The Original Curse Part 6

It is unlikely that the Series, though, was fixed from the beginning. There was some question about the Cubs' play in Game 1-Charley Hollocher was often out of position, according to writer Hugh Fullerton, and the Cubs allowed Dave Shean to get a questionably large lead off second base to set up the winning run-but, mostly, the performance of the two teams was sharp in the first three games at Comiskey Park. It was not until the train ride from Chicago to Boston, when players were finally hit with the reality of the poor payouts the World Series would bring, that the games turned suspiciously sloppy. At that point players would have been low-hanging fruit for would-be fixers.

Considering the prevalence of gamblers around the Series, and the ease with which they mixed with players (Gene Fowler, for one, saw gamblers hanging out in Doc Krone's room, drinking with Babe Ruth), it's likely that bribe offers were made to players even before the Series. If those offers were resisted over the course of the first three games, the National Commission's stubborn unwillingness to beef up the teams' very slim payouts probably eroded that resistance. Why should players not accept some money to play some crooked games? Why should the players protect the honor of a sport that was not, as they saw it, being honorable to the players? The Cubs may have intended to play an honest Series. But the actions of the National Commission would have made it easy to shove aside honest intentions.

Game 4 smells very foul. Max Flack's performance was not just bad. It was historically bad. He was picked off twice, he tapped a harmless grounder back to the pitcher in a key situation, and he committed an obvious misplay on Ruth's triple. Flack also made the fatal error in Game 6, and though he did score the Cubs' only run in that game, he was excessively aggressive in scoring that run-he stole third with two outs, and if he had been caught, he would have broken the time-honored baseball maxim that states baserunners should never make the third out at third base. Flack certainly had incentives. He had a young child at home outside St. Louis and, unlike many of the players, did not have a farm to which to return. As the Series ended, Flack was one of the few Cubs who had not lined up essential employment. He would have needed money.

Claude Hendrix, too, comes into question for his awkward Game 4 baserunning, which was bad enough to force Mitch.e.l.l to pull him out of the game. Hendrix, it was reported, was lucky not to have been caught while taking an unnecessarily big lead after reaching second base, which would have killed a Cubs rally had he been thrown out. And Hendrix has a questionable reputation working against him. In 1920, he would be pulled from a scheduled start because gamblers contacted the Cubs and claimed he was crooked. Hendrix was not officially banned because of that, but he was released the next year, and suspicion about his connection with gambling lingers.

Douglas's performance in Game 4, too, is suspicious. He probably was rusty, and that could very well explain his struggles. But Douglas found a way to make mistakes at every turn. He pitched a terrible eighth inning, allowing a hit and a pa.s.sed ball, which he followed with his wild toss to Merkle on a bunt attempt. That throw lost the game. Because of the letter that he sent to Mann in 1922, Douglas, too, has a reputation working against him. Douglas also was notoriously bad with money and, like Flack, did not have essential employment lined up as the World Series was progressing.

If there was a Cubs fix, it probably involved these three, and perhaps others. Remember how Cicotte had phrased the fix rumor: "Well anyway there was some talk about them offering $10,000 or something to throw the Cubs in the Boston Series. There was talk that somebody offered this player $10,000 or anyway the bunch of players were offered $10,000." Perhaps Flack was "this player." Or, perhaps Flack, Hendrix, and Douglas were "the bunch of players."

Of course, Hendrix and Douglas were not starting pitchers at all during the World Series, so their impact was limited. But, remember, Mitch.e.l.l's decision to use only Vaughn and Tyler in the Series was unexpected and controversial-most thought that either Douglas or Hendrix, if not both, would get starts in the Series. It would make perfect sense for gamblers to target them. Considering how awfully they performed when they finally did appear on the World Series field in Game 4, if gamblers had bribed Hendrix and Douglas, it would have been money well spent. And there's another possibility. Maybe Mitch.e.l.l knew something. Maybe he'd heard that gamblers had gotten to Hendrix and Douglas, and he decided to use only Tyler and Vaughn not because of his percentage system but because he didn't trust that his two right-handers were on the level.

