{"id":1203,"date":"2009-05-19T06:00:20","date_gmt":"2009-05-19T13:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/2009\/05\/19\/notes-from-the-shadows-of-cooperstown-pennsylvania-digging\/"},"modified":"2009-05-19T06:00:34","modified_gmt":"2009-05-19T13:00:34","slug":"notes-from-the-shadows-of-cooperstown-pennsylvania-digging","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/2009\/05\/19\/notes-from-the-shadows-of-cooperstown-pennsylvania-digging\/","title":{"rendered":"Notes From the Shadows of Cooperstown: Pennsylvania Digging"},"content":{"rendered":"

BUT FIRST, THIS JUST IN:<\/strong>
\nThe documents purchased by the Chicago History Museum in December 2007 at auction for about $100,000 are now accessible! If this is news to you, see NOTES #425<\/a>–426<\/a>. I am planning to travel to Chicago to spend some time with them, May 26-29. I suspect they will provide material for many future issues of NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and with some luck, Chapter One of my next B-Sox book.<\/p>\n

It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s been a funny month, May 2009, so far. My Pirates, over .500 in April, started a nosedive at the end of that month and continued in May until they were well below .500, and fighting their way back to the surface. Well, hey, they have all season to make it up \u00e2\u20ac\u201d not to panic. And how about those Steelers \u00e2\u20ac\u201d oops, I mean Penguins!?<\/em> Which is what Pirate fans reply, when asked how the Bucs are doing. Keep \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the Penguin Factor\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in mind \u00e2\u20ac\u201d all the rooting energy focused on the rinks, until the Stanley Cup games are over, will return<\/em> to the Pirates, one of these days.<\/p>\n

I attended a Little League game recently. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s been a while, but there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nothing like a LL game to remind you of how terribly difficult a game baseball really is. Of how hard it can be to throw strikes, to make contact with the bat, to hang onto a thrown or a batted ball. It is also fun to watch a game where none of the players are getting paid a penny (altho I recall one LLer who hit a homer and was greeted at home plate by an uncle or maybe a grandpa, who pressed a couple dollar bills into his hands). To be honest, I would have probably enjoyed more watching a game where there were no adults on the field or in the dugouts, where the kids chose up sides (tossing the bat to see who picks first), then just played<\/em>, making up rules and policing themselves, and having a ball. Little Leaguers seem too serious<\/em>, because they are in games that count in the standings<\/em>, and there are all these adults and siblings watching, and the coaches are shouting a constant stream of advice. Did I say probably<\/em>? No, there is no doubt that I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d have enjoyed watching \u00e2\u20ac\u0153sandlot ball\u00e2\u20ac\u009d more \u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 but at least these kids are learning the game.<\/p>\n

IN THIS ISSUE<\/strong> are a number of items, but the main two inspired (?) the headline about Pennsylvania. After a brief look back at two early B-Sox authors, and a brief detour into an old exhibition game that might have been billed as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Babe in the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcBurgh,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d we go Digging Up Old Stuff<\/em> (there will be dinosaurs, for the kids in us), and then (after a few more detours), we look at Buck Weaver, from Pottstown, PA, a fellow Pennsylvanian for whom I have advocated only lightly since I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve been at this B-Sox thing. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m sure that I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve written about Buck\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s appeals for reinstatement here before, especially the one in 1927, but in this issue I try to bring them all together and take a new look at Buck, and if anyone wants to send a copy to Bud Selig, you have my permission. But don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t get your hopes up. When Bob Dylan coined the phrase the blind Commissioner<\/em>, he was talkin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 baseball. Enough intro, enjoy #487; I think there might be one more issue before I head off to Chicago, but \u00e2\u20ac\u201d you never know.<\/p>\n

EARLY ENCOUNTERS ON THE TRAIL<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Back in NOTES #478<\/a><\/em>, I wrote about several meetings between two of the writers who stayed on the B-Sox trail long enough to be considered guides. Both were youngsters in 1919, and White Sox fans. Nelson Algren had adopted Swede Risberg as his hero, while James T. Farrell became a friend of Buck Weaver, and interviewed Buck toward the end of his (Buck\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s life).<\/p>\n

