert forces began the campaign by taking in pitcher Carl Mays, during 1919. Mays, pissed off at his team mates for not giving him the run support he felt he deserved, just walked away from the team. Went fishhing. Somehow, Ruppert gets wind of Carl's disenchantment at Boston, and offers him safe sanctuary with the Yankees. Well, you can just imagine the total shock of Ban Johnson, that one of "his" players has taken his destiny into his own hands. Johnson files a court order, forbidding his umpires from working any games with Mays as a Yankee. He orders Mays back to Boston under threat of permanent expulsion. Colonel Huston steps in and tells Johnson to go straight to HELL, and also files a court injunction against the umpires boycott. The poor umps don't know what the hell to do. Dueling court orders. I think a total of 7-9 court orders get filed, but Yanks win the court case. Mays stays a Yank.

Johnson, in his Chicago office is humiliated by the Yanks owners, and war is now on. Frazee throws his support in with the Yanks owners, and now there begins a steady exodus of BoSox players to NYC. Almost the entire team is transplanted. Johnson is now powerless to break up the Boston/NY connection, and it is the shame of the sport. How the other owners allowed this sad spectacle to happen is a tragedy. The rape/pillaging/sacking/raiding of a great championship team, which won in '15, '16, '18 is one of baseball's true crimes.

In pitchers alone, he raided these from Boston: Carl Mays, Herb Pennock, Sam Jones, Waite Hoyt, Joe Bush, Ernie Shore. He also raided shortstop Everett Scott, catcher Wally Schang, left fielder Duffy Lewis. These alone will win you a pennant.

He also armed his Yankee dugout with Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazzeri, Bob Meusel, Earl Combs, Marty Koenig, Joe Dugan, as well as the championship Red Sox team from '15-18.

Would a White Sox team, if not depleted of its stars have been able to compete with the Yankees? Yes, they would have, especially if the Yanks had be prevented from stealing another city's team wholesale.

The continued presence of Jackson, Cicotte, Felsch, Weaver would have kept them in the running. Red Faber went 25-15, and 21-17 in '21-'22, with a depleted White Sox team. He actually won more games in '21 than in '20. Faber was 32 in '20 and presumably had a few good seasons left. He was 15-9 in '26, and 13-9 in '28. So, I believe that even the aging Sox would have been a power in the AL until '28.

Kamm did come along and was the premier defensive 3B in the AL, along with Ossie Bluege.

The Yanks, without the Red Sox players, could never have dreamed of winning the AL pennants in '21-23. Never dreamed of it. They brought Frank Baker onboard to suppliment Ruth's hitting, but Frank couldn't make a go of it, after sitting out the '20 season. The Yanks won those pennants due to the Red Sox pitchers, and tight D. Ruth was making a mockery of the old Polo Grounds configuration.

And we haven't yet mentioned the 20's Senators. They were fully-loaded & good to go. They had future Famers, Bucky Harris, Goose Goslin, Sam Rice, Walter Johnson, in addition to Roger Peckinpaugh, glove wiz Ossie Bluege, and catcher Muddy Ruel. Other fine pitchers for them were Stan Coveleskie, Dutch Ruether, Tom Zachary, George Mogridge.

Meanwhile, over in Philadelphia, hardly less earnest activity was in progress to meet the Yankees challenge on even terms. Mack suddenly was spending like Ruppert in an exclusive men's clothing shop. Mack & Ruppert turned the '20's into dueling checkbooks, & neither were bouncing any checks. Over in Philly, Mack was rebuilding & Connie wasn't kidding. In '21 he got Eddie Rommel, in '22, Bing Miller & Joe Hauser, '23 Rube Walberg, in '24, he got Al Simmons & Max Bishop.

For 1925, he picked up Grove, Cochrane, Foxx, veteran pitcher Jack Quinn. For '26, he got shortstop Billy Wambsganss and vet pitcher Howard Ehmke, whom Ty had discarded after '22. These players proved that Connie wasn't fooling about bringing pennants home. He paid $100K for Grove in 10 installments, $50K for Cochrane( plus $150K invested in Portland team, just to sign Cochrane). These were major moves.