The Chase-Magee affair in Boston shows how easy it was for players looking to throw a game to find gamblers to back them in 1918. If the Cubs threw the Series, they could have found ways to make money from it on their own. But if, as Grabiner's diary indicates, pitcher Gene Packard was involved with fixing the Series, he would have been well connected on the Cubs side. Packard had been with Chicago in 1916, as well as for spring training and part of the 1917 season. He had been a teammate of Hendrix, Flack, and Douglas and was an exFederal League comrade of Flack and Hendrix (though Packard played for Kansas City). Packard had spent the season in St. Louis, a town well stocked with gambling characters. A year later, St. Louis would be one of the epicenters of the Black Sox scandal-gambler Carl Zork, of St. Louis, was among those indicted with White Sox players for the fix. During the Black Sox trial, theater owner Harry Redmon testified that Zork bragged about fixing the 1919 World Series with "a red-headed fellow from St. Louis." St. Louis was also home to Kid Becker, the gambler rumored to have set up a 1918 Series fix that he called off because of a lack of funds.

The Cubs had the motive and the means to fix the last half of the World Series, and Games 4 and 6 have the crucial errors and bizarre baserunning mistakes that are indicative of fixed games. But, if there was a fix, one question looms: what about Game 5, a 30 Cubs win? Why didn't the Cubs throw that one? There are two possible explanations. It may be that Vaughn, not in on the fix, was simply having a dominant day and, even if his teammates behind him wanted to throw the game, they would not get the opportunity. The Red Sox got just three hits after all. But if we really want to expand the conspiracy possibilities, there is the chance that it was the Red Sox Red Sox who played indifferently in Game 5. They would have had plenty of incentive not to win that game. Boston held a 31 lead at that point, as players for the Red Sox and Cubs were still trying to get either their club owners or the National Commission to give them better payouts for the World Series. The only leverage the players had in the fight was playing or not playing-their power was derived from the threat of another strike. If the Red Sox had won, the Series would have been over and the players' leverage would have been gone. It may have been that the Red Sox did not get many hits off Vaughn because they were not trying to get many hits off Vaughn. who played indifferently in Game 5. They would have had plenty of incentive not to win that game. Boston held a 31 lead at that point, as players for the Red Sox and Cubs were still trying to get either their club owners or the National Commission to give them better payouts for the World Series. The only leverage the players had in the fight was playing or not playing-their power was derived from the threat of another strike. If the Red Sox had won, the Series would have been over and the players' leverage would have been gone. It may have been that the Red Sox did not get many hits off Vaughn because they were not trying to get many hits off Vaughn.

Ambrose Bierce wrote, "History is an account, mostly false, of events, mostly unimportant, which are brought about by rulers, mostly knaves, and soldiers, mostly fools." This notion fits neatly around the days of gambling scandals in baseball. The game's history was easily manipulated by its knave rulers (the magnates) and its fool soldiers (the players). There was, obviously, one great scandal in that era of baseball-the fixing of the 1919 World Series-and once word of that conspiracy reached the public, the challenge for baseball's leaders became to limit the damage such a ma.s.sive hoax could cause to the image of the game. After much political struggle among league power brokers, and after the embarra.s.sing criminal trial that ended in 1921 with eight accused White Sox players granted an acquittal, major-league baseball did precisely the right thing from a public-relations standpoint: it shaped history as favorably as possible.

Already, tough, well-respected federal judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis had been brought in as the commissioner, the white knight who would, in the eyes of the public, single-handedly clean up base-ball's gambling problem and return honesty to the game. Landis immediately went to work, banning the eight Black Sox players despite the acquittal and famously declaring, "Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player that throws a ball game; no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ball game; no player that sits in a conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing games are planned and discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."

Landis's message was clear: the Black Sox were guilty, they were banned, the gambling problem was solved. Landis would continue to deal with game-fixing allegations throughout the early part of his tenure as commissioner, but never did he act as decisively as he did with the Black Sox. Nor did he delve into the questions that surrounded the scandal. He did not investigate teams (the 1919 Giants, for example) that were known to be riddled with gamblers and problem players. He did not seek answers to obvious questions, like why Cubs official John O. Seys had been a stakeholder for Abe Attell's 1919 bets or why former Cubs president Charley Weeghman was so friendly with Mont Tennes, a gambling kingpin whom Landis himself had investigated. He did not seek to find out whether other teams might have thrown past World Series. He did not even look into the initial scandal that started the courtroom revelation of the Black Sox-the fixing of the August 31, 1920, game between the Cubs and the Phillies.

