Jump to content

Talk:1919 World Series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black Sox Scandal

[edit]

thank you for helping me with my history project Wikipedia! Who is Mike Jones?? No one has ever claimed Kid Gleason (the White Sox manager) was in on the conspiracy. The first two sentences of this entry read like someone's private goof. Chick Gandil, the first baseman of the White Sox and not the manager, is widely believed to have engineered the conspiracy on the players' side.

User:207.237.215.155 asked this in the Black Sox section: "does anyone have proof of this? sounds like urban legen d to me". Stephen Compall 15:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are asking about is where the term 'Black Sox' comes from, the truth and the myth are quite intermixed at this point. Comiskey was certainly known as very tight man about money, and regularly he would do anything in his power to short his players. The most well known incident of this is when Chicotte, the Sox's ace, was benched (under Comiskey's orders)in 1919 for the final two plus weeks of the season to prevent him from reaching 30 wins which would have kicked in a $10,000 bonus - he ended the season with 29 wins and a $6,000 base salary. The stories of Comiskey forcing his players to pay for their own laundry expenses are true (he commonly forced players to pay many expenses out of their own pockets while on the road), but the 'Black Sox' title does not (as far as I know of) appear until after the 1919 series when Chicago reporters (namely those of the Chicago Herald) began to dig up dirt on the scandal (no pun intended).

This should be merged into the 1919 World Series article, as it doesn't seem to serve an independent purpose. It doesn't explain any of the reasons why the Chicago team had been considered cursed. 160.227.21.41 01:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll change the page I created into a redirect ASAP.Amchow78 20:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago I read an article (I forget where) about the scandal by someone who studied contemporary newspaper accounts of the games and came to the conclusion that BOTH teams were trying to throw the Series (presumably on behalf of two different parties), but the White Sox simply were more successful at it.Alloco1 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read "The Glory of Their Times" by Lawrence Ritter, the account given by Ed Roush, the star centerfielder for the Reds, states that in fact some members of the Reds were approached by gamblers to have them throw some games (including Game 3, which they won). It is a very interesting account, since I had never read anything regarding a possible fix involving players on the Cincinnati Reds team. But Ed Roush's account, while short, is very detailed and believeable. By the way, I highly recommend reading not only the section on Ed Roush, but the whole book; any true fan of the game will find it an extremely pleasurable read - T.J. Swartz

date of start of curse

[edit]

I reverted the change of the start of the curse from 1917 back to 1919. The idea as I've always understood it is that if it hadn't been for the sellout, they would have won in 1919. Thus the curse starts at the moment the deal was struck. They were not cursed in 1918, they just weren't good enough to win the pennant. If you must revert, go ahead--it's hardly a big deal. Chick Bowen 00:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. As fair as it is, I used the "Curse of the Bambino" page as a guide for creating the timeline of the Black Sox curse. In that page, they've put the start of the curse in 1918 ... despite the fact that Babe Ruth was sold to the Yankees in 1920 ... two years after the Red Sox last won the World Series with him. Similarily, I tried following that guideline when I started the date of the Black Sox curse. I'll leave it @ 1919 for now ... and pose this question on the "Curse of the Bambino" discussion page if it hasn't been posed already. Amchow78 03:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After posing the question on the "Curse of the Bambino" discussion page, they've changed the start date of their curse from 1918 to 1920. With that as a precedent setter, it looks like 1919 will stick as the year that the Curse of the Black Sox started. Amchow78 01:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, however, that the White Sox won 88 games in 1919, the Reds 95, a seven-game difference. Also that Edd Roush, the Reds' Hall-of-Fame right fielder and (I think) the last surviving player from this Series on either side, swore until his death in 1988 that the Reds would still have won the Series had the whole thing been on the level. That could have just been pride in his team, but he was the last man involved who had some understanding of what was really going on -- on the field, anyway. -- Pacholeknbnj, 2:00 PM EST, January 28, 2006

Who is Mike Jones? No one has ever claimed Kid Gleason was in on the conspiracy. The first two sentences of this entry read like someone's private goof. Chick Gandil, the first baseman of the White Sox and not the manager, is widely believed to have engineered the conspiracy on the players' side.

I deleted the curse section. No Sox fan talked about a curse. Even the Chicago media never acknowledged a curse. Sox fans never believed in one. We just believed that we had crappy management. Curses are excuses for idiots like Red Sox and Cub fans.

I think the curse section should be left in, and I've restored it. I'm sure very few people truly believe there's some sort of curse affecting the White Sox, Red Sox, or Cubs, but such stories and superstitions are part of baseball and deserve a mention. Just because there's no actual curse doesn't mean there's no Curse story. PaulGS 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Black Sox?