So the AL powers were the Yanks, Indians, Senators, and I speculate that the non-depleted White Sox would have been hard in the mix, fighting them all tooth and nail. The Tigers of the 20's were not really a factor, even though in '22-24, they made it interesting. They were not the team the others were, and only came close in '24, when they finished 3rd, 6 games out, due to Manager Cobb's hysterical exhortations to play over their heads.

The 3 historical question marks are how the White Sox could have fared, absent their expulsions, and how the Red Sox would have fared, absent the incessant raids by Ruppert, and how the Yanks would have fared, without their Boston transplants.

Although ultimately unknowable, I think that the 20's would have belonged to the White Sox, Red Sox, and Senators. The Yanks would have had to wait a few years to begin their dynasty, and the 1910's powers, the 2 Soxes, would have continued to play great ball deep into the 20's. I feel the next re-alignment would have come around '27, as the aging stars of both Sox teams, got displaced by replacement players, and the Ruppert bankroll got flexed to its maximum effect.

Oh, I imagine if Harry Frazee hadn't "given away" his players to NY, Ruppert would have sought and eventually have found other players to man his dugout. He did later acquire Gehrig, Lazzeri, Bob Meusel, Earl Combs, Marty Koenig, & Joe Dugan. So money will win out in the end. But the speculating is fun.

Bill Burgess

[iPod]

Had the Black Sox stayed together and overshadowed the Ruth/Gehrig Yanks, probably we'd all have grown up with the idea that Ty Cobb was the greatest ballplayer ever, and it's possible that the entire Yankee machine would have not gained momentum and purchased all those other great Red Sox players, and would have not attracted as many young free agents lured by the Yankee mystique.

As has been said, integration almost certainly would have come much earlier, which would have made someone else the Jackie Robinson-esque hero, and Jackie Robinson himself just another awesome player. The public would have reacted completely differently to players like Willie Mays and Henry Aaron. Speaking of which, if integration had happened earlier, it's possible (albeit unlikely) that a player like Josh Gibson would have hit 715 homers, and the public would have reacted completely different to Aaron's home run drive.

Betting on baseball probably wouldn't have been banned in the demonstrative way it was, and hence, Pete Rose likely would be in the Hall of Fame and the whole controversy surrounding him would have been avoided, at least in large part.

[Imapotato]

nice post Chancellor

I think Red Faber WAS on the Sox at the time, he was just injured for the Series, which is why Dickie Kerr was pressed into action

Also I think losing Weaver was worse then Felsch, Buck was like the Derek Jeter of the team, Felsch's replacement is little know Johnny "Bananas" Mostil, whom IIRC tried to kill himself when Red Faber found out he was having an affair with his wife. Mostil was MUCH better then Felsch, had more power, more speed and was on par with Tris Speaker defensively in CF

but what if's
There is ONE way to know

Since I sim one year a day, in about a week I should be at 1919 in my replay

You guys can check out My historical Simulation in the Fantasy Baseball Forum

[mordeci]

I know I'll get yelled at for this, but that's never stopped me:

Shoeless Joe is James Dean.

If it wasn't for the black sox scandal Jackson wouldn't be so highly rated and wouldn't be nearly as famous. Obviously he would be a HOFer, but in the 2nd tier. Below Cobb and Speaker, probably below Simmons and Sisler. Jackson was banished in his prime and never had a chance to play while his skills were eroding. His numbers (granted, in a different era) were similar to Wade Boggs through age 31 (except SBs). My guess is that Jackson's BA would have ended up south of .340.

People talk about Jackson like he was on the same level with Cobb, but that's just not true:

numbers through age 31:
Cobb 2361 hits, 63 HRs, 1077 RBI, 703 SBs, .370 Avg
Keeler 2115 hits, 23 HRs, 636 RBI, 400 SBs, .365 Avg
Hornsby 2288 hits, 217 HRs, 1176 RBI, 126 SBs, .359 Avg
Jackson 1772 hits, 54 HRs, 785 RBI, 202 SBs, .356 Avg
Boggs 1597 hits, 64 HRs, 523 RBI, 14 SBs, .352 Avg

I'm not bashing Jackson, just giving my impression of his place in history had the black sox scandal not happened.