In An Honest Writer: The Life & Times of James T. Farrell<\/em> (Encounter Books, San Fran, 2004) we can finally read more about the meetings between Farrell and Eliot Asinof, to whom Farrell gave a strong shove down the trail \u00e2\u20ac\u201d as well as everything he had collected while trying to write a Black Sox novel. We can read Asinof\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s side of their relationship in Bleeding Between the Lines<\/em> (1979), which is kind of a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The Making of 8MO<\/em>.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Asinof had signed a contract to write a B-Sox book when he heard that Farrell, a more established writer in 1961, already had a book in the works. Asinof was about to drop his project, when Farrell said:<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll tell you what. My book is no good at all. Besides, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a novel. I will give you my book, and you can use anything in it that you wish, and what\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s more, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m going to tell you everything that I know. Now, get out your damn pencil and let\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s go to work.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d And it was the damndest thing I ever had been through in my life.<\/p>\n

Farrell then poured out from his memory, for about 90 minutes, everything he could recall from the 1919 Series and its shrouded aftermath. He also told Asinof whom to interview \u00e2\u20ac\u201d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153sensational helps.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Asinof continued to meet with Farrell, he was \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a constant help throughout the book.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d I suspect someone will eventually write their thesis, using the papers of Asinof now being preserved at the Chicago History Museum, on just how much Asinof relied on Farrell for the main outline of 8MO<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The great Black Sox novel remained elusive for Farrell, and we can only guess at its final shape from Dreaming Baseball<\/em>, edited by Ron Briley and others and published in 2007. Eliot Asinof wrote the three-page Foreword for that novel, supplying, at least for now, the last word about their \u00e2\u20ac\u0153partnership.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

DOUBLE TAKE<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

It was September 8, 1920, and while a grand jury was warming up in Cook County, Illinois, fans in Pittsburgh were excited about an exhibition game at Forbes Field. The Yankees \u00e2\u20ac\u201d no, make that the Yankees of Babe Ruth<\/em> \u00e2\u20ac\u201d were taking a job on their way to Cleveland. Pittsburgh papers were ready to turn out in big numbers to see \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the Son of Swat,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153King of Willow-Wielders,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the big guy who was pulling in big crowds all over that other league.<\/p>\n

About 25,000 saw the Yanks top the home team Pirates, 7-3, and they did not go home disappointed. Ruth whacked a ball in the ninth inning \u00e2\u20ac\u201d grooved for the occasion, perhaps \u00e2\u20ac\u201d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153over the right field bleachers.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d One account said that Ham Hyatt was the only player who had accomplished that feat before the Bambino. Max Carey saw both, and said Ruth\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s was longer.<\/p>\n

Wait a minute<\/em>. I grew up believing that the first ball hit over the right field roof at Forbes Field was hit by Babe Ruth, all right, but that was in 1935, when Ruth played for Boston in the NL. It happened to be Ruth\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s third homer of the game \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and #714, the last of his career. Ham Hyatt?<\/em> Ham played for the 1909 World Champion Pirates his rookie year, but only hit ten HRs in his seven MLB seasons (five as a Pirate).<\/p>\n

Well, here\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s the story, I think. The roof that Ruth cleared in 1935 was not added to Forbes Field until 1925. In 1920, any clout that went for a HR to right field was a truly long ball, as the bleachers were 382 feet away, down the RF line. In 1925, the double-deck grandstand was extended into RF, and it was an imposing 86 feet high, but now it was just a 300? poke down the line, where the batter had to clear a tall screen.<\/p>\n

So Ruth\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s HR on 9\/8\/1920 may indeed have cleared the bleachers, but the grandstand that he cleared in 1935 was not there yet. About Ham Hyatt, I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know when he poled his long HR at Forbes, but I did find a note on the internet that Hyatt was believed to have hit the only ball out of Forbes\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 immediate predecessor, Exhibition Park III \u00e2\u20ac\u201d a poke of 380 if it went down the line, where it had to clear a ten-foot wall and, apparently, some bleachers. But maybe that was in an exhibition game, too \u00e2\u20ac\u201d because 1909 is the only year Hyatt could have played at that park (Forbes opened at the end of June), and Hyatt\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s record shows zero HRs in his rookie season.<\/p>\n

Incidentally, after the 9\/8\/20 game, the Yankees boarded a train and were off to Cleveland. Suddenly there were rumors that the train had wrecked \u00e2\u20ac\u201d Ruth was injured, other players killed. The rumors caused a sensation on Wall Street<\/em>, where there was much betting; brokers used wire services, like those who gambled on baseball. It didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t take long to prove the rumors false, and everyone\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s best guess was that someone made up the story to change the odds on the Cleveland-New York series.<\/p>\n

