I've never heard of anyone having a problem with Pedro

Mike Marshall (the hitter) did, for what it's worth.

Mike Marshall (the hitter) did, for what it's worth.

He doesn't any longer. He's the commissioner of the Pacific Association of Professional Baseball Clubs, and, according to the LA Times, he recommended Pedro for the managerial job of the Vallegjo club in 2013.

And the only reason TOO-dah got that broken leg was because he didn't have enough sense to get out of the way while the play was unfolding. He was probably still brooding about his historic choke performance in Game 7.

Now, now. Tudor's overall post-season record isn't all that shabby. And he, like most of his teammates and many Cards fans, probably dismisses that game as one that should never have been played at all.

But it was played, and the way the Cardinals sulked like babies, blew game 6 AFTER the call,** and then tanked in game 7 pretty much summarized their character, and it started at the top with Whining Whitey.

** Which increased the Royals' chances of winning all the way up to 34%. Cardinals fans don't like to mention Clark and Porter pulling an Alphonse and Gaston act on Balboni's foul ball, which set up his key hit, or Porter's passed ball that put the winning run in scoring position. Denkinger didn't cost them that World Series. They just flat out choked.

Heh, for a Sunday, Sunday Silence isn't too silent.

Yeah, but this is just darling:

again, people clearer writing.

I agree with Sunday Silence, sometimes people(me included of course) post stuff, where they are making an assumption of the knowledge of the reader might be higher than the actual level of knowledge. A few of his complaints might have been a bit over the top, but I think he was just getting frustrated(he's been like this for a few days now with some of the charts being posted, not being clearly identified....my problem with the charts often times is that the person posting them doesn't even reference what they are referring to, or putting a comment explaining what they think the chart is indicating)

(NB: John Tudor was cheated out of a lot of the 87 season because the catcher from the Patrick Bateman Cocaine Sociopath team launched himself into the Cardinals dugout and broke Tudor's leg.)

The Cardinals players all sat on the bench and watched as Barry Lyons ran towards the dugout. No one stood up to block his fall and so he went into a slide. Oh well. :(

OK a quick visit to my mental health provider and I am good as new!

I think CFB has it right. On the bbmck tables, I took some trouble to explain that I really do like his research and his tables its just that some of it is not clear with his abbreviated comments; and sometimes the context is not clear. So I hope to try to make his stuff clearer in the future without being a dick.

Of course I figured out that the Rizzuto comment had to do with great players who were hard to deal with but without the para. break it was pretty funny to read that immediately on the heels of the ozzie/templeton trade. References to guys with nicknames that most of us dont know, is downright annoying. Its like people on reddit who start using acronyms w/o introducing them. I efin hate those.

I still dont know what the Conigliario brothers story is but I get the feeling that he's not even referencing a story but rather their story line in general. Who knows? It was totally w/o any context or any indication what it was doing there.

I also agree with him on kill shelters; I understand putting down animals that are too sick to go on. But not just cause their old or no one wants them.

On the Conigliaros: Tony had retired from the Angels just before the All Star break. Billy took the opportunity to blame Yaz for Tony being traded. He said Tony had yelled at Yaz for not running out a DP ground ball. He also blamed Reggie Smith in some sort of conspiracy.

The tables are posted in writing degree zero sometimes. It takes getting used to, bu boxscores are similar.

thank you jz

But it was played, and the way the Cardinals sulked like babies, blew game 6 AFTER the call,** and then tanked in game 7 pretty much summarized their character, and it started at the top with Whining Whitey.

** Which increased the Royals' chances of winning all the way up to 34%. Cardinals fans don't like to mention Clark and Porter pulling an Alphonse and Gaston act on Balboni's foul ball, which set up his key hit, or Porter's passed ball that put the winning run in scoring position. Denkinger didn't cost them that World Series. They just flat out choked.

No argument intended in what I wrote, Andy. I'm merely presenting what is likely the other state of mind, which may not be as easily shaken by those who experienced the meltdown directly than by those of us who watched it unfold from a relatively safe distance. Surely all of us wind up rationalizing something at some point in our lives...

