Chicago Cubs Author Interview - Wrigley Field's Last World Series
The last time the Cubs were in the World Series was 1945. Wrigley Field's Last World Series is a very
detailed account of the 1945 season and how World War II effected the team and the sport. View the
interview with the author of Wrigley Field's Last World Series, Charles Billington below.
Wrigley Field's Last World Series is a very detailed account of the 1945 season and how World War II effected the team and the sport. What inspired you to write this book?
Charles Billington - I work in the mental health field and have specialized with senior citizens in the last few years. Over time I was lucky enough to work with a gentleman in his 90's who had played at Columbia with Lou Gehrig, and another man in his 80's who played sandlot and American Legion with Phil Cavaretta. I've always had an interest in World War II and always thought I'd write a book about some of the people I've worked with. The book is kind of a "loose resolution" of these three factors.
How long did it take you to research?
Charles Billington - I worked on and off for about two years on the project.
The war made it very difficult for the Cubs from traveling to fielding a full Spring Training team. What was the biggest challenge for players during the World War II era?
Charles Billington - I think the biggest issue was the uncertainty they faced as to how long they would be able to stay out of the military. Family status, job situations, and physical issues are what would keep one out of active duty during World War II. While the conscription regulations were FEDERAL, they were enforced and followed LOCALLY, so everyone was kind of at the mercy of their local draft boards.
Its strange to hear that the Cubs of 1945 had so many exhibition games and events during the season. What makes this different today?
Charles Billington - Exhibition games served to showcase major league teams in areas which did not have major league baseball (Remember, there was no television until the later 40's and then for the most part the broadcasts were local.) During the war some of the military bases had very good teams (Great Lakes fielded 5 or 6 major leaguers, including Bob Feller, on their team) and their competition being major league teams made for great entertainment for the troops. Today the players' union and the team's desire to prevent injuries and "wear and tear" to their expensive players prevents a big exhibition schedule.
You briefly touched on the curse of the Billy Goat, where a local saloon keeper, was not allowed to take his goat into the game. It is said that the saloon keeper placed a hex on the Chicago Cubs, which eventually led to World Series loss to the Tigers. In a comparison to 2003, Cubs fans shifted their frustrations to the Steve Bartman incident again focusing on superstition as one of the main components to the loss to the Marlins. How much of a role do you think superstition plays with the Chicago Cubs?
Charles Billington - I don't think superstition plays any part in any of the Cubs' failures. Bartman did not run in front of the Cubs' shortstop after the interference with the fly-ball to Alou. Superstition is not why Dusty Baker manages the way he does. In the Billy Goat stories, Mr. Sianis never declared that "I now hereby curse the Cubs". The goat coming to the ballpark is truth, the "Curse" is kind of a convenient media creation.
You talk about how during the World War II era, baseball switched from a 2-3-2 World Series format to a 3-4 format, where the Cubs played the first 3 games in Detroit and then played the final 4 games at home. Though the Cubs took 2 out of the first 3 games in Detroit, do you think this had an effect on the Cubs?
Charles Billington - I don't think it hurt the '45 Cubs at all. They came home and were done on the road ahead 2 games to 1. All teams would love being in that situation.
Would things have been different if Charley Grimm had planned his starting pitching better? Can you draw any similarities to managerial decisions in game 6 of the NLCS series against the Marlins?
Charles Billington - What killed the Cubs was when Passeau's fingernail got torn off by a liner in game 6, which the Cubs won in extra innings. Passeau was in complete command at the time, and to win the game Charlie Grimm had to go through his entire starting rotation. His mistake was starting Borowy in game 7 with so little rest. Dewey Williams said that he should have gone with Hy Vandenberg (the big Dutchman out of Minneapolis who was unhittable when he was on in some games during the season, and Williams said his stuff was nonpareil before game 7) or Paul Derringer (who had more big game World Series experience than any pitcher on either team). Off the top of my head I don't know any similarities with game 6 of the NLCS. Grimm was more skilled at managing a pitching staff than Baker. I am not putting Baker down in saying this... look what he did with the Giants in the World Series against the Angels.
