The 100th Anniversary of the Black Sox Scandal
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2019
- White Sox historian Richard Lindberg provides an inside glimpse of the Black Sox scandal, its aftermath and its tragic impact on the Southside team. This program was recorded by Chicago Access Network Television (CAN TV).
I really enjoyed this, thank you.
YEA!!!
Famous Chicago historian and has written several books on White Sox. Asinof book really revived the Black Sox story, so he deserves credit for that. Reds very underrated opponent. Actually had much deeper starting pitching than White Sox. Sox really only had three starters - Cicotte, Williams, Kerr. Faber was ill - injured and unavailable. Reds had five starters available.
Interesting and informative - thank you for this
I was born in Princeton, IN. Raised in Oakland City IN, hometown of Edd Roush the HOF 1B of that Cincy team. Gil Hodges was from Princeton
I'm from Bloomington
I'm going to make one tiny correction to the speaker. The 1914 White Sox team that toured Europe played in Stamford Bridge stadium not Wembley.
The original Wembley Stadium wasn't built until 1923.
the speaker was incorrect regarding Kid Gleason. He was captured in 1930 on an interview with Connie Mack in spring training with the Athletics.
Ray Schalk was born in Harvel, not Harvey. Harvel is in Central Illinois between Litchfield and Springfield. Harvey is a suburb of Chicago. Harvel is closer to St. Louis than Chicago. Not the same and not a "local boy", though he did stay in Chicago after he retired. Also, whomever was operating the camera frustrated me because he/she very rarely showed the slides except for a few seconds. Ideally, both would have been in frame during the presentation with Mr, Lindberg off center. Also, they clinched the pennant on September 24, but it was at home, not in St. Louis as the speaker claims. The White Sox won 6-5 via a walk off from Jackson. A Walk off would not clinch the pennant again in the American League for almost 25 years.
Sean , you are so pedantic.
@@fredarcher7264 the town Harvel is very proud to be where he grew up. It is one of the few things they have to be proud of. Sorry that it isn’t important to you but to the residents of Harvel they take this matter seriously. Maybe if the speaker actually did research completely he wouldn’t have to be corrected. He claims to be a subject matter expert, so he should be held to that regard. 🤷♂️
Cicotte is pronounce See-Cot. Eddie Cicotte when asked this wrote it down as See-Cot. Eddie's great nephew Al who played for the Yankees in the 50's pronounced it the same way when asked.
Sounds like and is spelled like a French name.
A very well researched presentation. However, there are some things Mr. Linberg says are off.
1) Regarding the Cincinnati Reds, 1919. Calling them "nowhere near as talented as the White Sox" is an interesting comment. Chicago won only 88 games that year, Cincinnati 96. Calling the Reds inferior is nonesense.
The Reds pitching was FAR superior to the White Sox. Good pitching always beats good hitting. The Reds had FIVE quality starting pitchers. And their bullpen was superb, too.
ERA's of starters
Eller: 2.39
Ruether: 1.82
Sallee: 2.06
Ring: 2.26
Fisher: 2.17
Relievers ERA
Luque: 2.63
Mitchell: 2.32
Bressler: 3.46
Gerner: 3.18
Now, if that's not great pitching, I don't know baseball.
White Sox's starters ERA
Cicotte: 1.82
Williams: 2.64
Faber: 3.83 (Missed entire World Series with flu)
James: 2.52 (But in only five games, all starts)
Kerr: 2.88 (But only started 17 games)
Lowdermilk: 2.79 (But only started eleven games)
Bullpen ERA:
Danforth: 7.78 (Not added to postseason roster)
Mayer: 8.37 (With Chicago)
Wilkinson: 2.05 (Four games pitched)
Sullivan: 4.05 (Five games pitched)
Edge, Cincinnati, says I.
So the Reds had the better pitching by far. Also, the Reds hurlers could even HIT better than there counterparts on Chicago. Kerr hit .250, and that was tops. Meanwhile, Fisher hits .271 in 1919, Eller .280 and even Ruether, .261.
2) Their infield was also better. Catching, Schalk was very good for Chicago, but Ivey Wingo and Bill Rariden were underrated for Cincinnati (Wingo, according to the book "114 World Series In 1 Book" by Scott Morissey, and confirmed by baseball-reference, led both teams in batting average in the 1919 World Series, .571) So, none of this "Joe Jackson led BOTH teams in batting average. False information.
3) Regarding Fred McMullin, he actually helped get the fix going. This, "Heard about it and blackmailed the players into letting him on the plot thing," doesn't jive. My understanding is that McMulliin was friends with Swede Risberg (Both were from California).
4) Buck Weaver. While it's commonly believed that he merely heard about the fix and attended two meetings, Buck actually attended three meetings, including one where money was distributed after game two.
With the exception of McMullin (Who supposedly never talked about the 1919 World Series), some involved in the fix (Cicotte, Williams, Jackson, Risberg, Felsch, and Gandil) and that includes Bill Burns and Billy Maharg, said that Weaver was part of the fix. No one came out and said, "Buck wasn't a part of it." Why should they have? If he was coming to the meetings, why would Weaver not be a part of it?