It also couldn't have helped when it turned out to be a guy that the Cards had cut (Dane Iorg) who delivered the knockout blow. (Iorg, BTW, had been one of the heroes for the Cards in the '82 Series, going 9-for-17 to help them beat the Brewers.)

But it was played, and the way the Cardinals sulked like babies, blew game 6 AFTER the call,** and then tanked in game 7 pretty much summarized their character, and it started at the top with Whining Whitey.

** Which increased the Royals' chances of winning all the way up to 34%. Cardinals fans don't like to mention Clark and Porter pulling an Alphonse and Gaston act on Balboni's foul ball, which set up his key hit, or Porter's passed ball that put the winning run in scoring position. Denkinger didn't cost them that World Series. They just flat out choked.

No argument intended in what I wrote, Andy. I'm merely presenting what is likely the other state of mind, which may not be as easily shaken by those who experienced the meltdown directly than by those of us who watched it unfold from a relatively safe distance. Surely all of us wind up rationalizing something at some point in our lives...

Of course you're right, and to be honest, I'd never repeat what I wrote in front of one of my former employees, who still hangs onto his Denkinger derangement as if the call happened just last night. He didn't start working for me until 1993, but before that there were several occasions when he stopped speaking to me for weeks at a time whenever I started laughing at the Cardinals' fate.

It also couldn't have helped when it turned out to be a guy that the Cards had cut (Dane Iorg) who delivered the knockout blow. (Iorg, BTW, had been one of the heroes for the Cards in the '82 Series, going 9-for-17 to help them beat the Brewers.)

Of course an impartial fan like myself might opine that Iorg sticking the knife in them only represented poetic justice.

P.S. That ex-employee doesn't ever monitor BTF, so our friendship remains intact.

Here's another good one. This one takes about 3 or 4 turns into places i dont even understand.

"So you have no frame of reference here, [Sunday]. You're like a child who wanders in the middle of a movie and - "

I take it you're a Cardinals fan.

Yes, of course! My God, join a Union with a guy and ten years later it's like he doesn't even know you!

But have you all forgotten the man for whom Tudor was traded to the Dodgers in '88? The one and only Pedro Guerrero? Or does he get a pass because his IQ purportedly needs to be measured with an electron microscope??

I'll never say a bad word about Guerrero. Anyone whose ambition is to be a professional lounge singer is all right by me. And anyway, we got Tudor back in 89; I didn't in the least mind loaning him out to the Dodgers in '88 to help thwart the Mets yet again. Also, IQ scores are bullshit. Allegedly Muhammed Ali had a low IQ, too, but he was obviously an extraordinarily clever man.

Sunday (#107) - Glad you figured out what I was actually trying to say about Rizzuto. And, as you suggested, a paragraph break might have helped. But I get antsy whenever I say or write anything about Rizzuto. The people who love him really really LOVE him, and sometimes just explode if you try to point out any weakness.

On the Dane Iorg thing in 1985 Game 6: Whitey, like a lot of very successful managers and coaches, could easily work himself up into a state of raging paranoia. And also, in the postseason, he would occasionally forget to dance with the ones who brought him. 1985 was the year of the "bullpen by committee." Whitey didn't want a bullpen by committee; one of the things he obsessed over the most was his closer. So, late in the season, when his AAA manager called him up and said, "I have this starter who throws real hard, and strikes everybody out for three innings, but then he gets creamed. What should I do?" Whitey replied, "He's a one-pitch pitcher, isn't he? The heater and nothing else. Make him a closer. I need one." That was Todd Worrell and the end of the committee.

When Iorg came up to bat, I was just going nuts. As mentioned before, the Cards had had Iorg before, and knew what he could and could not do. Dane Iorg was in the major leagues for, essentially, one reason - he could cream ANY right-handed fastball. He couldn't hit lefties well, and he had trouble with curves, but he creamed righty heaters. And here was Todd Worrell, who didn't have anything except righty heat. I was going nuts. The Cards had, in the bullpen as part of the committee, Rickey Horton, a master of lefty slop. Bringing in Horton for Worrell would have turned Iorg from a .500 hitter into a .100 hitter. But no, Whitey loved those closers, and he paid for it. I also checked, and the Royals didn't have much of a counter to Horton. MacRae was already in there, as a pinch runner, I think.