BUCK WEAVER VERSUS BASEBALL<\/u> <\/strong><\/p>\n

I have written a short book about Buck Weaver here in Notes<\/em> by now, perhaps not as much as about Cicotte or Jackson. Weaver was interesting to me long before I ever stepped onto the B-Sox trail; \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Who Mourns for Buck?\u00e2\u20ac\u009d appeared in Notes #157<\/a><\/em>, back in April 1998. When I started finding out more about Buck\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s case in my research, I summed it up once in \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Defending Buck,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d which was in Notes #345<\/a><\/em>, and is easy to find in the Notes Archive<\/em>. But to be honest, while Buck seemed to be the most sympathetic of the 8MO, the easiest to defend, he seemed to have plenty of supporters; defending Gandil<\/em>, now there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s<\/em> a challenge. So my writing about Buck tended to be more abstract \u00e2\u20ac\u201d linked with the Landis Edict. Banning Buck in 1921 for what was not against any rule in 1919 seemed unfair, especially if (and this is arguable) Buck sat in on those meetings to do his damndest to talk his teammates back into their senses; and maybe he succeeded<\/em>, so that only a few actually did anything to help the Reds win. Buck stood for a principle, he refused to accuse without certain knowledge; precisely what Comiskey did, when he withheld the WS checks of players he suspected, then went ahead and signed up all but Gandil, giving generous raises to boot. Ironically, Buck never seemed like the other seven, yet Landis condemned him, because \u00e2\u20ac\u0153birds of a feather flock together.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

But lately, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve become interested in Buck Weaver all over again. And here is what I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve found lately.<\/p>\n

So far, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve documented four formal appeals that Buck made to Baseball, and one other appeal that I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m not sure was filed. The first three involved Judge Landis; the second, Landis\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 successor, Happy Chandler; and the last appeal was made to Ford Frick. Each time Buck knocked on Baseball\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s door, he was refused re-entry. But each time, I think he gained new supporters \u00e2\u20ac\u201d he always had some.<\/p>\n

The \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Black Sox trial\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the summer of 1921 had found Buck and everyone else \u00e2\u20ac\u0153not guilty\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of conspiring to toss games, etc. But \u00e2\u20ac\u0153regardless of the verdict of juries,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Judge Landis banished the players involved. This sent the right message to ballplayers and to fans. But on further review, the edict also insured that this story would stay in the news a long time. So here we are nearly nine decades later, debating that sentence and arguing over whether that punishment really fit the crime \u00e2\u20ac\u201d whatever<\/em> the crime was! And was it harshest on Weaver?<\/p>\n

Buck had reason to be hopeful when he appealed to Landis the first time, in January 1922. He had powerful men supporting him, from Charles Comiskey to John McGraw, who really<\/em> wanted to see Buck playing third for his NY Giants. Buck was thought to be \u00e2\u20ac\u0153clean as a hound\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s tooth\u00e2\u20ac\u009d by the investigator on the staff of Collyer\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Eye<\/em>, soon after the 1919 Series ended, and as late as the B-Sox trial, Rube Benton classified Buck among the clean Sox, with Schalk and Eddie Collins. Few thought Buck had given less than 100% effort in the 1919 Series; few thought him capable of playing without an intense competitiveness. And Buck had been honest, it seemed, admitting he had some knowledge of the bribery, but not enough to say for sure that the Fix was in, and, if it was, who was in and who was not. All he knew for sure was that he was not. No one accused him of taking a penny of bribe money, not even Gandil or Abe Attell. Buck had been ultra-loyal, not just to his teammates, and his team, but to his manager and to Comiskey, who may have known more than Buck. Weaver never said that Kid Gleason spoke to the team early on about a possible Fix, that could put the Kid on the spot. So Kid Gleason was in Weaver\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s corner, too. His appeal looked \u00e2\u20ac\u201d promising.<\/p>\n

