PDA

View Full Version : Question For The Serious White Sox Historian


Moses_Scurry
02-07-2002, 11:46 AM
I just happened to catch the last half of "Eight Men Out" the other day, and was wondering something. During the 1919 World Series, where was Red Faber?? I know he was a perennial 20 game winner with huge seasons in 1917 and 1920, yet his name is nowhere in the 1919 series box scores. And, he wasn't mentioned once in the movie. Was he off to war? Was he injured? I'm just curious.

CiscoCarlos
02-07-2002, 12:03 PM
Recurring arm trouble sidelined him for much of the 1919 season. He was on the bench with a bout of the flu during the Black Sox World Series.

Several reports have Faber celebrating with the "Clean Sox" such as Schalk and Kerr at Loop nightspots the evening the eight suspensions were made.

Kilroy
02-07-2002, 12:05 PM
Injured. He appeared in 25 games that season, but by the time the series came round, he was sidelined w/ arm troubles. He did miss most of the 1918 season in the navy...


Damn, just a hair slow...

CiscoCarlos
02-07-2002, 12:27 PM
Maybe I had too high of expecations, but that film really dissapointed me. Elliot Asinof's book was great, you couldn't ask for a better cast for that era, but the picture itself was so damn plodding -- almost like a BBC series.

The critics loved it, but it would have been a little more effective if they somehow made use of the old Comiskey Park in the film (although I know it looked quite different in 1988 than 1917) I know Comiskey looked quite different in 1988 than 1917, but the bland backdrop they used (which I think was Buffalo's minor league stadium) added nothing to a film that depended a lot on atmosphere. Plus, the portrayal of Comiskey himself was so stereotypical that he didn't resemble a true human being.

As it is, the whole atmosphere of the film really had nothing to do with Chicago itself, but with the director's preconceived notion of corporate America at that time.

Moses_Scurry
02-07-2002, 12:33 PM
Some of the actions in the movie were waaaaay to obvious, such as Chick Gandil's half-assed running to second base. I have a hard time believing that they were that obvious in real life. Otherwise, there would have been no question that the fix was in.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-07-2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by CiscoCarlos
Maybe I had too high of expecations, but that film really dissapointed me. Elliot Asinof's book was great, you couldn't ask for a better cast for that era, but the picture itself was so damn plodding -- almost like a BBC series.

The critics loved it, but it would have been a little more effective if they somehow made use of the old Comiskey Park in the film (although I know it looked quite different in 1988 than 1917) I know Comiskey looked quite different in 1988 than 1917, but the bland backdrop they used (which I think was Buffalo's minor league stadium) added nothing to a film that depended a lot on atmosphere. Plus, the portrayal of Comiskey himself was so stereotypical that he didn't resemble a true human being.

As it is, the whole atmosphere of the film really had nothing to do with Chicago itself, but with the director's preconceived notion of corporate America at that time.

John Sayles used Bush Field in Indianapolis for both the Comiskey Park scenes as well as Redland Field. I'm not sure if that ballpark still exists. Indy opened a whole new ballpark (Victory Field) for their AAA team a few years ago--the nicest minor league ballpark I've ever been to.

I agree the movie is too plodding, however it is very true to Asinof's novel. For a more balanced treatment of the scandal, I'm sure several others here could recommend better references than Eight Men Out. Asinof's version of events makes several leaps of faith.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-07-2002, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Moses_Scurry
Some of the actions in the movie were waaaaay to obvious, such as Chick Gandil's half-assed running to second base. I have a hard time believing that they were that obvious in real life. Otherwise, there would have been no question that the fix was in.

The action sequences in Eight Men Out are some of the worst I've ever seen in a modern motion picture. I'm reminded of Gary Cooper swinging a bat in Pride of the Yankees for just how bad it is.

Sayles was in a tough spot. The story line required actors with acting ability (thus the use of guys like Cusack, Sweeney, and Sheen), but there wasn't one of them that had a lick of talent for playing their positions. Cusack (the Cubs fan) is especially bad trying to swing a bat. Why am I not surprised? :smile:

Studs Terkel playing Hugh Fullerton was pretty bad, too. Talk about stereotypes!

In defense of Sayles, it is a fact Fullerton and Ring Lardner were suspicious about individual players based on those specific plays in the '19 World Series. Obviously something these players did was apparent to their trained eyes.

Cheryl
02-07-2002, 01:26 PM
I love that movie, but then I like stuff from the BBC too.

