Cicotte's 29 Wins in 1919

By David Marasco

The topic of Shoeless Joe Jackson and the Chicago Black Sox surfaces from time to time on Rec.Sport.Baseball. One of the justifications that is given for the fix is that Charles Comiskey, owner of the White Sox, underpaid his players. One story that is often repeated is that he sat star pitcher Eddie Cicotte rather than allow him to attempt a 30th victory, which would have triggered a bonus clause in his contract.

Do the facts back up this tale? In 1919 Eddie Cicotte did indeed fall just one win short of thirty. But was he benched or did he simply come up short? I hit the microfilm to comfirm what I've heard in the past, that the Comiskey/Cicotte story is a myth. I make no claim to original research, just that I did a little homework so that there would be a URL available for this topic in future times.

On September 19, 1919, Cicotte faced Waite Hoyt of the Boston Red Sox and pitched a complete game to win three-two. This was his 29th (and last) victory of 1919.

On the 20th the White Sox played two against the Red Sox. Obviously Cicotte should not be expected to pitch in either game. He didn't. Claude Williams started against Babe Ruth in game one. Ruth hit his 27th homer of the year. Dickie Kerr got the nod in the second game against Herb Pennock.

On the 21st-23rd of September the White Sox played no games. According to an article in the September 24 edition of the Chicago Tribune, Cicotte went to his farm near Detroit after he pitched his game in Boston. He would have been allowed to stay there for a few more days if the White Sox had clinched against the Red Sox. Instead he was to appear in Chicago on the 24th to pitch against the Browns.

The headline for that games reads "Cicotte Routed In Clash That Nails Flag For Sox, 6-5." Cicotte started poorly, giving up three runs in the first and then another in the third. He was yanked in the seventh when he gave up back-to-back triples that pushed the score to five to two. He was replaced by Dickie Kerr. The Sox put up a pair of runs in the bottom of the seventh, and were able to push across two more in the home half of the ninth to clinch the American League.

The next three days saw Williams, Sullivan and Noyes get starts. On September 28, the last day of the season, Cicotte took the mound on three day's rest. In poor weather, Cicotte started and lasted two innings. He only gave up three hits and a run, and left leading the game two to one. The White Sox would go on to lose by a final score of ten to nine.

Why yank Cicotte after only two innings? Thirty wins seems to have been a big deal to only Cicotte and Comiskey, the Chicago Tribune never made a mention that Cicotte was closing in on that barrier. The game was on September 28. The first game of the World Series was October 1. That means that when Cicotte took the mound for Game One, he was working on two day's rest. It certainly makes sense not to let Cicotte go deep into the last game of the season, it was meaningless, when Game One is hanging above your head.

Note that according to a chronology published on the web, Cicotte was in on the fix on September 19, 1919, the day that Cicotte won his 29th game, but before he had any knowledge of whether or not he would be given a chance to go for thirty.

Was Comiskey cheap? He had the reputation. Did Cicotte fall just shy of thirty wins in 1919? Yes. Was this because he was benched? No.