Landis sat on it for nearly a year, then, on December 11, 1922, turned Buck down. The Judge, who should have known better, said Buck should have spoken up at the 1921 trial, to clear his name; Buck may have wanted to testify, but his lawyers chose a different strategy, one which, to Landis\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 dismay, no doubt, had succeeded. Maybe Buck was philosophical about the response: maybe it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s just too soon \u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll try again later<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The next opportunity Buck took to beg entry from Landis, was at the 1927 hearing. Risberg and Gandil had opened that can of worms, vintage 1917, and Landis responded with a hearing in Chicago, gathering over thirty people to testify. Again, Buck had reason to be optimistic \u00e2\u20ac\u201d he sided with the majority, against Swede and Chick. He was welcomed warmly by Ty Cobb and others. The press coverage was thick, and Weaver\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s plea was dramatic \u00e2\u20ac\u201d he had \u00e2\u20ac\u0153begged\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for a separate trial, he didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t testify in \u00e2\u20ac\u02dc21 because his lawyers wouldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t let him. Apparently after the hearing, Buck and his lawyer met with Landis.<\/p>\n

This time it took the Commish less than three months to say No. Landis referred back to his 1922 call. He underlined Buck\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \u00e2\u20ac\u0153guilty knowledge\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of the possible bribery \u00e2\u20ac\u201d as if Buck alone knew something rotten was afoot.<\/p>\n

In this 1927 reply \u00e2\u20ac\u201d easiest to look up in the Chicago Tribune<\/em> of March 13 \u00e2\u20ac\u201d Landis mentions that Buck testified that he had been approached during the 1920 season by a teammate (not Cicotte, but someone saying that Eddie had sent him), about his interest in throwing some games. Buck said no, but again kept quiet about it. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Buck Weaver to Play Ball in Chicago\u00e2\u20ac\u009d went the teasing Trib<\/em> headline two weeks later \u00e2\u20ac\u201d but no, not with the Sox; Buck had signed to play semi-pro ball. He was signed by William Niesen, a longtime club owner and apostle of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153clean baseball.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d This set up a showdown with Landis. The Judge had just cleared Cobb and Speaker, icons too popular to be turned out. Why not Weaver, a Chicago icon? Weaver was ecstatic: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m goin\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 to play the best game I can for old Bill Niesen, and the lily whites who kicked me out of the racket are going to be the most jealous birds around town.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (This Trib<\/em> account also notes that after the January hearing, Buck found himself \u00e2\u20ac\u0153outlawed by the outlaws\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u201d he\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d not be invited to play with Risberg and Gandil.)<\/p>\n

I have to mention that one of the Trib\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s<\/em> columnists, Don Maxwell (\u00e2\u20ac\u009dSpeaking of Sports\u00e2\u20ac\u009d) noted in his March 16, 1927, column, the inconsistency of Landis \u00e2\u20ac\u201d who reinstated Cobb and Speaker (and tossed out the 1917 charges) because he doubted the word of Risberg and Gandil, calling them confessed framers of games; but now he refuses Weaver, based on stories told by Eddie Cicotte. Maxwell: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Baseball law is a bit thick.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Then in May 1930, Buck was in the news again, and this is the time when it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s not clear if he ever made a formal appeal for reinstatement. What is certain is that he and his lawyer, Louis J. Rosenthal, were prepared to make a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153new plea\u00e2\u20ac\u009d \u00e2\u20ac\u201d based on \u00e2\u20ac\u0153new evidence.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d [Attention, Chicagoans: Rosenthal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s old files on Buck just might be sitting around in some archive.] As near as I can tell, the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153new evidence\u00e2\u20ac\u009d was that Buck had settled with the White Sox on his old claim for his 1921 salary. Buck had signed a three-year contract, for 1919-20-21, for $7,250 per season. Suspended at the end of 1920, Buck could (and did) sue for that 1921 money, since in the eyes of the law he was innocent and did nothing to deserve being released. In 1930, he settled for $3,500. Buck contended that if he was guilty of conspiracy, the Sox never would have settled with him. One place you can look this up is in the Valparaiso, IN, Vidette-Messenger<\/em> of May 7, 1930.<\/p>\n

I have not found a response by Landis, if he gave any, which makes me wonder if this appeal went any farther than the newspapers. I have the same feeling about an appeal Weaver made soon after Judge Landis passed away. In May 1946, Happy Chandler was Commish, and I think Buck appealed then.<\/p>\n

What was certainly Buck\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s last formal appeal, while he was alive, was made in 1953. Ford Frick was now on baseball\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s throne.<\/p>\n