But neither that, nor Denkinger, is really where the trouble started. All year long, whenever the Cards had a lead in the ninth, Whitey would take Jack Clark out and put in Mike Joegensen. Mike couldn't carry Clark's bat, but he was a real good glove. Denkinger never blows the call if Mike is fielding the ball. I've seen both Don and the other umpires on the field talk about this, and they all agree that the big problem was that Denkinger was so close to the play, and Clark's throw was off-target enough, that Don could not see both Orta's foot and the ball hitting the glove at the same time. This was a period when umpires NEVER admitted a mistake and NEVER asked for help. The reason was that multiple cameras with replay had shown up, and the umpires felt under siege. So they had forted up. That has gotten much better now; apparently everyone got together and worked it out, and now umpires will ask for help and don't throw fits if you ask for an instant replay. But in 1985, NO umpire was ever going ask for help. Oh, and Jorgensen also catches Balboni's foul ball. The reason that Porter did not catch it was that it was the first baseman's play. I've seen replay, and it looks like Clark was actually afraid of the rolled-up tarp and was looking at it as much as the ball. This was the series that Vince Coleman has to miss because a tarp rolled over his leg. Whitey did in fact get asked why he did not bring in Jorgensen. He said that he was just afraid to take a one-run lead into the ninth inning, against a team with as good pitching as the Royals had, without the guy who was famous for late-inning and extra-inning walk-off heroics (which Jack Clark was, at the time). Well, Whitey, you was brung to the dance by Jorgensen. You shoulda danced with him. You wouldn't think that this would be such a big deal - how many games are you going to lose because of first base defense? Well, I haven't studied the issue, but ask Bill Buckner.

After losing game 6, the Cards should not have been in real bad shape. They had their ace going, and Tudor, in 1985, was one hell of an ace. My guess, though, is that Whitey could not calm himself down, and therefore could not help the team to calm down and focus. So they went out there half crazy, and Tudor, who pitched with his brain, was the worst pitcher you could think of to put in there half crazy. And then Whitey brought in Andujar, making sure that the game would get out of control. BTW, I knew a sports photographer for the Post-Dispatch for some years. He knew Andujar, and had been invited to Joaquin's house for dinner and such stuff. He said that joaquin Andujar was a perfectly fine person, just as long as he know that he was still in the starting rotation and when his next start would be. Whitey has spoken and written about this, too. He's said that's why he traded for Joaquin in the first place. He knew that all he had to do to get a real good starter was give this guy security. Every time you came out there to relieve him you told him, "Great game, Joaquin. You're starting again on Thursday." And Andujar would be fine. But the manager in Houston had not figured this out, and so Andujar was crazy in the Houston clubhouse.

On the various drug cases that Whitey inherited when he came to the Cards: I was able to figure out, due to a sportswriter violating a not-for-the-record agreement, who they were. I'm not going to name the names, because the people are all still alive. But the great majority of the people that Whitey traded in his early years were on cocaine. The one I can mention is Hernandez, since he admitted it later, while with the Mets. But there was a LOT of cocaine in the Cardinal clubhouse in the late 1970s, and Whitey's first job, really, was to get rid of the most toxic parts of it without losing all his best talent. One thing I will dispute is that Darrell Porter became a much worse player after he quit drinking / doing cocaine. What happened, along with age, happened to many of the cocaine cases I now of. When they came back from rehab, they did not hit for as much average as they had before, but they took more walks. They were calmer people. I don't think that Porter actually lost any value to rehab, but the shape of his numbers did move some, and, of course, he did get older. - Brock Hanke

I bookmarked this thread. It's the best baseball one I've seen in a while and it reminds me that I need to reread up on the Red Sox post '67. I knewLongborg got hurt and the O's were strong, but was wondering if Yaz hindered them a bit during that time.