To do so only would have deepened baseball's wounds and further shaken the public's faith in the honesty of the game. Landis did not deal with gambling in baseball by getting down to the roots of the problem. He dealt with it by containing it, by funneling as much as he could into the Black Sox file, punis.h.i.+ng those involved and ignoring the rest. He was successful-history says little about the allegedly fixed 1920 Cubs game, the 1919 Giants, or the possibility of other fixed World Series. Now fans who look back on the early days of baseball see eight men suspended from the White Sox for fixing the 1919 World Series and leave it at that. History does not tell us about World Series fixes in 1912 or 1914 or 1921, because, if those Series were crooked, baseball's knave rulers did not want anyone to know. So, we can look back on that era of baseball and accept the official history, which says that big-time game fixing started and ended with the Black Sox (with a Hal Chase or a Lee Magee sprinkled in for those who happen to look closely). Or we can examine history's fringes for clues about what's been omitted intentionally from the official story.

Skeptics will, no doubt, wonder how baseball's magnates could pull off such an extended hoax, how officials and players of the game could allow such a problem to blossom without exposing it or cutting it off altogether. The answer is simple: they were making money. Dragging the game down with gambling scandals made no sense for owners. Prosperity tends to provide a pretty big blind spot. We see that in today's game. Baseball is currently in the midst of a two-decade Steroid Era, and there is no question that the higher-ups of the game have known about and ignored deadly drug abuse over the past 20 years. One of the hallmarks of the Steroid Era, though, was that players were hitting tremendous home runs and fans were flocking to ballparks in record numbers. The game's drug problem was known, but owners were making so much money that it was better to simply ignore it.

We can put baseball's gambling problem in the early 20th century in the same context as the current performance-enhancing drug problem. Only in recent years have revelations about PEDs become widespread, and though we now have public accusations and evidence against players such as Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, and Roger Clemens, there are likely dozens of players-especially those who played in the 1990s, before the drug problem became widely known-who used performance enhancers but, effectively, got away with it. So it was with gambling in the 1910s. Many simply got away with it. Yes, the 1919 Black Sox got caught, and, yes, Landis made examples of the eight Chicago players and a handful of others. But he did not poke through every game-fixing rumor from the previous 20 years, fearing that he would do too much harm.

Similarly, in December 2007, former senator George Mitch.e.l.l, appointed by commissioner Bud Selig to look into the doping problem in baseball, released his report, naming 89 players accused of using performance enhancers. Far more than 89 players used PEDs, of course, and more names have come out as a result of other investigations. But the Mitch.e.l.l Report was designed to do exactly what Landis and baseball had done 86 years earlier with the gambling problem: to contain it and to shape history favorably.

To believe that the 1919 World Series was the first and only one to be fixed by gamblers is to believe the official history. It would almost be like believing that the 89 players named in the Mitch.e.l.l Report are the only ones to have used PEDs.

So, we can wonder about the 1918 World Series. We can wonder why a private detective would tell White Sox secretary Harry Grabiner that Gene Packard was a "1918 Series fixer" and wonder why Grabiner kept that filed in his journal. We can wonder why Eddie Cicotte would say that the Black Sox figured they could throw the World Series because they'd heard the Cubs did it the year before. We can wonder whether Kid Becker had plans to fix the 1918 World Series and whether he really did abandon those plans. We can wonder what Les Mann meant when he wrote that he "protected your game and my game on three occasions" and why he felt he'd been framed by an ex-teammate.

Most important, though, is that we can picture it. If we really look at the lives of ballplayers in 1918, if we really picture what it was like to walk a mile in their ball caps, then we can see that a fix not only is a possibility but is even understandable and excusable. We can put together long strands of circ.u.mstances that would lead good, levelheaded men to at least consider throwing the '18 World Series-or part of the Series-to get a decent payday before the death of their sport arrived. We know that players felt they had been deceived about the amount of money they'd receive for their partic.i.p.ation in the Series. We know that players were not feeling particularly loyal to the game or to their teams. We know that baseball was not expected to return in 1919 and that whenever the game was taken up again it was not expected to provide the living it previously had. We know that, because of the war, players were soon to be forced into low-paying jobs or sent to the army. We know that players and gamblers mixed freely, that few towns had gambling scenes as active as those in Boston and Chicago, and that fixing a game was an easy task. We know that inflation was ruining the economy, that Americans seemed to be surrounded by an odd mix of violence and repressive morality, that the country was at war and on edge.

