16 men out?

[Chainmeister]

I read this fascinating piece about the possibility that the Cubs in 1918 may have thrown the world series the year before the Sox did in 1919.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110420/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_cubs1918_world_series  Who knows if this is true.  Certainly, Cicotte is not a reliable source. However, the other factors cited in the article are intriguing.

This made me think about high baseball salaries in a positive way.  We have all thought that ball players make too much and we would do it for less money. However, when the players were underpaid they were ripe for gamblers to try to influence them. They make so much money now I cannot imagine them risking their career for a gambler. I cannot imagine a gambler being willing to come up with that much scratch to have a ballgame thrown.  Perhaps I am naive on that last assumption.  With high salaries the risk has been players doing anything to stay in the game. That is why we saw the problems with performance  enhancing drugs over the last decade or so. As bad as PEDs are they are less of a problem than gambling.  With gambling the players tried to lose.  With PEDs they tried to win but tried too hard. The only thing about PEDs is there is an aspect of their use that could beneft the player at the expense of the team.  Many of those players were interested in personal stats first and team wins second.  Still, they wanted to win.  I feel terrible for Joe Jackson, who hit overr .400 in the 1919 world series and did nothing to try to lose..  Cicotte was really just a pawn of the gamblers because he was being abused by his owner, Comiskey. However, one could argue that he did more to harm the game than Bonds et. al..

[Dan Michler]

Its completely believable that they would have thrown the series.  Those types of problems were commonplace in baseball back then.  Baseball handled the situation much like they handled the recent PED situation...try to pretend its not happening, then when the public finds out take swift action on the most high profile players, pretend that this action totally solved the problem and ignore any further allegations about the past.

If you want some controversy related to the last Cubs championship in 1908, which was highly disputed, research Merkle's Boner...

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Merkle%27s_Boner

I read about this in a book when I was a kid and thought it was pretty interesting.  What the article doesn't mention is that the game was only replayed 2 weeks later because the Cubs and Giants ended up tied.  The league commisioner was then asked to make an official ruling on the play from 2 weeks ago.  He decided in the Cubs favor.  It was so controversial because at that time it was accepted practice on a walk-off hit for the runners to leave the field without touching base.

[pdga#7648]

I read this fascinating piece about the possibility that the Cubs in 1918 may have thrown the world series the year before the Sox did in 1919.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110420/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_cubs1918_world_series  Who knows if this is true.  Certainly, Cicotte is not a reliable source. However, the other factors cited in the article are intriguing.

This made me think about high baseball salaries in a positive way.  We have all thought that ball players make too much and we would do it for less money. However, when the players were underpaid they were ripe for gamblers to try to influence them. They make so much money now I cannot imagine them risking their career for a gambler. I cannot imagine a gambler being willing to come up with that much scratch to have a ballgame thrown.  Perhaps I am naive on that last assumption.  With high salaries the risk has been players doing anything to stay in the game. That is why we saw the problems with performance  enhancing drugs over the last decade or so. As bad as PEDs are they are less of a problem than gambling.  With gambling the players tried to lose.  With PEDs they tried to win but tried too hard. The only thing about PEDs is there is an aspect of their use that could beneft the player at the expense of the team.  Many of those players were interested in personal stats first and team wins second.  Still, they wanted to win.  I feel terrible for Joe Jackson, who hit overr .400 in the 1919 world series and did nothing to try to lose..  Cicotte was really just a pawn of the gamblers because he was being abused by his owner, Comiskey. However, one could argue that he did more to harm the game than Bonds et. al..

Cubs getting paid to lose ballgames? So nothing's changed for the last hundred years then. 



If they did do this in 1918, then they deserve the curse that they have been playing with since their last Billy Goatless World Series!

[Chainmeister]

uh, Doug, you're talking to a Sox fan here.  You know that old sying, "what's good for the goose..."  The Cubs are alleged to have thrown a series. The Sox did throw a series.  They have won a series since then. I'm just saying...

Either way, the sins of players nearly 100 years ago, in a time when they were treated less like royalty and  more like fungible employees, should not reflect on either of the current teams.   Otherwise, what would Michler say about a Cardinals team that is still managed by Tony Larussa and he was in charge when Mark McGuire....oh you know.

[pdga#7648]

it was all in fun chain.
I didn't  know there was a saying to where the Sox had a curse though?  my bad

And if you heard me watching a Cardinal game, you would know how I feel about Tony. Yea he has all those wins, but he knows how to lose alot as well.

[Dan Michler]

it was all in fun chain.
I didn't  know there was a saying to where the Sox had a curse though?  my bad

Yeah there is a goose curse.  Very well known Doug.  That is definitely what Dave was talking about......................