Great post, Brock. As someone who never paid much attention to either Dane Iorg or the National League in 1985, I found that part about Herzog's fatal decision to leave in Worrell to be really interesting. And what you say about Herzog in the aftermath of game 6 confirmed my thoughts about how he became unhinged and helped cost his team the Series.** I only wish YouTube had been around back then to give us "Hitler the Cardinals Fan".

** Though admittedly Bret Saberhagen also played a small part in the Cardinals' downfall.

Allegedly Muhammed Ali had a low IQ, too, but he was obviously an extraordinarily clever man.

This is the same Muhammad Ali that said white people were invented in a laboratory by a black scientist experimenting with inter-species breeding.

there was a LOT of cocaine in the Cardinal clubhouse in the late 1970s

Brock, I remember seeing a post a few years back (I believe it was posted by you) that referenced a late 70s/early 80s article in a St Louis paper which alluded to & implied some of the cocaine use within the team. Do you remember posting that? Either way, great post above, I never thought of Jorgensen being the Dave Stapleton and Clark being the Buckner of the 85 Series.

Durocher. Durocher disliked Ruth and the feeling was mutual.

Durocher was Ruth's roommate and used to steal from him. When Ruth found out, he nearly killed him.

Durocher was a piece of ####.

This is the same Muhammad Ali that said white people were invented in a laboratory by a black scientist experimenting with inter-species breeding.

A tenet of his faith, no? Harmon Killebrew (to name a player I happen to know was Mormon, not to mention my favorite player as a kid) clearly believed things just as insane. So do certain people in this thread.

Great post, Brock. I have one comment on this:

Whitey did in fact get asked why he did not bring in Jorgensen. He said that he was just afraid to take a one-run lead into the ninth inning, against a team with as good pitching as the Royals had, without the guy who was famous for late-inning and extra-inning walk-off heroics (which Jack Clark was, at the time). Well, Whitey, you was brung to the dance by Jorgensen. You shoulda danced with him.

Somebody asked Bill James a little while ago about why the Red Sox didn't pinch-run for David Ortiz in some situation, and James said he didn't like that move, that he hated to take his best hitter out in the late innings of a close game. I was reminded of that exchange - if Jorgenson had come up in a hypothetical 11th inning of that game against a Bud Black, Whitey sure would have wished he still had Clark in there. Not that it makes his decision wrong, but it makes it more complicated.

Something I didn't realize until I looked at the stats just now: Over the course of that seven-game World Series, the Royals used just six pitchers.

He said that he was just afraid to take a one-run lead into the ninth inning, against a team with as good pitching as the Royals had, without the guy who was famous for late-inning and extra-inning walk-off heroics (which Jack Clark was, at the time).

Random fact: Jack Clark has the 2nd most extra-inning homers of any player in history. Only Willie Mays had more. At least he ranked second when I wrote this article. I doubt anyone's caught him since then.

Something I didn't realize until I looked at the stats just now: Over the course of that seven-game World Series, the Royals used just six pitchers.

Dick Howser loved long relief outings. The 1982 Royals didn't have a single relief appearance last less than two batters. They are the last team to claim that. The next to last? The 1947 St. Louis Browns.

The 1985 Royals world champions had just one time when a reliever had a one-batter outing. Quis in this game.

And I'll add to the chorus of people thanking Brock for that post. That was really interesting all around.

Durocher. Durocher disliked Ruth and the feeling was mutual.

Durocher was Ruth's roommate and used to steal from him. When Ruth found out, he nearly killed him.
That's probably more legend than fact, though in fact Ruth did hate Leo's guts.

Durocher was a piece of ####.

True in most ways, but the way he derailed that Dodgers' rebellion against Jackie Robinson makes up for a whole lot of other things. Of course the irony there is that within a few days after that, Chandler suspended him from baseball for the entire season for completely unrelated reasons, so he only got to see Jackie on a TV in a bar.

Just to drop in one detail to complete the situation described by Brock in #114: Hal McRae had pinch-hit for Buddy Biancalana just before Iorg delivered his game-winning hit, and had been intentionally walked to load the bases. The Royals had one move left to counter a hypothetical bullpen call to Ricky Horton: reserve OF Lynn Jones, a consummately mediocre RHB (.211 and 44 OPS+ in '85, 74 OPS+ lifetime) who actually hit righties better than he did lefties.

