Since it wasn’t honest play on the field. The fans need to know, don’t they?
The Game 1 box could in part look like this:
Chicago White Sox AB R H RBI
S. Collins rf 4 0 1 0
E. Collins 2b 4 0 1 0
*Weaver 3b 4 0 1 0
*Jackson lf 4 1 0 0
*Felsch cf 3 0 0 0
*Gandil 1b 4 0 2 1
*Risberg ss 2 0 0 0
Schalk c 3 0 0 0
*Cicotte p 1 0 0 0
Wilkinson p 1 0 0 0
*McMullin ph 1 0 1 0
Lowdermilk p 0 0 0 0
Totals 31 1 6 1
PITCHING
Chicago White Sox IP H R ER BB SO
*Cicotte L(0-1) 3.2 7 6 6 2 1
Wilkinson 3.1 5 2 1 0 1
Lowdermilk 1 2 1 1 1 0
Totals 8 14 9 8 3 2
Would this provide a more accurate record of baseball history, tossing in some extraneous punctuation?
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I like the idea of denoting it’s place in history that is for sure but I am not sure the asterisks is the right way to do it. I felt it was a great decision to finally remove the asterisks from Roger Maris after he had passed away and wish it had been done in his lifetime. I think I see where you are headed though, we need to have some way to distinguish that this World Series was nothing more than a glorified exhibition…in my opinion that should not be celebrated with the same zest and the many other great World Series. Although it should be discussed much more than it is; something like this is still lying right there as something that could happen again. With today’s players making as much as they are and blowing money as fast as they do, I could see a few of them getting hard up for money at the wrong time and thinking that this would be an easy way to fix all their problems.
I sense sarcasm, but I say no.
Who knows, maybe the Reds would have won anyway.
Well, the asterisk has never really been used. It’s a legendary mark, not a functional one. People calling for it here there and everywhere aren’t thinking tidily enough if you ask me.
I’ve never liked any talk of asterisks in any record book.
Truly intelligent fans, and probably even most of the less intelligent ones, know that the 1919 Series was fixed.
And those who are too ignorant to have ever heard the story probably would have no clue what the asterisk indicated anyway, and probably couldn’t care one way or the other.
And the apologists would simply use the famous "Joe Jackson hit .375 in the Series" as proof that it wasn’t fixed anyway.
Put more simply – "No."
(But I am actually guessing that you are asking this to make a point about all of the folks who call for these asterisks for everything from Barry Bonds’ records because of the steroid issue to Babe Ruth’s records because he never played against any black ballplayers)
I’m not sure, they don’t put asterisks next to records like Barry Bonds do they?
Also, what did those players do? Can you add additional comments cause I don’t know much on the subject.
To Fox: They were the players who took money and threw the World Series, the infamous ‘Black Sox.’
As to Chipmaker: Sure, let’s add more punctuation. But why settle for asterisks? Why not put exclamation points next to the ‘unbreakable’ records, and question marks next to those we THINK were on something but haven’t yet been caught?
how can we be sure Cincinnati wouldn’t have won anyway? Why put an * on the Reds world series for something a few of the Black Sox did?
Ha..
Well with that reasoning, yes, here should be asterisks. However, if there are steroid asterisks, you may need a different form of punctuation, because it’s two different forms of cheating.
Unless, of course, you’re suggesting using asterisks just to note "unfair play". Then that last step is unnecessary.
*one addition, it’s not a matter if the Reds would win or not, it’s a matter that there was some unfair business going down*