[Bill Burgess]

Gene Carney finished his book and it will be available through Amazon in Feb. Can be ordered now.

Bury the Black Sox, by Gene "Two-Fingered" Carney. Best book on the Black Sox ever. One can google his name and read up on him.

Bill Burgess

[Ubiquitous]

Just moving it up so it doesn't get deleted.

[Ubiquitous]

It is odd that the Ruth led Yankees is considered by quite a few to be the greatest Yankee teams of all time and yet they won so few championships and if the Sox hadn't gotten kicked out of the game they would have even fewer.

[Eastvanmungo]

I know I'll get yelled at for this, but that's never stopped me:

Shoeless Joe is James Dean.

If it wasn't for the black sox scandal Jackson wouldn't be so highly rated and wouldn't be nearly as famous. Obviously he would be a HOFer, but in the 2nd tier. Below Cobb and Speaker, probably below Simmons and Sisler. Jackson was banished in his prime and never had a chance to play while his skills were eroding. His numbers (granted, in a different era) were similar to Wade Boggs through age 31 (except SBs). My guess is that Jackson's BA would have ended up south of .340.

People talk about Jackson like he was on the same level with Cobb, but that's just not true:

numbers through age 31:
Cobb 2361 hits, 63 HRs, 1077 RBI, 703 SBs, .370 Avg
Keeler 2115 hits, 23 HRs, 636 RBI, 400 SBs, .365 Avg
Hornsby 2288 hits, 217 HRs, 1176 RBI, 126 SBs, .359 Avg
Jackson 1772 hits, 54 HRs, 785 RBI, 202 SBs, .356 Avg
Boggs 1597 hits, 64 HRs, 523 RBI, 14 SBs, .352 Avg

I'm not bashing Jackson, just giving my impression of his place in history had the black sox scandal not happened.

Although I agree with you regarding the fact that Joe Jackson's legacy has been (strangely) enhanced due to his role in the Black Sox scandal... I don't agree that his numbers would have suffered if he had been able to play 5-10 more years. Look at the numbers of any of his contemporaries, Harry Heilmann would be a good example, they all got a big boost from playing in the lively ball / no spitball era. Any penalty he would have gotten for playing through his decline would have been more than offset by the large bonus his numbers would have received from playing into the 20's.

The funny thing is that, he would probably not be so revered these days, even with those better numbers, because people might just dismiss him as a guy who got a big boost from playing in the 20's.

[Zoso]

Its nice to here all that stuff about what could of been. But the bottom line is that the White Sox are still the most cursed team in baseball. They are famous for things that you don't want to be famous for. This is a team that has thrown a world series since they last won one. And i don't see them winning one any time soon.

Some day.

Some day..

[yanks0714]

Although I agree with you regarding the fact that Joe Jackson's legacy has been (strangely) enhanced due to his role in the Black Sox scandal... I don't agree that his numbers would have suffered if he had been able to play 5-10 more years. Look at the numbers of any of his contemporaries, Harry Heilmann would be a good example, they all got a big boost from playing in the lively ball / no spitball era. Any penalty he would have gotten for playing through his decline would have been more than offset by the large bonus his numbers would have received from playing into the 20's.

The funny thing is that, he would probably not be so revered these days, even with those better numbers, because people might just dismiss him as a guy who got a big boost from playing in the 20's.

This is so true. Joe Jackson has been romaticized by being a part of the Black Sox scandal. If he had played out his career, I'm sure he would have been elected to the HOF, but we might look at him more like an Al Simmons, Jesse Burkett, Yax type player. Good, sometimes great, definite HOF'er but rarely thought of as an absolute elite. He would surely not get as much play on these boards and others as he does now.

I also question how well he would have done if his carerr hadn't ended so abruptly. Wasn't he 31 years old at the time of his banishment? Really, how many more productive years would he have had? Not sure players went well into their late 30's in those days. Those who did had some significant dropoffs in their production, which would be expected.

[Beady]

I agree Jackson's reputation has probably been inflated by the scandal, and in fact the same is true of the Sox as a team. But Jackson was not a huge leap behind Speaker and Cobb, and both of them were still pretty productive players at 40, and in Cobb's case, beyond.