Then again, Jones had already collected two pinch-hits (a double and a triple) in the Series--both of them off John Tudor (a lefty).

Royals used 16 position players in that series. Not sure if they had any more who never got into the game. Only 6 pitchers used, I'd guess they had 3 more who were never needed.

It's such a different game where almost all of the strategy involves who bats, runs, or fields, instead of who is brought in to pitch to one hitter. It's hard to believe I was not only alive for those games, but a serious Bill James-reading fan.

Random fact: Jack Clark has the 2nd most extra-inning homers of any player in history. Only Willie Mays had more. At least he ranked second when I wrote this article. I doubt anyone's caught him since then.

Just looked it up, and Clark is still second with 18, Mays at 19, and Pujols is 4th with 15. (Frob has 16)

Speaking of Whitey & Brock's post about in-game strategy, the single WORST move I've ever seen a manager make was him removing Splittorf in game 5 of the 1977 ALCS

I remember how aggressive Dick Howser was in using starting pitchers in relief in the ALCS. Charlie Leibrandt started two games and relieved in one; Bud Black relieved twice and started once; Mark Gubicza and Danny Jackson had one of each. It couldn't (I suspect) work for a 162 game season, but Howser leveraged his best pitchers to the hilt.

IIRC, that was to get Toronto's lefty platoon partners out of the game so Quisenberry didn't have to face them and could get their righties out.

#131 YDRC. Howser managed specifically to get the lefties out of the game. Al Oliver seems to have seen it coming in the game and was not happy when he was lifted.

I guess it is apropos for this thread that there are more than a few pricks on that list in #128. Then again, Stan Musial and Thome are on the list too.

John Tudor -- and I suspect it is. Why him? Surely there were other players who had snotty Upstate NY accents?

FWIW, although Tudor was born in Schenectady, he actually grew up in Massachusetts (Boston suburbs). That annoying speech is pretty unmistakable.

People from upstate NY don't have snotty accents; we speak the Pure American.

The 1984 Padres were a pretty amazing bunch, with four actual members of the John Birch Society: Show, Thurmond, Terry Kennedy, and Dave Dravecky

Wasn't Andy Hawkins the 4th Bircher?

And really, if Steve Garvey is on your team, having even fourteen Birchers wouldn't make you noticeably more a$$holerish.

People from upstate NY don't have snotty accents

I disagree, most people here sound like they are full of snot. Must be all the smoking.

YR, I was going to say that they don't have snotty accents because most of them don't speak beyond "Ugh" and "Grrr," but since I don't live there anymore I thought I'd pretend to be nice.

Speaking of Whitey & Brock's post about in-game strategy, the single WORST move I've ever seen a manager make was him removing Splittorf in game 5 of the 1977 ALCS

That was karma's revenge at work, since I'd bet $200 on the Royals to win that series. I think God was trying to send me a message about wagering against His Team.

Rick Hummell had a thing in the paper the other day quoting Schoendienst who said Durocher was the only guy who Stan Musial said he didn't like.

Adding:

Wasn't Andy Hawkins the 4th Bircher?

Or was it Ed Whitson? IIRC Whitson started a fistfight with Billy Martin in New York. I saw the 84 Braves-Padres near riot on you tub not too long ago. Whitson seemed one of the rowdiest on the field, maybe second on the Padres to Champ Summers.

If you want to see some overmanaging by Herzog, take a look back at the 1976 ALCS. Herzog apparently became obsessed with throwing lefties at the Yankees at all times possible. Granted the Yankees did have worse splits against lefties than righties that year.

At the end of the season, Herzog's rotation was Dennis Leonard, Al Fitzmorris, Doug Bird, Marty Pattin, and Andy Hassler. Leonard, a righty, started games 2 and 5 (and pitched poorly both times.) Hassler, a lefty, started game 3. Al Fitzmorris, the #2 starter, didn't pitch at all in the ALCS. Fitzmorris was a righty, but had done fine in September and had decent splits against lefties. Doug Bird, in most seasons a reliever, also was sent to the bullpen and pitched (and won) in long relief one game. Marty Pattin, who didn't have great splits against lefties, but who had pitched great down the stretch, pitched in two games to a total of 2 batters, one of which was an intentional walk. After that IW, he was replaced in the 6th inning by Tom Hall, who had been a great lefty reliever... in 1973. By 1976 he was at the end of his career.