An extraordinary set of societal circ.u.mstances. A 1918 World Series fix. A pair of decades-long curses descending on two of baseball's best-loved franchises. It's really not difficult to picture it at all.

NOTES.

CHAPTER 1 1.

1. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, May 10, 1914.2. John McGraw, manager of the Giants, stated as much in an interview reprinted in the November 11, 1920, issue of The Sporting News The Sporting News.3. Sports Ill.u.s.trated Sports Ill.u.s.trated, September 17, 1956.4. Dewey and Acocella, The Black Prince of Baseball The Black Prince of Baseball, p. 248.5. Sports Ill.u.s.trated Sports Ill.u.s.trated, September 17, 1956.6. Stout and Johnson, Red Sox Century Red Sox Century, p. 89.7. Pietrusza, Rothstein Rothstein, p. 151.8. Lieb, Baseball as I Have Known It Baseball as I Have Known It, p. 105.9. New York Times New York Times, October 2, 1920.

10. Lieb, Baseball as I Have Known It Baseball as I Have Known It, p. 131.

11. Pietrusza, Rothstein Rothstein, p. 159.

12. Veeck, The Hustler's Handbook The Hustler's Handbook, p. 296.

CHAPTER 2 2.

1. On his draft registration card, Weeghman listed his residence as the Edgewater Hotel, built in 1916 by John T. Connery and designed by architect Ben Marshall, who also did the Blackstone and the Drake hotels in Chicago.2. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, December 10, 1917. On December 9 the paper reported that "a mysterious telegram arrived" for Weeghman, causing his early departure. Weeghman, "accompanied by Walter Craighead, his private secretary, caught the Twentieth Century."3. If not for Charley Weeghman and the Federal League Whales, the Cubs would likely still be playing on Chicago's West Side, and what we now know as Wrigleyville would be just another North Side neighborhood.4. Personal interview with Reverend Sonny Smith, Weeghman's great-nephew.5. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, April 26, 1914.6. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, January 23, 1916.7. Baseball Magazine Baseball Magazine, May 1916.8. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, March 6, 1916.9. The Sporting News The Sporting News, January 14, 1918.

10. Simon, Deadball Stars of the National League Deadball Stars of the National League, p. 216.

11. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, December 11, 1917.

12. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, December 12, 1917.

13. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, December 11, 1917.

14. Philadelphia Inquirer Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 1917.

15. Veeck, The Hustler's Handbook The Hustler's Handbook, p. 264.

16. Philadelphia Inquirer Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 1917.

17. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, December 3, 1917.

18. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, December 6, 1917.

19. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, December, 21, 1917.

20. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, January 8, 1918.

21. The Sporting News The Sporting News, January 14, 1918.

22. The Sporting News The Sporting News, January 14, 1918.

23. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, August 12, 1920.

CHAPTER 3 3.

1. Levitt, Ed Barrow Ed Barrow, p. 165.2. New York Times New York Times, September 17, 1925.3. Levitt, Ed Barrow Ed Barrow, p. 126.4. Lieb, Baseball as I Have Known It Baseball as I Have Known It, p. 269.5. Sports Today Sports Today, August 1971.6. Ritter, The Glory of Their Times The Glory of Their Times, p. 151.7. Lynch, Harry Frazee, Ban Johnson and the Feud That Nearly Destroyed the American League Harry Frazee, Ban Johnson and the Feud That Nearly Destroyed the American League, p. 42.8. Baseball Magazine Baseball Magazine, March 1919.9. The Sporting News The Sporting News, February 21, 1918.

10. The Sporting News The Sporting News, March 14, 1918.

11. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, December 21, 1917.

12. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, December 21, 1917.

13. New York Times New York Times, January 6, 1918.

14. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, May 17, 1917.

15. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, November 23, 1917.

16. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, November 22, 1917.

17. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, November 23, 1917.

18. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, November 25, 1917.

19. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, March 13, 1918.

20. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, March 24, 1918.

21. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, March 13, 1918.

22. New York Times New York Times, June 5, 1929.

CHAPTER 4 4.