I don't believe the White Sox would have been the team of the decade during the 1920's without the scandal, but they would have been far stronger. Comiskey had a large number of holes to fill. Even Risberg was an everyday player, and you don't just assume you can snap your fingers and cause a legitimate regular to appear.

If something similar to the Black Sox scandal were to happen now, the silver lining for the team's management would be that they would be shedding a lot of salary and could reinvest some of the saved money by dipping into the free agent market to sign replacements. Comiskey did not have that option. He either had to make expensive player purchases or acquire players by trade, thereby opening new vacancies created by the loss of the men he was trading. Comiskey worked aggressively to acquire minor league stars, and I have seen complaints by him (as well as other teams) that they wanted Boston's players but Frazee would not deal with anyone but the Yankees. Some of Comsikey's acquisitions worked out quite well, but he just had too many holes to fill.

By the late 1920's, my impression is that Comiskey was getting discouraged by his failure to rebuild the team. His bankroll may have been getting depleted, too, and he certainly was aging and within a few years of death. Meanwhile, the Cubs had developed a very strong organization, and the Sox settled in for a long spell as Chicago's second team.

[nerfan]

This is so true. Joe Jackson has been romaticized by being a part of the Black Sox scandal. If he had played out his career, I'm sure he would have been elected to the HOF, but we might look at him more like an Al Simmons, Jesse Burkett, Yax type player. Good, sometimes great, definite HOF'er but rarely thought of as an absolute elite. He would surely not get as much play on these boards and others as he does now.

I also question how well he would have done if his carerr hadn't ended so abruptly. Wasn't he 31 years old at the time of his banishment? Really, how many more productive years would he have had? Not sure players went well into their late 30's in those days. Those who did had some significant dropoffs in their production, which would be expected.

Yaz > Simmons > Burkett.

Yaz is upper-middle tier in my opinion. Simmons is middle tier, Jesse Burkett is middle tier as well but a notch below Simmons. It's very close.

And Joe Jackson? He WOULD have been better than all of them, I think. However, even though he was only 31 when he was kicked out of baseball, his best seasons had come 7 years ago.

[Buzzaldrin]

Why does everybody assume that the Sox would have won the 1919 Series if they hadn't thrown it? It certainly seems to me that the Reds were the better team. Even though the NL was a bit weaker than the AL- the Reds had an all-time great pitching staff with a team ERA+ of 124 and incredible depth, and were also second in the NL in hitting. Heck even their pitchers could hit- four of their five starters had OPS+ over 50, and three over 80. The team was also first in the NL in OBP and second in slugging. They finished 96-44, way better than the White Sox did, won by 9 games over second place New York, and 21 games over third place Chicago. Edd Roush and Heinie Groh were nearly as good as Shoeless Joe that season, and way better than any other Chicago hitter, and the Sox had nowhere near the pitching depth the Reds had.

I just don't think the Sox were a better team.

[mwiggins]

This is so true. Joe Jackson has been romaticized by being a part of the Black Sox scandal. If he had played out his career, I'm sure he would have been elected to the HOF, but we might look at him more like an Al Simmons, Jesse Burkett, Yax type player. Good, sometimes great, definite HOF'er but rarely thought of as an absolute elite. He would surely not get as much play on these boards and others as he does now.



I don't know if he'd have been as high up as Yaz, who's in a different class than Simmons and Burkett, but through age 30 he was better than any of those three.

Though age 30:
Jackson: 170 OPS+, .815 OWP, 60.1 WARP3, -33 FRAA
Yaz: 142 OPS+, .724 OWP, 52.9 WARP3, 23 FRAA
Simmons: 148 OPS+, .762 OWP, 49.1 WARP3, 25 FRAA
Burkett: 141 OPS+, .741 OWP, 40.4 WARP3, -6 FRAA

And that's without giving him any credit for losing a year to WW1.


There's no reason to assume he'd have had the longevity that Yaz had, but he certainly had the better peak. Even if Jackson would have suffered a rapid decline after age 30, he still had assured his place in the teir all-time greats right below guys like Jimmie Foxx and Frank Robinson and Johnny Bench, well above the level of guys like Simmons and Burkett. And a rapid decline starting at age 31 seems unlikely, given that he was coming off his best offensive year since he was 23.