Games 1 and 4 were not started by veteran lefty Paul Splittorff, who'd missed most of August and September and not had his best year. Splittorff did pitch reasonably well in long relief, relieving Leonard both times. Games 1 and 4 were started by Larry Gura, who had started 2 games for the Royals all year. Gura did last unti the 9th in Game 1, though the Royals lost 4-1. In Game 4 he was knocked out early. Overall he gave up 18 hits in 10 and 2/3 innings, not so great.

Herzog succeeded in throwing a lot of lefties at the Yankees, but overall the Yankees hit at a .316 clip, and all of their significant hitters had good series. That didn't stop Herzog from starting Gura and Hassler again in the 1977 ALCS while leaving 18 game winner Jim Colborn on the bench.

The other thing I don't understand about 1976 is what was up with Sparky Lyle. Sparky pitched 1 inning in the ALCS, saving Game 3. In Game 5 it was Grant Jackson who gave up the tying home run to George Brett in the eighth inning. Jackson finished out that innning, then was replaced by Dick Tidrow for the 9th.

Lyle only pitched 5 innings in September, so maybe something was wrong. He did save both games of a double header against the Indians on October 2nd (why.) Jackson and Tidrow did have long careers as relievers in their own right. Still seems stranger.

Dennis (#118) - That post was probably not from me. The article I was referencing was NOT in the Post-Dispatch, but a different paper, not in St. Louis at all. In fact, it may have been in a book. Beyond generally noting that there was a lot of cocaine in the Cardinal clubhouse in the late 1970s, and noting that Red Schoendienst lost control of the clubhouse when Bob Gibson retired, I generally try not to say much about the subject, because I know just a bit too much for my own good, and am terrified that I'm going to let too much out someday.

Don (#126) - Thanks for looking up the info on MacRae and the actual options the Royals would have had if they'd seen Horton. One problem I have with posting on BTF is that I get started in the actual BTF window and then it turns into a long essay. This is a problem because, if I need to look something up, like Clark's walk-off numbers or how MacRae had gotten into the game, and I go to BB-Ref for it, I lose the ENTIRE BTF comment. I really should just pull up a window in Word and write the comments there, but I forget. That's why a lot of my comments contain details with an "I think" tagged on - I can't go to BB-Ref and look the detail up.

The point I'm making about great managers going paranoid in the postseason does not only apply to Whitey. The world of sports is just littered with weird, failed decisions made by generally first-rate manners and coaches. I first noted this, actually, in football, where the Washington Redskins had a coach (George Allen?), who won a lot but was a complete raging paranoid at any time, and really bad in the postseason. The thing is, this syndrome seems to apply mostly to the BEST managers. The mediocre and bad ones don't go that way. Whitey made a similar mistake in Game 6 of the 1987 WS, and it cost him just as badly. His starter, Joe Magrane, was getting close to his effective pitch limit, but was pitching really well, and the Cards were ahead. In, IIRC, the 6th, Magrane gave up an infield grounder that got ruled a hit (I remember thinking it was more like an error on Herr). Whitey promptly came out and removed Magrane, to replace him with Starter Danny Cox, on only two days' rest. Cox had nothing, and the Cards lost the game. It looked like, to me, that Whitey had said to himself that Joe could stay in there until he gave up a hit, and then it was going to be Cox. But Magrane had not really "given up" a hit. He'd given up a grounder to the infield. And Cox was on two days' rest. Whitey would normally never make that mistake, but the WS had gotten to him again. Bill James, recently, I think on his site, wrote about the stress of managing a baseball team, and speculated that it might be why many of the very best managers (McCarthy, Durocher, La Russa) were alcoholics. It distracted them from the stress.