What was the most interesting difference between baseball in 1945 and baseball today?
Charles Billington - I think that 1945 baseball emphasized a more athletic, "manufacturing runs" style of baseball than what we have today. Seemingly no team back then "sat around" and waited for the 3 run homer.
Who was the most interesting player on the 1945 pennant winning team? What made them interesting?
Charles Billington - The story of Merullo becoming a big leaguer after being a collegiate star is a classic Depression/War time tale. Cavaretta started his career as a high school drop out who 14 months later was a starting first baseman for a World Series team (in 1935). Bill Nicholson and Stan Hack were great players and tremendous gentlemen. Andy Pafko's rise to stardom and how the stardom never went to his head is a story in itself. Claude Passeau was a great, great pitcher whom Cub fans should know better. Hank Wyse pitched 278 innings (that's 278, Kerry and Mark!) while wearing a corset because of a severe back injury. Mickey Livingston's wartime experiences are pretty harrowing for a guy who was never sent overseas. The hijinx of Hy Vandenberg and Paul Derringer are pretty fascinating, too.
What differences do you see between fans of 1945 and fans today? What has kept the fans loyal to the Cubs?
Charles Billington - In 1945, the biggest crowds were for Sunday doubleheaders, holiday doubleheaders, and Sunday games. Men especially dressed in work clothes (you see them wearing hats and suit/tie) at the games. I think the loyalty of Cub fans has to do with a whole generation growing up watching them on television when they came home from school (the White Sox games were televised too, but only the day games, and most of their games were at night) and the fact that the park you take your family to is the same one you went to as a child, and the same one your dad and grandparents went to. If the Cubs should move to the suburbs and play in a "modern" stadium they would be no different, crowd wise, than the White Sox or the Brewers.
In your book, you talk about how the baseball itself was modified causing the "dead ball" era. Do you think the baseball was modified in the 90's to spark the home run surge? Was this dead-ball era the cause for the dismal 57 total homers for the team in 1945?
Charles Billington - The World War II "dead ball" era was really only part of the 1943 season. I don't think that the ball was modified in the 90's but I think the emphasis on strength & training and the number of "power pitchers" with the quality diluted because of the fact that there are twice as many teams accounts for the increased amount of homers. In 1945, the 8 National League teams combined for only 577 homers, roughly 72 per team. It was a different style of baseball then. The Cubs totals were low because Bill Nicholson had an off year after leading the league in 1943 and 1944. Andy Pafko had not emerged yet as a complete power hitter and really nobody else on the team was a significant home run threat.
Today, it seems that nothing could effect baseball since it isn't just a sport, but a business. Could anything effect baseball ever again like World War II?
Charles Billington - I don't think any thing could every effect baseball as much as World War II did.
It seems like the Cubs continue to suffer from some of the same problems that have made them the loveable losers over the years. What changes do you think need to be made for the present Cubs to get back to the World Series?
Charles Billington - I think the present Cubs have to build a team that can produce an offense in a variety of ways, not just through the home run. The wind blows in almost as often as it blows out. I also think that their reliance on "power pitchers" hurts them when the wind is blowing out. I'd love to see a Cub team that can steal, hit and run, and be patient at the plate, instead of a bunch of guys who will all hit 25+ homers but strike out 80+ times per season.
Though it is difficult to compare, do you think the 1945 Cubs could have beat the 2003 Cubs in a 7-game series? What about the Cubs of 2005?
Charles Billington - One of the later chapters in the book compares the 1945 team to the 2003 team. Because of the different era it is kind of apples to oranges. But, the pitching on the 1945 Cubs was so excellent, I can't see the power lineup of 2003 (with all their strikeouts) doing much against a Borowy, Wyse, Derringer, Passeau, the soft-tossing Ray Prim, etc. Compared to the 2005 Cubs, as of this writing do they warrant a comparison?
Now that Wrigley Field's Last World Series has been published, do you have any plans to follow it up with another book about the Cubs?
Charles Billington - I have some other baseball books in mind that are in the "thinking and research" stage.