[Ubiquitous]

Why does everybody assume that the Sox would have won the 1919 Series if they hadn't thrown it? It certainly seems to me that the Reds were the better team. Even though the NL was a bit weaker than the AL- the Reds had an all-time great pitching staff with a team ERA+ of 124 and incredible depth, and were also second in the NL in hitting. Heck even their pitchers could hit- four of their five starters had OPS+ over 50, and three over 80. The team was also first in the NL in OBP and second in slugging. They finished 96-44, way better than the White Sox did, won by 9 games over second place New York, and 21 games over third place Chicago. Edd Roush and Heinie Groh were nearly as good as Shoeless Joe that season, and way better than any other Chicago hitter, and the Sox had nowhere near the pitching depth the Reds had.

I just don't think the Sox were a better team.

They lost the series 5-3 with Dickie Kerr who nobody expected anything out of winning 2 games. Cicotte wins his third game. That leaves the White Sox needing to win 2 games out of the 5 games they lost with at least 4 of them fixed games. Is it really unreasonable to assume that had the White Sox not thrown all those gamese they would have picked up those two games?

[CandlestickBum]

That's been done, though, many times over.

One thing I'd like to see around here is more historical speculation like this. It's interesting, if indeed presented in a manner such as this. It's very easy to say "Sandy Koufax would have broken every pitching record possible if he didn't have arm troubles" or throw out statistics 10 years down the line for him. There's no way to prove anything there.



For those of you interested in these sort of discussions, there's a newsgroup out there that specializes in these and has guidelines posted that should be useful for conversations here as well.

Obviously as it's a newsgroup there's a few things particular to it, but this addresses requirements for "good" AH (Alternative History) as well. Not a long read, hope some find it interesting.

http://faqs.cs.uu.nl/na-dir/history/what-if.html

[Buzzaldrin]

They lost the series 5-3 with Dickie Kerr who nobody expected anything out of winning 2 games. Cicotte wins his third game. That leaves the White Sox needing to win 2 games out of the 5 games they lost with at least 4 of them fixed games. Is it really unreasonable to assume that had the White Sox not thrown all those gamese they would have picked up those two games?

I don't think it's reasonable to assume anything. The Reds won the first game 9-1 by rocking Cicotte. If Eddie bore down would the Sox necessarily have won? I don't think so. Even without the 6 Cicotte gave up, the Reds scored more. And were the Sox hitters throwing it? Hard to tell- Shoeless Joe scored the Sox only run, and Gandil, Weaver, and McMullin (all in on the fix) had four of the Sox 6 hits with Gandil driving in Jackson.

Game two the Reds beat Lefty Williams, who was in on the fix too. Game three Kerr throws a three hitter. Game four Cicotte loses again- but who's to say he would've won if he'd been straight. The Sox were shutout, but all of their hits came from Black Sox. How can we say they still wouldn't have been shutout? Game five the Sox are shutout again- the Reds had awesome pitching all year, they may quite likely have still happened with no fix. You can't win without scoring runs. Game six, Chick Gandil drives in Weaver in the top of the tenth- obviously played straight, but certainly a game that could have gone either way. Game seven, Cicotte bests Sallee. Game eight, Williams blows it in the first, but James and Wilkinson, not in on the fix, still give up more runs than the Sox score- quite likely the Reds would've won it anyhow.

Although you can't (of course) assume anything with certainty, it seems fairly like that three or more of the Sox losses would've still been losses without the fix and that it would've been a very close series whoever won. I just don't think it correct to assume that 1) the Sox would've won, and 2) that they were a better team.

The Reds had the best NL single season wpct between 1912 and 1942. They were a hell of a good team, and very much underrated by posterity because of the scandal.

[Ubiquitous]

The Reds won the first game by 9-1 because the Sox were throwing the game, all of them.

GAme two is a game that could have definitely gone the Sox way, so that is one win right there. So now the series goes 9 at least and the Sox either have to win that 9th game or pick up one more win elsewhere before that.

Game 4 the Sox lose and the Sox get their cash, they lose 2-0. Is this a game the Sox could have won? Sure.

