Interesting that the White Sox are almost invariably called the White Sox, while the Cubs are usually called the Colts, sometimes called the Cubs, and at least once just called Chicago (as in White Sox vs Chicago). Even more interesting is that the later reports include the Boston-Pittsburgh series as just one among several post-season series. And the articles themselves reveal, or indicate, much of what journalism was like in the pre-radio, pre-film, pre-TV era. And the public's interesting in baseball clearly was sufficient to create a demand for ultra-detailed articles about exhibition games.
- The idea that a baseball team needs to have a nickname is a modern invention. Ballclubs at this time did not tend to have formal nicknames. These names were instead given to them by sportswriters, who were at liberty to change them to their own poetic and literary tastes.
- There had been some clamoring for interleague post season series going back to 1900, actually. People at the time still remembered the old post season series between American Association and National League champions.
- And, yeah, there was a ton of interest in extra baseball back then. I was surprised at how large the crowds were for a 15 game series.
You might have already noted this elsewhere since you posted this summary last year (I ran across your YouTube video, which is how I'm arriving here first), but Retrosheet does actually talk a bit about this series and a number of others. These articles linked below have been on their site since 2010.
It appears that because these fall into a bit of a gray area, being "permitted" though "unsanctioned", they don't group them with the other city series since they aren't "official" games to the same degree.
The first link to Mike Cantor's article also contains a couple significant lines relevant to why they might be excluded.
"The Cubs owner sincerely, and probably with good cause, believed the games were not on the level and vowed never to play another without a sanctioning body overseeing things."
And, "The [1903] games were a bit haphazard with no check on rosters or umpires, frequent fights, no discipline for the umps to enforce, and no real official scorer. They existed, they were taken somewhat seriously by the day's newspapers, but had no real structure as we know it."
Oh wow - I actually didn't see these. Thanks for the links!
Looks like that Mike Cantor article is a bit dated - it's hsowing up with some formatting issues.
I'm also not certain that any of these articles are easily accessible from Retrosheet's menu system. I'd argue that the newspaper accounts indicate that each of these series were treated as "official" postseason series, and that Cantor is underestimating how seriously they were taken at the time. You could create play-by-play accounts for the Chicago games pretty easily.
No worries. Between you, me, and the fencepost, the whole Retrosheet site is...not optimally designed and organized. The article links are there on the City Series page, though. You can see them in your video when you visit Retrosheet.
As to how "official" they are, I have no firm opinion myself. I thought I knew a bit about baseball, but today was the first day I heard of this at all, at all.
Interesting that the White Sox are almost invariably called the White Sox, while the Cubs are usually called the Colts, sometimes called the Cubs, and at least once just called Chicago (as in White Sox vs Chicago). Even more interesting is that the later reports include the Boston-Pittsburgh series as just one among several post-season series. And the articles themselves reveal, or indicate, much of what journalism was like in the pre-radio, pre-film, pre-TV era. And the public's interesting in baseball clearly was sufficient to create a demand for ultra-detailed articles about exhibition games.
A few quick points:
- The idea that a baseball team needs to have a nickname is a modern invention. Ballclubs at this time did not tend to have formal nicknames. These names were instead given to them by sportswriters, who were at liberty to change them to their own poetic and literary tastes.
- There had been some clamoring for interleague post season series going back to 1900, actually. People at the time still remembered the old post season series between American Association and National League champions.
- And, yeah, there was a ton of interest in extra baseball back then. I was surprised at how large the crowds were for a 15 game series.
You might have already noted this elsewhere since you posted this summary last year (I ran across your YouTube video, which is how I'm arriving here first), but Retrosheet does actually talk a bit about this series and a number of others. These articles linked below have been on their site since 2010.
https://www.retrosheet.org/Regional%20Series/apocrypha.htm
https://www.retrosheet.org/Regional%20Series/I-Cartl3.htm
https://www.retrosheet.org/Regional%20Series/chi03.htm
It appears that because these fall into a bit of a gray area, being "permitted" though "unsanctioned", they don't group them with the other city series since they aren't "official" games to the same degree.
The first link to Mike Cantor's article also contains a couple significant lines relevant to why they might be excluded.
"The Cubs owner sincerely, and probably with good cause, believed the games were not on the level and vowed never to play another without a sanctioning body overseeing things."
And, "The [1903] games were a bit haphazard with no check on rosters or umpires, frequent fights, no discipline for the umps to enforce, and no real official scorer. They existed, they were taken somewhat seriously by the day's newspapers, but had no real structure as we know it."
Oh wow - I actually didn't see these. Thanks for the links!
Looks like that Mike Cantor article is a bit dated - it's hsowing up with some formatting issues.
I'm also not certain that any of these articles are easily accessible from Retrosheet's menu system. I'd argue that the newspaper accounts indicate that each of these series were treated as "official" postseason series, and that Cantor is underestimating how seriously they were taken at the time. You could create play-by-play accounts for the Chicago games pretty easily.
No worries. Between you, me, and the fencepost, the whole Retrosheet site is...not optimally designed and organized. The article links are there on the City Series page, though. You can see them in your video when you visit Retrosheet.
As to how "official" they are, I have no firm opinion myself. I thought I knew a bit about baseball, but today was the first day I heard of this at all, at all.