There is also this: Great managers make good sense almost all the time, and so you know a lot more about how they manage than you do about the weaker guys. I know a LOT about Whitey's in-game managing because Whitey was so well organized and so willing to talk to the press about strategy and tactics. I don't know anything near as much about any other manager, because none of the others are so consistent and clear. That is, this series of comments is NOT meant to be a slam on Whitey. If anything, it's praise. Whitey Herzog's managing made sense. When he didn't do what he'd been doing all along, it really showed. I mean, think about it: How many managers do you know who have a roster spot dedicated to a late-inning glove replacement at FIRST BASE? Who does that, anyway? Well, Whitey Herzog did, that's who. And that's why he's so easy to analyze. Every one of the 25 spots on his rosters makes sense, and he paid attention to the finest details. Defense at first base? Who worries about that costing you games? Whitey Herzog does. Think about it. How many games have you seen depend on not just one, but two defensive plays at first base that a good glove would have made, but a bad glove did not? In the same inning. At first base? The annoying thing is that Whitey DID care about stuff like that, and then, when he finally did not do what he'd been doing all year to cover for Clark's glove, TWO of these plays happen at first base.

On Clark - When I said that Clark was famous for late-inning homer heroics AT THE TIME, I really mean that. He WAS very famous in the 1980s for doing just exactly that. I really appreciate you guys looking up his actual numbers, but if you look through Bill's Abstracts in the 1980s, you will find several comments about Jack Clark hitting late and walk-off homers. He really was famous for that in that decade. - Brock

Dennis (#118) - That post was probably not from me. The article I was referencing was NOT in the Post-Dispatch, but a different paper, not in St. Louis at all. In fact, it may have been in a book. Beyond generally noting that there was a lot of cocaine in the Cardinal clubhouse in the late 1970s, and noting that Red Schoendienst lost control of the clubhouse when Bob Gibson retired, I generally try not to say much about the subject, because I know just a bit too much for my own good, and am terrified that I'm going to let too much out someday.

Don (#126) - Thanks for looking up the info on MacRae and the actual options the Royals would have had if they'd seen Horton. One problem I have with posting on BTF is that I get started in the actual BTF window and then it turns into a long essay. This is a problem because, if I need to look something up, like Clark's walk-off numbers or how MacRae had gotten into the game, and I go to BB-Ref for it, I lose the ENTIRE BTF comment. I really should just pull up a window in Word and write the comments there, but I forget. That's why a lot of my comments contain details with an "I think" tagged on - I can't go to BB-Ref and look the detail up.

The point I'm making about great managers going paranoid in the postseason does not only apply to Whitey. The world of sports is just littered with weird, failed decisions made by generally first-rate manners and coaches. I first noted this, actually, in football, where the Washington Redskins had a coach (George Allen?), who won a lot but was a complete raging paranoid at any time, and really bad in the postseason. The thing is, this syndrome seems to apply mostly to the BEST managers. The mediocre and bad ones don't go that way. Whitey made a similar mistake in Game 6 of the 1987 WS, and it cost him just as badly. His starter, Joe Magrane, was getting close to his effective pitch limit, but was pitching really well, and the Cards were ahead. In, IIRC, the 6th, Magrane gave up an infield grounder that got ruled a hit (I remember thinking it was more like an error on Herr). Whitey promptly came out and removed Magrane, to replace him with Starter Danny Cox, on only two days' rest. Cox had nothing, and the Cards lost the game. It looked like, to me, that Whitey had said to himself that Joe could stay in there until he gave up a hit, and then it was going to be Cox. But Magrane had not really "given up" a hit. He'd given up a grounder to the infield. And Cox was on two days' rest. Whitey would normally never make that mistake, but the WS had gotten to him again. Bill James, recently, I think on his site, wrote about the stress of managing a baseball team, and speculated that it might be why many of the very best managers (McCarthy, Durocher, La Russa) were alcoholics. It distracted them from the stress.