[edit]

What about a section detailing the 2005 World Series, and the presumed end of the "curse?" Realbrvhrt 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's covered now -Elmer Clark 06:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse

[edit]

What exactly is the basis for having a section on the "curse". The information included appears to be more trivial in nature. I would suggest that the section gets moved to trivia and can be summed up in one sentence. A full description of what happened in the games does not seem beneficial.Tecmobowl 21:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the lore, just like so many other superstitions in baseball. It's something hardly anyone takes seriously, but baseball, more so than other sports, is about its history, and the supposed curse is part of that. PaulGS 10:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this section back yet again, since I still see no reason for removing it. Just because it isn't something to be taken seriously doesn't mean it doesn't belong. PaulGS 05:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article on the Black Sox Scandal. This is about the World Series, not the circumstances surrounding it. If you want to talk about adding content like this, please try and get some input from others before doing so. Tecmobowl 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the section. It was there for a while, got removed (see the discussion above), and then I restored it. Maybe Black Sox Scandal is a better place for it. I could suggest getting input from others before removing it, but nobody else has commented on the section in a while. PaulGS 02:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

I see no reason to have separate articles for the Series and the Black Sox Scandal. Vidor 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree wholeheartedly. The Scandal and the series are not one in the same. The article about the 1919 World Series is to communicate the events of the series. The article about the Black Sox Scandal is to communicate the events and experiences surrounding the series. While there is some over lap, these are two separate issues. Similarly, there is an article for The Catch and another article for the 1954 World Series. // Tecmobowl 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: Tecmobowl is absolutely correct. In addition to what he said above, thre is a whole series of articles on {year} World Series. If this page were merged into the Black Sox Scandal page, should the template that connects all of the World Series pages be changed for this one series? Should the 1998 Series page be merged into the earthquake page (I think that was the year, wasn't it?)? --Ohms law 17:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all are nuts. First, the articles should be merged under THIS article, the article for the 1919 World Series. I am not proposing removing this article from the list of World Series articles; that would be silly. (Removed the "merge" recommendation from this article, to reflect that.) The scandal and the Series are the same; the scandal was about fixing the Series, the scandal as executed was the fix of the Series, and the aftermath of the scandal was the aftermath of the Series. I entered "1919 World Series" into the search engine the other day, and was amazed to see very little about the fix--just a dry list of box scores, essentially. Vidor 19:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:NPA before making any comments on the topic at hand. // Tecmobowl 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that makes more sense. The confusion comes from how you listed the merge request. There is a way to say "another page should be merged to this one", like this: {{mergefrom|SOURCE PAGE}} would be placed on this page, and {{mergeto|DESTINATION PAGE}} would be placed on the other page (Black Sox scandal, in this instance). I still think it's a bad idea though. Each topic is distinct in it's own right. There should be a short sub-section here with a paragraph about the Black Sox scandal, and a link to the full article, though. --Ohms law 08:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Series Template

[edit]

Earlier, I added the (aparently) newer {{WorldSeriesRt}} picker, and hid the older {{WorldSeries}} picker. Information on the newer picker's page indicated that it matches the form of other pickers, and I tend to agree with the author Schweiwikist (talk · contribs) that it looks better. I added the {{WorldSeriesRt}} to many other world series pages, but I'll hold of on changing any more if the change is controversial at all and is just going to be reverted. All the pages should be the same is all, so which picker should we be using? --Ohms law 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i must have missed that when i was looking in the edit history. Sorry! My personal preference would be to reserve the top of the article for information about to the specific world series. I would think an infobox about the series itself, or some imagery relating to the series would be the best thing to put up in the introduction area. If you feel strongly that the template should be placed at he top, please feel free to put it back. // Tecmobowl 08:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree about the top ought to be being used for info specific to the series. The infobox does go along the side though, so that the top and right should still be available for imagry. Infobox's tend to be pretty cooperative, from what i've seen elsewhere. Anyway, i'll go ahead and put it back. Just didn't want to start any sort of "edit war", you know? --Ohms law 09:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now there is no alternative template so i can't really complain. Certainly the fact that you started the subject here shows you have no interest in an edit war. Let's see how this develops and go from there. // Tecmobowl 10:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, in regards to alternatives. If you or anyone else knows anything about CSS, I was attempint to copy the system used on the {{MLBAllStarGame}} template so that the infobox could be hidden. I didn't have any luck getting it to look right though, so if you or anyone else could lend assistance it'd be great. --Ohms law 14:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look at it when i get a chance. I'll see if I can't help you out. I know css and such, but i've never touched a template on here. // Tecmobowl 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Burns?

[edit]

Article makes reference 3 times to someone named "Burns" but there is no explanation on who this person is or even their full name.

Baseball assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1919 World Series/CommentsBB, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

With inline citations and a little expansion, this could be B-class - Mattingly23 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Issues with second paragraph

[edit]

There are some issues with statements made in the second paragraph of this article. One sentence reads "The 1919 World Series was the last World Series to take place without a Commissioner of Baseball in place." However, the Wikipedia "Kenesaw Mountain Landis" article states he became commissioner on November 12, 1920. Obviously this took place after the 1920 World Series was played. Another sentence states "In August 1920, seven players from the White Sox were banned from organized baseball for fixing the series (or having knowledge about the fix)." According to the Wikipedia "Black Sox Scandal" article eight players (not seven) were banned by Commissioner Landis on August 3, 1921 (not August 1920). Bunkyray5 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game 9?

[edit]

Where and when would Game #9 have been played? The article doesn't even mention it. CFLeon (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1919_World_Series&oldid=1240991026"