George is right though (as always) in calling Asinoff's book a novel. Asinoff is not an historian, he's a novelist, and that shows in the book. Too bad it's considered the source of record for a lot of people.

Here's a bibliography of sources (though they too, list Eight Men Out) from the Chicago Historical Society.

http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox/blkbibli.html

duke of dorwood
02-07-2002, 01:29 PM
:nardi

Hey, dont blame me for Faber's sore arm

moochpuppy
02-07-2002, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
I love that movie, but then I like stuff from the BBC too.

George is right though (as always) in calling Asinoff's book a novel. Asinoff is not an historian, he's a novelist, and that shows in the book. Too bad it's considered the source of record for a lot of people.

Here's a bibliography of sources (though they too, list Eight Men Out) from the Chicago Historical Society.

http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox/blkbibli.html

Shoeless Joe and Ragtime Baseball is a must read. More historical than Eight Men Out.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-07-2002, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
George is right though (as always) in calling Asinoff's book a novel. Asinoff is not an historian, he's a novelist, and that shows in the book. Too bad it's considered the source of record for a lot of people.

Here's a bibliography of sources (though they too, list Eight Men Out) from the Chicago Historical Society.

http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox/blkbibli.html

Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes I stake out a controversial position just to see how far the argument will go (like yesterday's blue seats discussion). However, I was totally serious about Asinof's novel. In fact, my ancient copy of the book actually refers to itself as "a baseball novel". I'm endlessly amazed how many people think its the definitive work on the events surrounding the 1919 World Series.

I admit I should read more on the subject. However, I do think there are some critical points everyone agrees upon.

1. All the accused Sox players were ACQUITTED of criminal charges. They were never convicted of anything.

2. In spite of the acquittal, Landis had all eight of them banned from baseball.

3. The confessions allegedly signed by Cicotte and Jackson were lost by the grand jury and never presented as evidence in trial. When they were "recovered" years later (suspiciously used against Jackson by Comiskey in a suit the ballplayer made to recover back wages), the documents could only be dismissed as hearsay--since they could no longer be certified as authentic by the court.

4. There were several suspicious performances in the '19 World Series. Joe Jackson's and Buck Weaver's were not amongst them.

5. Unlike an impartial judge or jury, 100 percent of Landis' authority was derived by MLB owners. As commissioner, he received 100 percent of his compensation from the owners, and in fact was hand-picked by the owners to represent "the best interests of baseball". We can debate how much Landis represented the sport's best interests vs. simply the owners' best interests, but clearly he had no financial stake in representing any of the ballplayers' interests--least of all the 8 acquitted Sox ballplayers.

6. We should all hope none of us is ever to forced to defend ourselves in front of such a kangaroo court of inquiry as what Landis constituted.

Now how reasonable is that? :smile:

Paulwny
02-07-2002, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by CiscoCarlos
bland backdrop they used (which I think was Buffalo's minor league stadium) added nothing to a film that depended a lot on

"The Natural" was filmed in Buffalo's beloved "Rock Pile" known as Veterans Stadium.

Moses_Scurry
02-07-2002, 02:09 PM
I think that if they did it, then the punishment was deserved. However, Cub fans and others who give White Sox fans grief about it are similar to giving Cleveland Brown fans grief about throwing beer on the field. With the crap money the players made back then and the absence of video cameras and other technology, I guarentee that the Black Sox weren't the first players to do it or the last players to do it. They were just the only ones who got caught. I bet that sort of thing went on constantly during regular season games, but this being the World Series kinda sets it apart from the regular season.

Cheryl
02-07-2002, 03:06 PM
They weren't even the only ones who got caught. Hal Chase was banned from baseball prior to (or maybe immediately after) '19 for throwing games to benefit himself and gamblers. There was a Louisville team in the 19th Century (either NL or in the old National Association) that was booted out of the league for the same reason. There's even some people who believe Tris Speaker and someone else (Ty Cobb?) were given the option to retire when they did rather than face the same sorts of allegations.

Now I'm going to have to go look all of this up. I'm not going to get anything done at work today at all.

Cheryl
02-07-2002, 03:14 PM
This didn't take long:

http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2001/0730/1233060.html

czalgosz
02-07-2002, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
They weren't even the only ones who got caught. Hal Chase was banned from baseball prior to (or maybe immediately after) '19 for throwing games to benefit himself and gamblers. There was a Louisville team in the 19th Century (either NL or in the old National Association) that was booted out of the league for the same reason. There's even some people who believe Tris Speaker and someone else (Ty Cobb?) were given the option to retire when they did rather than face the same sorts of allegations.