CBB thanks Charles Billington and and appreciates the time he took to give us an interview. To purchase the book, visit the books section.
Wrigley Field's Last World Series is a very detailed account of the 1945 season and how World War II effected the team and the sport. What inspired you to write this book?
Charles Billington - I work in the mental health field and have specialized with senior citizens in the last few years. Over time I was lucky enough to work with a gentleman in his 90's who had played at Columbia with Lou Gehrig, and another man in his 80's who played sandlot and American Legion with Phil Cavaretta. I've always had an interest in World War II and always thought I'd write a book about some of the people I've worked with. The book is kind of a "loose resolution" of these three factors.
How long did it take you to research?
Charles Billington - I worked on and off for about two years on the project.
The war made it very difficult for the Cubs from traveling to fielding a full Spring Training team. What was the biggest challenge for players during the World War II era?
Charles Billington - I think the biggest issue was the uncertainty they faced as to how long they would be able to stay out of the military. Family status, job situations, and physical issues are what would keep one out of active duty during World War II. While the conscription regulations were FEDERAL, they were enforced and followed LOCALLY, so everyone was kind of at the mercy of their local draft boards.
Its strange to hear that the Cubs of 1945 had so many exhibition games and events during the season. What makes this different today?
Charles Billington - Exhibition games served to showcase major league teams in areas which did not have major league baseball (Remember, there was no television until the later 40's and then for the most part the broadcasts were local.) During the war some of the military bases had very good teams (Great Lakes fielded 5 or 6 major leaguers, including Bob Feller, on their team) and their competition being major league teams made for great entertainment for the troops. Today the players' union and the team's desire to prevent injuries and "wear and tear" to their expensive players prevents a big exhibition schedule.
You briefly touched on the curse of the Billy Goat, where a local saloon keeper, was not allowed to take his goat into the game. It is said that the saloon keeper placed a hex on the Chicago Cubs, which eventually led to World Series loss to the Tigers. In a comparison to 2003, Cubs fans shifted their frustrations to the Steve Bartman incident again focusing on superstition as one of the main components to the loss to the Marlins. How much of a role do you think superstition plays with the Chicago Cubs?
Charles Billington - I don't think superstition plays any part in any of the Cubs' failures. Bartman did not run in front of the Cubs' shortstop after the interference with the fly-ball to Alou. Superstition is not why Dusty Baker manages the way he does. In the Billy Goat stories, Mr. Sianis never declared that "I now hereby curse the Cubs". The goat coming to the ballpark is truth, the "Curse" is kind of a convenient media creation.
You talk about how during the World War II era, baseball switched from a 2-3-2 World Series format to a 3-4 format, where the Cubs played the first 3 games in Detroit and then played the final 4 games at home. Though the Cubs took 2 out of the first 3 games in Detroit, do you think this had an effect on the Cubs?
Charles Billington - I don't think it hurt the '45 Cubs at all. They came home and were done on the road ahead 2 games to 1. All teams would love being in that situation.
Would things have been different if Charley Grimm had planned his starting pitching better? Can you draw any similarities to managerial decisions in game 6 of the NLCS series against the Marlins?
Charles Billington - What killed the Cubs was when Passeau's fingernail got torn off by a liner in game 6, which the Cubs won in extra innings. Passeau was in complete command at the time, and to win the game Charlie Grimm had to go through his entire starting rotation. His mistake was starting Borowy in game 7 with so little rest. Dewey Williams said that he should have gone with Hy Vandenberg (the big Dutchman out of Minneapolis who was unhittable when he was on in some games during the season, and Williams said his stuff was nonpareil before game 7) or Paul Derringer (who had more big game World Series experience than any pitcher on either team). Off the top of my head I don't know any similarities with game 6 of the NLCS. Grimm was more skilled at managing a pitching staff than Baker. I am not putting Baker down in saying this... look what he did with the Giants in the World Series against the Angels.
What was the most interesting difference between baseball in 1945 and baseball today?