Buck took a simple 9? x 6? piece of paper, and a pencil, and began: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Mr Commission[er] Dear Sir.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d It was January 29. Buck would not mail the letter until February 15; when it arrived at Frick\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s desk, it was stamped Received<\/em> February 21, morning. Buck had filled both sides of the letter with his own handwriting. He assumed Frick knew nothing of his case. He noted his three-year contract, his 1920 suspension \u00e2\u20ac\u0153for doing some thing wrong. Which I [k]new nothing about.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d He had played \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a perfect\u00e2\u20ac\u009d WS in 1919, had stood trial and was acquitted.<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153You know Commission the only thing we have left in this world is our judge and the 12 jurors and they found me not guilty. They do some funny things in base ball.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Buck again argued, as he had in 1930, that his settlement with the Sox for his 1921 pay \u00e2\u20ac\u201d \u00e2\u20ac\u0153that makes me right and Comiskey wrong. So Commission I am asking for reinstatement into organized Base Ball. Yours Very Truly, George Buck Weaver.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

In December 1953, Buck was still waiting for a reply. At 63, he had just a few years left, although he did not know it at the time. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153All I want out of life now is to eat, and take care of my folks \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and clear my name,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d he told Jack Mabley, a Chicago Daily News sports writer. (I read the account in the Oakland (CA) Tribune<\/em>, December 28, 1953.) Buck was ever hopeful. Reinstated, maybe he could scout, or teach some kids how to play third base.<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Even if I knew something \u00e2\u20ac\u201d my God, why punish a man this long. Even a murderer serves his time. I got life. It hurts.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153I had no evidence. Suppose I thought you were doing something wrong, and I told somebody about it. And suppose I was wrong. What have I done to you! I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m the worst \u00e2\u20ac\u201d- in the world I didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have any evidence.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Judge Landis would call me and try to get me to talk. He was nice to me as anybody could be. Said \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcCome in, Buck. Sit down. Have a plug of tobacco.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Then he\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d try to get me to tell him what went on. How could I tell him when I didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t know.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Then they made the decision. The Judge wouldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t even look me in the eye. He said, \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcI\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve sent the decision by letter.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t have the nerve to tell me to my face. I would have grabbed him by the throat, and he knew it.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153And they call baseball a sport. Why \u00e2\u20ac\u201d \u00e2\u20ac\u201d- them! Well I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll tell you this. I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve got more friends than all of them put together<\/strong>. You\u00e2\u20ac\u2122d think Frick would at least answer my letter. I done nothing in my life that wasn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t for the good of baseball.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

After Buck passed away, on January 31, 1956, many sports columnists paid him tribute. Many people recalled him as the best defensive third baseman they ever saw. History, if not Landis, refused to lump him together with the other B-Sox. He was the one who had consistently protested his innocence. Bob Considine repeated in his column of February 5 for INS (I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m reading the Charleston (WVa) Gazette<\/em>), the words of Jim Kilgallen: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Buck Weaver had a code of his own\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6. Judge Landis had a different conception of integrity than Buck \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and Buck paid the price.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

That is at the core of Buck\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s story \u00e2\u20ac\u201d his code, versus that of Landis, who became Baseball.<\/p>\n

Let me end with this. In 1917, there was an exhibition game played in Boston, a benefit for the family of baseball writer Tim Murnane. This game is considered by some as the first All Star Game, although the Addie Joss benefit in 1911 is competition. Joe Jackson played in both, as did Cobb and Speaker and others. On the 1917 squad, at third base, was Buck Weaver. It must have been a peak experience for Buck \u00e2\u20ac\u201d to be out there with Babe Ruth (he pitched), Walter Johnson, and the rest. Buck went 0-for-3 and the hometown Red Sox beat the AL Stars, 2-0, but somehow, I see Buck smiling all day long. Birds of a feather<\/em>, indeed.<\/p>\n

The above is an excerpt from Issue #487 of Gene’s Notes From the Shadows of Cooperstown. To read the rest of the issue (or past issues), click here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BUT FIRST, THIS JUST IN: The documents purchased by the Chicago History Museum in December 2007 at auction for about $100,000 are now accessible! If this is news to you, see NOTES #425–426. I am planning to travel to Chicago to spend some time with them, May 26-29. I suspect they will provide material for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-notes-from-the-shadows-of-cooperstown"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1203\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seamheads.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}