Now I'm going to have to go look all of this up. I'm not going to get anything done at work today at all.



Chase and Heinie Zimmerman were both kicked off the Giants after the 1919 season, but it wasn't an official ban. John McGraw believed (and he was probably correct) that they were taking payoffs from gamblers, so he booted them. By that time, their reputations were such that noone else wanted them.

It is believed that both Speaker and Cobb took money to throw individual games. In 1926, Tiger pitcher Dutch Leonard claimed that he had proof that he, Smoky Joe Wood, Tris Speaker, and Ty Cobb had made bets on a Indians-Tigers game late in 1919. Speaker and Cobb both retired rather than have that information go to the press. Landis did not want that information become public knowledge.

czalgosz
02-07-2002, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
This didn't take long:

http://espn.go.com/classic/s/2001/0730/1233060.html

D'oh! beat me to it.

MarqSox
02-07-2002, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Moses_Scurry
I think that if they did it, then the punishment was deserved. However, Cub fans and others who give White Sox fans grief about it are similar to giving Cleveland Brown fans grief about throwing beer on the field.

I understand what you're trying to say, that beer throwing and fixing games wasn't only confined to the Browns and Sox. However, bringing the Browns into it is a false anology, IMO.

While it's unfair to blame Sox fans (especially those who weren't even born when it happened) for something the players did, it isn't too much of a stretch to blame Browns fans for something Browns fans really did do.

Nellsin
02-07-2002, 05:54 PM
I seem to recall that Mike Royko used to write that some Uncle or other in the stable of characters he quoted in his columns was a lifelong Sox fan not despite the Black Sox scandal, but because of it -- took a sort of old-school working-class pride in having players that were skilled enough to get to the Series and shrewd enough to find a way to get money out of it since their rotten SOB of a boss wouldn't pay them fairly. No doubt this was meant ironically (I don't think Royko condoned taking a dive) but it was a funny bit, along the lines of how many teams are good enough to get there AND cool enough to throw it?

DrCrawdad
02-08-2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Moses_Scurry
I think that if they did it, then the punishment was deserved. However, Cub fans and others who give White Sox fans grief about it are similar to giving Cleveland Brown fans grief about throwing beer on the field.

Watch Ken Burn's PBS documentary inning one I believe.

The Cubs were intrumental in having blacks barred from baseball.

So what's worse, the so-called Black Sox scandal or the Cubs having blacks barred from the Major Leagues for nearly one hundred years?

Cheryl
02-08-2002, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad


The Cubs were intrumental in having blacks barred from baseball.



Cap Anson in particular was virulent racist who had Moses Fleet Walker kicked out of organized baseball. Walker was the last black man to play in the bigs until Jackie Robinson.

Anson is buried in Oak Wood Cemetary on the South Side if anyone would like to go...pay his respects.

Kilroy
02-08-2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
Anson is buried in Oak Wood Cemetary on the South Side if anyone would like to go...pay his respects.

I think downing a couple of pitchers would help me brew up the proper "respect" for Mr. Anson. I'll have to put that on my to-do list.

The Fleet Walker stuff was quite interesting:

Here's a couple of links for more background:

http://www.theforgottenleagues.com/mosesfleetwoowwalkerPP.htm

http://www.miamisci.org/youth/unity/Unity1/Kareem/pages/FleetWood.html

Cheryl
02-08-2002, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I think downing a couple of pitchers would help me brew up the proper "respect" for Mr. Anson. I'll have to put that on my to-do list.



That's pretty much what I had in mind, Kilroy.

So you don't miss him:
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=2384

AsInWreck
02-08-2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

3. The confessions allegedly signed by Cicotte and Jackson were lost by the grand jury and never presented as evidence in trial. When they were "recovered" years later (suspiciously used against Jackson by Comiskey in a suit the ballplayer made to recover back wages), the documents could only be dismissed as hearsay--since they could no longer be certified as authentic by the court.

:smile:

That's interesting, do you know anything more about that? Did Jackson get any type of settlement? Anything you'd like to share on that I'd like to read.

Cheryl
02-08-2002, 06:11 PM
Jackson never got another dime out of Comiskey from the time he was suspended --towards the end of the 1920 season.

If you don't know anything about the 1920 season, a good book to read is The Pitch that Killed. By late in that season, the Sox and Cleveland and maybe one other team were in a dead heat for the pennant. The Sox folded when 8 players were suspended. Then Cleveland's shortstop, Ray Chapman, was killed when he was beaned by a Yankee pitcher.