There IS evident that Buck Weaver got money. A package was sent to his mother-in-law's during the World Series, delivered by Fred McMullin, believed to have money in it. Red Faber said in a 1976 interview
ruclips.net/video/hX7gprNApwk/видео.htmlsi=yraPAj4vhCQ0pOhb&t=109
that Weaver got money. Eddie Collins said that Weaver was crooked. In game one of the World Series, Weaver took a strike on a hit-and-run play which resulted in Collins getting thrown out as second. Same game, Weaver made a bad throw to Chick Gandil at first, that pulled him off the bag in the bottom of the seventh, and the Reds later scored a run. Chicago needed a double play to avert further damage.
ruclips.net/video/VGep0llfn5k/видео.htmlsi=UbFN0-3_LeHplhtP&t=1689
Weaver ended the series with a good batting average, but his hits were not at important times. And at least two of them were sort of flukes. If Joe Jackson, who ended up with six RBIs despite "failing" in the clutch, and Chick Gandil (The ringleader of the fix) had five himself (Including the winning RBI in games 3 and 6, and the only one for Chicago in the opening game), shouldn't Weaver, who was supposedly trying his best at all times AND hit right in front of Jackson, Felsch (3 RBIs himself) and Gandil, have a boatload of RBIs? Buck had, NONE.
Worse still, Mr. Lindberg makes a BIG MISTAKE of mentioning the 1920 season, in which Chicago threw games. That makes the case for Weaver being innocent even WORSE. In games Chicago lost from August 27th to September 24th (These loses, some of which are games that are suspected of being thrown), Buck was 7-50 at the dish (.140 batting average), and had just three RBIs. In the field, he made four errors in those games and only had 13 putouts - in 12 games. Eddie Collins said after the season, "If gamblers didn’t have Weaver and Cicotte in their pocket, then I don’t know anything about baseball." Gandil said in a 1956 Sports Illustrated article that Weaver was certainly in on it.
vault.si.com/vault/1956/09/17/42194#&gid=ci0258c013200726ef&pid=42194---066---image
Having said that, I think the lifetime banishment of Weaver is unjust. Had I been Landis, I'd have banned Weaver for about five seasons, not a lifetime. Jackson, though, I'd have given ten years. I think that it's time to lift the bans of both Weaver and Jackson.
Cicotte didn’t have a $10,000 bonus in his contract for winning 30 games. That’s a myth. He did have a $3,000 bonus, which he received at the end of the season.
You again?
You're gonna get your teeth pulled.
With paper clips.
Fucker.
Wow !
Someone already made a comment on the "$100,000 dollar infield". Eddie Collins went to Columbia, not Princton. One doesn't think of Columbia as baseball nursery, but Collins is one Columbia alumni in the Hall of Fame The others are Gehrig and Koufax. Harding's comment about a "return to normalcy" came from his inaugural address, which believe it or not, our high school English class in Mansfield, Massachusetts had to read as a example of great oratory. And I believe that Harding was an Ohio senator, nor governor. But I liked the lecturer's aside about "weaponizing history".
Hit well in the series but didn’t make hits at important times? The myth of clutch hitting has long been disproven.
Source for your claims the White Sox had the highest team salary in 1919? I see they had the second highest in 1920 ( about 80% that of the Yankees). But 1919 where’s the data? And by 1922 the Sox were only paying about half that of the Yankees.
All these corrections... how much of the book is accurate?
This isn't very accurate. A lot of new info has come out about this since the movie.
I get that I'm a nit when it comes to gambling & movies, But how anyone can think that the signal for the 'fix is on' could possibly be if he hit the 1st batter he faced. That isn't how it works, plus, who is taking bets then?
Eddie Cicotte agreed to the fix when he kept the 10k.
FTR, he did hit the 1st guy he faced, but this is history being rewritten. Also, it was the bottom of the 1st, so it wasn't the 1st batter.
The old Philadelphia A's infield was called the "$100,000 Infield" not the $1,000,000 I!field." He should know better. Also (though perhaps a minor point), but just because someone can sign his own name doesn't prove he was not illiterate.
The speaker stayed” the saint paul saints were rename the
White Stockings” they were not . They have been the White Sox since they got here
The White Stockings he to be the name the Cubs used back then
Eddie Collins went to Colombia. Not Princeton. Basic facts. Gotta get them right. And a basic source like B-Ref shows that club favorite Collins made $15k that year while Joe Jackson was paid only $6k for a season that was considerably more valuable to the team and Jackson was widely considered a more valuable offensive player for many seasons previously. The reserve clause and Jackson’s less skillful (vastly less educated) negotiation against ownership is the only reason for this glaring discrepancy. What are the sources exactly that lead this presenter to his conclusions that contradict Assinof? What NEW DOCUMENTARY sources (since testimony is not really any longer possible) if any were used? These are the things one should be talking about if one is going to present revisionist history, not just a reinterpretion of existing facts. Not a (faulty) Wikipedia style presentation.
What happened to Buck Weaver is a crime by a corrupt judge who became the racist commissioner of baseball.
he was a good and necessary commisioner