[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

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 Sporting Life and Sporting News reports.

In 1904 the A.L.-N.L."World Series" was by no means a standard or traditional affair, having been played exactly once.
As I quoted above, McGraw and Brush were challenged 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.)

Does the idea that McGraw would not risk losing to the team he had previously gutted (Read "Joe McGinnity," et. al.) really seem that farfetched to you?

And if you would have read just a bit more carefully you might 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 was not responding to you. (it's not all about you, Ted.)