Charles Billington - I think that 1945 baseball emphasized a more athletic, "manufacturing runs" style of baseball than what we have today. Seemingly no team back then "sat around" and waited for the 3 run homer.
Who was the most interesting player on the 1945 pennant winning team? What made them interesting?
Charles Billington - The story of Merullo becoming a big leaguer after being a collegiate star is a classic Depression/War time tale. Cavaretta started his career as a high school drop out who 14 months later was a starting first baseman for a World Series team (in 1935). Bill Nicholson and Stan Hack were great players and tremendous gentlemen. Andy Pafko's rise to stardom and how the stardom never went to his head is a story in itself. Claude Passeau was a great, great pitcher whom Cub fans should know better. Hank Wyse pitched 278 innings (that's 278, Kerry and Mark!) while wearing a corset because of a severe back injury. Mickey Livingston's wartime experiences are pretty harrowing for a guy who was never sent overseas. The hijinx of Hy Vandenberg and Paul Derringer are pretty fascinating, too.
What differences do you see between fans of 1945 and fans today? What has kept the fans loyal to the Cubs?
Charles Billington - In 1945, the biggest crowds were for Sunday doubleheaders, holiday doubleheaders, and Sunday games. Men especially dressed in work clothes (you see them wearing hats and suit/tie) at the games. I think the loyalty of Cub fans has to do with a whole generation growing up watching them on television when they came home from school (the White Sox games were televised too, but only the day games, and most of their games were at night) and the fact that the park you take your family to is the same one you went to as a child, and the same one your dad and grandparents went to. If the Cubs should move to the suburbs and play in a "modern" stadium they would be no different, crowd wise, than the White Sox or the Brewers.
In your book, you talk about how the baseball itself was modified causing the "dead ball" era. Do you think the baseball was modified in the 90's to spark the home run surge? Was this dead-ball era the cause for the dismal 57 total homers for the team in 1945?
Charles Billington - The World War II "dead ball" era was really only part of the 1943 season. I don't think that the ball was modified in the 90's but I think the emphasis on strength & training and the number of "power pitchers" with the quality diluted because of the fact that there are twice as many teams accounts for the increased amount of homers. In 1945, the 8 National League teams combined for only 577 homers, roughly 72 per team. It was a different style of baseball then. The Cubs totals were low because Bill Nicholson had an off year after leading the league in 1943 and 1944. Andy Pafko had not emerged yet as a complete power hitter and really nobody else on the team was a significant home run threat.
Today, it seems that nothing could effect baseball since it isn't just a sport, but a business. Could anything effect baseball ever again like World War II?
Charles Billington - I don't think any thing could every effect baseball as much as World War II did.
It seems like the Cubs continue to suffer from some of the same problems that have made them the loveable losers over the years. What changes do you think need to be made for the present Cubs to get back to the World Series?
Charles Billington - I think the present Cubs have to build a team that can produce an offense in a variety of ways, not just through the home run. The wind blows in almost as often as it blows out. I also think that their reliance on "power pitchers" hurts them when the wind is blowing out. I'd love to see a Cub team that can steal, hit and run, and be patient at the plate, instead of a bunch of guys who will all hit 25+ homers but strike out 80+ times per season.
Though it is difficult to compare, do you think the 1945 Cubs could have beat the 2003 Cubs in a 7-game series? What about the Cubs of 2005?
Charles Billington - One of the later chapters in the book compares the 1945 team to the 2003 team. Because of the different era it is kind of apples to oranges. But, the pitching on the 1945 Cubs was so excellent, I can't see the power lineup of 2003 (with all their strikeouts) doing much against a Borowy, Wyse, Derringer, Passeau, the soft-tossing Ray Prim, etc. Compared to the 2005 Cubs, as of this writing do they warrant a comparison?
Now that Wrigley Field's Last World Series has been published, do you have any plans to follow it up with another book about the Cubs?
Charles Billington - I have some other baseball books in mind that are in the "thinking and research" stage.
CBB thanks Charles Billington and and appreciates the time he took to give us an interview. To purchase the book, visit the books section.
Comments
Post new comment