1904....McGraw's World Series"curse" on Boston

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>In a current "post-war" O/T thread this discussion came up and I think it deserves a thread of it's<br /> own. As, it is a worthwhile pre-war event in BB history that has not been fully appreciated.<br /><br />In 1904 John McGraw put the "1st Curse" on the Boston Americans by refusing to play them in the<br /> World Series. He stated that the Boston Pilgrims were not worthy of playing his Giants in the World<br /> Series; and, proclaimed his NY Giants as the World Champs. My take on this is that he did not want<br /> to face the likes of CYoung, Bill Dineen and Jessie Tannehill that year; and, risk losing to all his glory<br /> to the hated AL prez....Ban Johnson. McGraw's vendetta against Ban Johnson stems from Johnson's<br /> rejection of McGraw's request to be Manager of the NY Highlanders in 1902.<br /><br />1904 was the year Jack Chesbro won his yet unequalled 41 games for the NY Highlanders. So I'll fast-<br />forward to the last day of the 1904 season....Oct 10th. Chesbro is chosen to pitch the "do or die" 1st<br /> game of a double-header vs Boston's Bill Dineen. In the 9th inning the score is 2-2. With 2 outs (Lou<br /> Criger on 3rd) and a 0-2 count on Fred Parent (who Chesbro had struck out twice that day), Chesbro <br />commits the "ultimate sin"....he fails to simply "waste" the next pitch to Parent and delivers a wild one. <br />Criger scores the winning run and Boston wins the AL pennant.<br /><br />Call it the McGraw "curse" or "hex"; but, it wasn't just him that would not respect....not only Boston's<br /> wishes....but the wishes of 1000's of New Yorkers who petitioned the NL to play the World Series. The <br />other culprits were Brush (Giant's owner) and Pulliam (NL prez.) that supported McGraw.<br /><br /> The entire 1904 season is fascinating and well documented....I recommend "The Year They Called Off<br /> the World Series", by Benton Stark.<br /><br />Finally, 100 years later in 2004 the Red Sox were World Champs....after a full century, the ghost of<br /> McGraw no longer haunts them.<br /><br />And yes, during Ruth's tenure with Boston (1914-19), the McGraw "curse" was ineffective....Ruth was<br /> that powerful.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p> Hey Ted,the Red Sox won the 1912 world series over McGraw's Giants

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>Ted,<br /><br />I have read that there was quite a debate on whether it was a wild pitch or a pass ball by Red Kleinow. Ironically, Red Kleinow would be traded to the Red Sox.<br /><br />Patrick

