The Browns have lost their title as World's Champions, having given up that proud title to Detroit. They played very little like a champion club this afternoon, and an amateur team could have defeated them. They could not hit a balloon or catch anything, while the indifference of Foutz was disgusting. he seemed to care little whether he won or lost, and played a slovenly, don't care sort of game that disgusted even his warmest admirers. The whole team played poor ball, with the exception of Robinson, Latham and Comiskey. The former's work was really brilliant. He fielded in marked contrast to his associates, and made half the hits credited to his side. The Detroits played poorly in the field, but batted well and won in this way. Kelly was in the field this afternoon and Gaffney behind the bat. The weather was clear, but cold, and the attendance 2500.
-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, October 22, 1887
Foutz had a bad game and, while I wouldn't say that his play was indifferent, I would say he appears to have been rattled in the middle innings when the game was lost. After giving up a two-run homer in the fourth, he walked two guys and missed a return throw from Boyle. In the fifth, he missed a cut-off throw because he had his back turned to the outfield and then later failed to cover first on a grounder, all of this while allowing four runs. In the sixth, he gave up four more runs, had a wild pitch, hit a batter and walked one. The Globe called his play "execrable" and his play was so bad that reading the game account made me wince.
And I'm not sure if I've mentioned this or not but there were rumors in St. Louis of game fixing and by calling Foutz's play "indifferent," I think the Globe may have been implying that Foutz was throwing the game. There is no evidence of game fixing and these rumours always started flying when a favored team lost or a good player made a couple of errors in a game. Is it possible that the Browns threw the series? Yes. Is there any real evidence to support this? No.