1. Boston Globe Boston Globe, March 23, 1918.2. This section is a tribute to Boston Globe Boston Globe reporter Ed Martin, one of the funnier writers on any baseball beat, whose spring training stories were especially witty. Many of the Barrow stories here come from Martin's coverage of the spring of 1918. He wrote on March 23 that "Leonard had his first workout today. He wore a rubber s.h.i.+rt, as he has some poundage to leave here." The March 21 edition of reporter Ed Martin, one of the funnier writers on any baseball beat, whose spring training stories were especially witty. Many of the Barrow stories here come from Martin's coverage of the spring of 1918. He wrote on March 23 that "Leonard had his first workout today. He wore a rubber s.h.i.+rt, as he has some poundage to leave here." The March 21 edition of The Sporting News The Sporting News commented, "A rubber s.h.i.+rt is said to induce perspiration. Some knocker who has studied physics and physiology may contend that the rubber s.h.i.+rt merely prevents evaporation, but a ball player who wears one knows a whole lot better.... For the information of the young and uninformed, it may be explained here that a red flannel unders.h.i.+rt keeps away rheumatism. There is something in the color that does it. A white flannel unders.h.i.+rt doesn't do the work." commented, "A rubber s.h.i.+rt is said to induce perspiration. Some knocker who has studied physics and physiology may contend that the rubber s.h.i.+rt merely prevents evaporation, but a ball player who wears one knows a whole lot better.... For the information of the young and uninformed, it may be explained here that a red flannel unders.h.i.+rt keeps away rheumatism. There is something in the color that does it. A white flannel unders.h.i.+rt doesn't do the work."3. According to the March 24 edition of the Boston Globe Boston Globe, Ruth, "gave a party" on the train and sang that song.4. Boston Post Boston Post, March 25, 1918.5. Boston Globe Boston Globe, March 25, 1918: "Every ball player in the park said [the homer] was the longest drive they had ever seen."6. Boston Globe Boston Globe, March 25, 1918. Barrow told Mays not to throw hooks, "but Carl declared he could not resist the desire to bend a few."7. Boston Globe Boston Globe, March 26, 1918. Leonard's exact words, though not spoken to Barrow.8. Boston Post Boston Post, March 13, 1918.9. Boston Globe Boston Globe, March 27, 1918. "As manager Barrow was walking in," Martin wrote, "a car full of athletes pa.s.sed him and shouted, 'You are good for a couple more blocks.'"

10. The Sporting News The Sporting News, February 21, 1918.

11. Boston Globe Boston Globe, March 20, 1918.

12. Boston Post Boston Post, March 14, 1918.

13. Ritter, The Glory of Their Times The Glory of Their Times, p. 243.

14. Ritter, The Glory of Their Times The Glory of Their Times, p. 144.

15. Boston Globe Boston Globe, March 25, 1918.

16. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, April 11, 1918.

17. The Sporting News The Sporting News, March 7, 1918.

18. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, April 11, 1918.

19. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, April 5, 1918.

20. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, April 6, 1918.

21. The interview is part of the Asinof papers, held by the Chicago History Museum.

22. Maharg's links to the Phillies are explored at philadelphiaathletics.org/history/linktocubs.htm.

23. Veeck, The Hustler's Handbook The Hustler's Handbook, p. 263.

24. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1921.

CHAPTER 5 5.

1. Alexander would later call Hornsby the greatest batter he ever faced.2. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, April 27, 1918.3. This was standard soldier's pay during the war. A photograph of Alexander ran in the May 9, 1918, edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch St. Louis Post-Dispatch, showing him in his uniform looking over his cot and blankets, under the headline "Private Alexander Taking First Slant at 'Props' of New $30 Job."4. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, March 21, 1918. Alexander and Wrigley "went to the home of Douglas Fairbanks to appear with the movie star in some pictures for the benefit of the submarine base at San Pedro."5. This was an actual Red Cross poster, one of many wartime posters that hung on posts around the country.6. Chicago Tribune Chicago Tribune, April 17, 1918.7. New York Times New York Times, April 14, 1918.8. Lincoln [Nebraska] Daily Star Lincoln [Nebraska] Daily Star, April 6, 1917.9. New York Times New York Times, April 6, 1917.

10. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, April 6, 1918.

11. Willmott, World War I World War I, p. 161.

12. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, April 6, 1918.

13. New York Times New York Times, August 23, 1918.

14. Farwell, Over There Over There, p. 134.

15. Boston Globe Boston Globe, April 7, 1918.

16. Chicago Daily News Chicago Daily News, April 12, 1918.