Game 5 the Sox get blanked and Williams is pitching. They just got paid after the last game we really shouldn't expect anything out of the crooked players for this game and they don't do anything.

Final game: Yes the relievers gave up more runs then the Sox scored but the relievers wouldn't have been in there if Williams wasn't throwing the game. Do the Reds score 10 runs if Williams isn't throwing the game? Do they score 6 if Williams isn't throwing the game? In Williams' two other games, games in which he was throwing it he only allowed 8 runs over 17 innings. It certainly doesn't look likely that Williams playing it on the level would suddenly give up 6 runs to the Reds in that final game if he wanted to actually play to win.

Obviously nothing is an absolute certainty but it certainly looks to me like the Sox could have won that series if they had wanted to.

[Iron Jaw]

Ed Roush always said the 1919 Reds were better than the White Sox and the "fix" took all the attention off their team. He believes the Sox would have lost, fix or no fix.

[EdTarbusz]

Ed Roush always said the 1919 Reds were better than the White Sox and the "fix" took all the attention off their team. He believes the Sox would have lost, fix or no fix.

I don't think the Roush opinion says much. What was he supposed to say? 'It's a good thing the White Sox weren't trying or they would have wiped the field with us?'

[nerfan]

Ed Roush always said the 1919 Reds were better than the White Sox and the "fix" took all the attention off their team. He believes the Sox would have lost, fix or no fix.

Ed Roush is certainly an unbiased source.

[Victory Faust]

Let's see how they stack up:

1B: Gandil/Daubert: Reds
2B: Collins/Rath: Sox
SS: Risberg/Kopf: push
3B: Weaver/Groh: Reds
LF: Jackson/Duncan: Sox
CF: Roush/Felsch: Reds
RF: Liebold/Neale: Sox
C: Schalk/Wingo: Sox

Pitching:

Chicago had a better one-two punch with Cicotte and Williams over the Reds' Eller and Reuther, but the Reds' third-best pitcher, Salee, was better in 1919 than Chicago's counterpart, Red Faber. Overall, it looks like the Reds may have had a deeper staff.


I'd say the Reds stack up okay against the Sox. That doesn't mean Chicago wasn't the more talented team, but I don't think it's an absolute slam dunk that they'd have beaten the Reds if the Series hadn't been fixed.

[Buzzaldrin]

I don't think it's an absolute slam dunk that they'd have beaten the Reds if the Series hadn't been fixed.

That was my point.

Sure the Sox may have beaten them, they may even have had better odds of winning, but this thread began with posts that just assumed they could have taken the Reds with ease- and I don't think you should assume that a team with a nearly .700 winning percentage is just going to be a walk over....





...then again, look at the '54 Indians.

[Ubiquitous]

Obviously we cannot say with 100% certainty that the White Sox would win a series had they played honestly, but I do believe what actually did happen significantly strengthens the chances that they would win the series if played honestly. The White Sox were able to win 3 games despite the fact that they were throwing games and were able to keep several games close in thrown games.

But really the Sox winning or losing the 1919 series is besides the point of this thread. It doesn't matter whether or not they win that series.

[yanks0714]

They lost the series 5-3 with Dickie Kerr who nobody expected anything out of winning 2 games. Cicotte wins his third game. That leaves the White Sox needing to win 2 games out of the 5 games they lost with at least 4 of them fixed games. Is it really unreasonable to assume that had the White Sox not thrown all those gamese they would have picked up those two games?

Let us not forget that the WSox were without Red Faber for the Series as well. Faber may well have strengthened an already good pitching staff. maybe not have to with Lefty Williams in what turned out to be the final game.
I've long felt Cicotte pitched well in his 3rd start to offset suspicions, knowing that would have left Williams holding the bag to throw the last game.

[Ubiquitous]

Not to get this thread off the intended track but Cicotte's third game and the 7th game of the series was supposedly played on the level. The Sox were trying to win that game because by that point they had supposedly called off the fix since they were not getting paid. Which is why Williams was supposedly approached before game 8 and threatened that if he didn't take a dive there would be repercussions.

[Buzzaldrin]

You mean Red Faber and his 83 ERA+ during the regular season? The Reds must have been terrified.