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>The only people who ever argued that it was a passed ball, rather than a wild pitch, were Chesbro, and after his death, his wife. The <i>New York Times</i> reported that <br /><br />"Boston scored the winning run in the ninth on a base hit by Criger, Dineen’s sacrifice, Selbach’s out [which advanced Criger to third], and Chesbro’s wild pitch. <br /><br />Years later, Chesbro stated that<br /><br />"I knew we had to win that game, and I was working the spit ball over the outside corner. Parent was working for a base-on-balls, and he kept poking the ball foul. The count was 2 and 2, and I decided to put something extra on the ball. I wound up and changed from side arm to overhead. The ball carried like a fast ball and Kleinow missed it. They said it was a wild pitch, and I’ll let it go at that. But I think the ball might have been caught."<br /><br />In a 1940s interview with *Sporting Life,* New York shortstop Kid Elberfeld stated that the ball went so far over Kleinow's head "he would have needed a stepladder to catch it."<br /><br />Here is what may be the only surviving scorecard from that game:<br /><br /><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/1904cover.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/1904scorecard.jpg"><br /><br />And here is a 1901 Pirates reunion ball I won at today's Hunt Auction. Happy Jack's rare signature appears between those of Honus Wagner and Jess Tanehill.<br /><br /><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/396.jpg"><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>As I stated before, McGraw refused to play a post season series with the winner of the A.L. pennant, "whomever that may have been.* At the time McGraw and Giant's owner John T. Brush announced the decision, the hated New York American League Club was leading the A.L. pennant race, and McGraw was not going to risk losing to them. He and Brush had fought hard to keep the team out of New York, and the A.L. was only able to place a team in Manhattan when they found owners--Frank Farrell and ex police chief "Big Bill" Devery, who were as politically well-connected (and as corrupt) as Brush.<br /><br />On October 3, Highlander President Joseph Gordon sent the following challange to Brush:<br /><br />“New York, Oct. 3, 1904<br /><br />“John T. Brush, Esq., President New York National League Club<br /><br />“Dear Sir: In behalf of the Greater New York Baseball Club of the American League, I hereby challenge the New York National League Club to play a series of seven games for the world’s championship in the event of the winning of the American League pennant by the Greater New Yorks. In view of a general popular demand in the interest of true sportsmanship, I believe that such a series should be arranged forthwith.<br />“As far as the Greater New York Club is concerned, gate receipts cut an insignificant figure. The New York public which has supported the game loyally through years of vicissitudes, is entitled to consideration, and the time has now arrived, in my estimation, when this support should be rewarded by the playing of a series that will be memorable in baseball history.<br />“The American League won the title of world’s champions when the Bostons defeated the Pittsburgs last year. If the Greater New Yorks defeat the Bostons in the American League race, we will have a right to defend the title. If you wish to prove to the baseball public that the New York Nationals are capable of winning these added laurels from the Greater New Yorks, we will pave the way. The responsibility will rest upon you, Mr. Brush, to accept or decline this fair, square proposition, made in the interests of the national sport.<br />“In stipulating the number of games to be played, we would suggest that three be played at the Polo Grounds, three at American League Park, and the place of the seventh, if it becomes necessary to play it, to be decided by the toss of a coin, the winner of four games to be the champions of the world.<br /><br />“Very truly yours,<br />Joseph Gordon <br /> “President, Greater New York Baseball Club of the American League.” <br /><br /><br />Of course, McGraw could not refuse to play only his cross-town rivals, so he claimed that the A.L. was a minor league, and that the Giants would not stoop to playing the winner of a minor league pennant. A few days later, when Chesbro's wild pitch delivered the pennant to Boston, it was just too bad for the Pilgrims--McGraw could not play them without making his real reason for refusing known.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Even Chesbro didn't argue very strongly that it was a passed ball. In a January 22, 1905 <i>Boston Post</i> article, he told a reporter<br /><br />"It's an old, old story. I have thought it over and over. I don't believe I will ever forget it. You were there when I made that wild pitch, and in all New York I don't believe there was a more sorrowful individual...<br />"How did I make that wild pitch? How does any pitcher make one? I used a spit ball, but the spit ball had nothing to do with it. I simply put too much force into the throw... It hit the grand stand, and it's a long story of what happened. We lost the pennant, but this year we will win it."<br /><br />It wasn't until many years later it became a passed ball in Chesbro's mind.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>David<br /><br />You subjective mind is apparently reading "strange things" into what I have posted here.<br /><br />What I am saying is that McGraw (and Co.) were not going to play Boston (or the Highlanders) for several reasons....<br /><br />Having won the NL pennant in mid Sept. of 1904, the Giants went on a terrible slide in the remaining 2 weeks of the season.<br />McGraw was very concerned that this would affect the Giants performance in the World Series against an AL team that had <br />momentum going into the World Series. <br /><br />Furthermore, McGraw and Brush had seen the Giants' attendance drop to less then 1000, while the Highlanders were enjoy-<br />ing record NY crowds, approaching 30,000 fans at Hilltop Park. And, yor statement that the Highlanders were "comfortably"<br />ahead of Boston is incorrect.<br /><br />McGraw's "paranoia" that Ban Johnson's AL team (whichever one) could possibly beat his Giants and vindicate Johnson's decision<br /> not to select McGraw to manage the Highlanders was so intense that it overwhelmed his better judgement.<br /><br />I could go on and on describing the mindset of McGraw those last two weeks of the 1904 season to explain his actions and <br />comments to to press....but, I will leave it up to anyone that is really interested, to read the books written on this subject.<br /><br />And, I didn't say Chesbro's pitch was a "PASSED BALL"....will you start to objectively read and comprehend what I have posted ?<br /><br />As to you David....you apparently are a "kiljoy". I posted this thread to engage in a meaningful and thought-provoking discussion.<br />And, all you can contribute to it is negative commentary.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Greg Theberge</b><p>The 1904 Boston Americans...<br /><br /><img src="http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z192/HiNeighbor_2007/IMG_1309-2.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p><img src="http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/jacklitsch1/Paper%20and%20Supplements/Champions.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>Hey Ted,<br /><br />I brought pass ball into the conversation on my first post when I mentioned that I had read where there had been discussions on whether the pitch was wild or a pass ball.<br /><br />Patrick

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Ted, you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I have not only read Stark's book, as you have recommended, but I have read, very, very carefully (as research for a book in progress) the original New York and Boston newspaper reports, as well as the original <i>Sporting Life</i> and <i>Sporting News</i> reports.<br /><br />In 1904 the A.L.-N.L."World Series" was by no means a standard or traditional affair, having been played exactly <i>once</i>.<br />As I quoted above, McGraw and Brush were <i>challenged</i> by New York (Boston had absolutely nothing to do with it) to play a post season series for the "championship of the world." ("Meaningful and thought-provoking discussion"? I'll leave it up to the readers.)<br /><br />Does the idea that McGraw would not risk losing to the team he had previously gutted (Read "Joe McGinnity," et. al.) really seem <i>that</i> farfetched to you?<br /><br />And if you would have read just a bit more carefully you <i>might</i> have seen that the question of an historical argument regarding Chesbro's wild pitch/passed ball had been brought up, and I was simply adding what I thought was some meaningful discussion. I <i>was not</i> responding to you. (it's not all about you, Ted.)<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>Here's my one-and-only W601--the 1903 New York Americans:<br /><br /><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/1903NYAW601.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You are damn right it's not about me.....there are enough people on this board that know when I initiate threads on here it is<br /> about the subject matter....period.<br /><br />It was you (on another thread) that switched the subject to being "about me" with your unkindly criticism. Why don't you learn<br /> that you can be critical in a kindly manner.<br /><br />This is not the 1st time I have been the subject of your "criticism" and I don't participate on this forum to put up with that kind<br /> unecessary crap.<br /><br />If you want to discuss a subject in a civil manner....great. You said you are writing a book on this subject and that's fine. The 1904<br /> season fascinates me (as does a lot of other BB history) and I'll look forward to reading your book. But, you should try to be more<br />mature in your criticisms of others on this Net. Perhaps, you don't realize how condescending you come across.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>What the hell are you talking about, Ted? Show me one instance--one--where I haven't been civil.<br />You're all bent out of shape because I said you were wrong? <br />Unfortunately, there's absolutely no contemporary evidence-- <i>none</i> --that John J. McGraw "cursed" the Red Sox.<br />And perhaps an apology is in order for your absurd accusation that I misread your post re: "a passed ball."<br /><br /><br />(One more thing. Regardless of what you choose to believe, your "Ruth" is a forgery. If you interpret that as criticism of you personally, well, what can I say?<br />Tell ya what. You send that Ruth piece to either Jimmy Spence or PSA. If it passes, I'll pay the fee. If not, you're SOL. As they say in England, "Can't say fairer than that.")

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>You have a short memory, or as I have said....your "subjective" mind blinds you to statements said,<br /> that don't agree with your ego. I've told you (two times), in my reply to your email; and, also to your <br />skeptical post on Net54. Jimmy Spence looked at it about 10 (or 12) years ago and said the signature<br /> was authentic. This is now the 3rd time you have badgered me about this....what is your problem, man ?<br />Well, THREE STRIKES and now you are OUT. Get off my Thread and stay off any future one....as you<br /> don't appear to add anything positive to the conversation.<br /><br />Regarding your persistent agitation on my "take" regarding the 1904 scenario and McGraw.....only tells<br />us that you are suffering from some kind of "none invented here" syndrome. Since I posted this subject,<br />your constant skepticism speaks loud and clear that you are ticked-off that you didn't (since you are<br /> implying to be an "expert" on this subject).<br /><br />Perhaps, McGraw....Brush....and Pulliam....should have played a "mini-World Series" with Buffalo, the <br />1904 Eastern League Champions. McGraw's fear of losing to Buffalo would not have been as dire as<br /> losing to Boston.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/b1904buffalo.jpg"><br /><br /><br />TED Z collection

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p><i>Your</i> thread? LOL<br /><br />"Sorry. Only board members that agree with me may post on <i>my</i> threads!"<br /><br />I don't add anything positive to the conversation? Really? You mean, for example, that Joe Gordon's challenge, or McGraw's statement, or Chesbro describing his wild pitch are <i>negative</i> contributions?<br /><br />And no one here was interested in seeing a scorecard from the "wild pitch" game? Well, if so, I apologize for my negativity.<br /><br />Oh, wait. I guess since Gordon's challenge made it clear that McGraw was refusing to play the <i>New York</i> club, <i>not</i> Boston, and its appearance on <i>your</i> thread put paid to your erroneous thesis, it <i>was</i> a negative contribution.<br /><br />(And, Ted, put your money (well, my money actually) where your mouth is. Send your "Ruth" to Jimmy. If he vetted it before, he should vet it again, and I'm paying! What are you afraid of?)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>david Atkatz</b><p>Hey, Ted, just read your post re: GWB and the F102.<br /><br />Can you direct us to any documentation proving Shrub was proficient on the '102? How many hours did he have?<br /><br />FYI, Dubya was grounded because <i>he refused</i> to take his physical. Sure sounds like the right stuff to me!<br /><br />(While you were in the USAF, ever here of a form of pilot behavior called "Manifestations of Apprehension"?)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Please stay on topic of this thread.....Please take your last question to a personal email with Ted. Thanks for your understanding......

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Atkatz</b><p>No problem, Leon.