There is also this: Great managers make good sense almost all the time, and so you know a lot more about how they manage than you do about the weaker guys. I know a LOT about Whitey's in-game managing because Whitey was so well organized and so willing to talk to the press about strategy and tactics. I don't know anything near as much about any other manager, because none of the others are so consistent and clear. That is, this series of comments is NOT meant to be a slam on Whitey. If anything, it's praise. Whitey Herzog's managing made sense. When he didn't do what he'd been doing all along, it really showed. I mean, think about it: How many managers do you know who have a roster spot dedicated to a late-inning glove replacement at FIRST BASE? Who does that, anyway? Well, Whitey Herzog did, that's who. And that's why he's so easy to analyze. Every one of the 25 spots on his rosters makes sense, and he paid attention to the finest details. Defense at first base? Who worries about that costing you games? Whitey Herzog does. Think about it. How many games have you seen depend on not just one, but two defensive plays at first base that a good glove would have made, but a bad glove did not? In the same inning. At first base? The annoying thing is that Whitey DID care about stuff like that, and then, when he finally did not do what he'd been doing all year to cover for Clark's glove, TWO of these plays happen at first base.

On Clark - When I said that Clark was famous for late-inning homer heroics AT THE TIME, I really mean that. He WAS very famous in the 1980s for doing just exactly that. I really appreciate you guys looking up his actual numbers, but if you look through Bill's Abstracts in the 1980s, you will find several comments about Jack Clark hitting late and walk-off homers. He really was famous for that in that decade. - Brock

117. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 18, 2016 at 09:12 AM (#5198788)
Allegedly Muhammed Ali had a low IQ, too, but he was obviously an extraordinarily clever man.


This is the same Muhammad Ali that said white people were invented in a laboratory by a black scientist experimenting with inter-species breeding.

Back in'99, STATS had a book out called The Diamond Chronicles. Part of it included emails between staffers about various baseball topics. It reminded me of an Ur-BTF. I digress. At one point Athlete of the Century came up and one guy mentioned Ali because he brought the really big money into sports.

I recently read Mark Kram's book on the Thrilla in Manila. When you sift through Kram's koans, you get an unflattering portrait of Ali as a pawn of the NoI. They're the ones, for example, who wanted him to defy the draft.

Anyways,Ali had a rare combination of power and speed, got less of that really big money than I expected (he was no proto-Curt Flood,) and may have made self promotion among athletes more popular. Satch and Diz may've been self promoters, but they were from a pre-television era,

This post is incomplete,but I wanted to get a few lines in before work.

How many managers do you know who have a roster spot dedicated to a late-inning glove replacement at FIRST BASE? Who does that, anyway?

Hard to do now with so many roster spots going to pitchers, but from memory it doesn't seem that uncommon back in the 1980s. 1986 Red Sox had Dave Stapleton, 1984 Tigers had Dave Bergman.

I lose the ENTIRE BTF comment.

Brock, thanks for replying back. I sometimes lose my comment too so what I do is copy it before I open another window so I can paste it back in. Interesting stuff about Gibson helping to keep control of the clubhouse

Extra Innings splits since 1913, min 100 PA (777 qualifying players), tOPS+ is relative to that players performance in first 9 innings, Mays the extra inning HR leader and Mr. Playoff Clutch included:




Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 4/19/2016.

Jack Clark ranks among the best both in terms of clutch/luck of coming through relative to his expected performance as well as having one of the highest raw OPS in extra innings.

FWIW, I was born in 1968 so Ali was not controversial by the time I became aware of him; which is, IIRC, via a novelty record he released that Hartford's 50k watt blowtorch WTIC-AM would play. Personally, I think the truth about Ali lies somewhere between what Kram thought and what Norman Mailer thought about him.

Hard to do now with so many roster spots going to pitchers, but from memory it doesn't seem that uncommon back in the 1980s. 1986 Red Sox had Dave Stapleton, 1984 Tigers had Dave Bergman.

Even the 2004 Red Sox had Doug Misspelling. It's not common, but still not unheard of.

The White Sox had Mike Squires in the role of first-base defensive specialist for a decade. He was so good he won a Gold Glove, but could never hit enough to crack the starting lineup.

Good examples. Squires is also the last lefthanded catcher if I'm not mistaken.

So Jack Clark hit to the score, or something?

Crude attempt to find frequently used PH, PR and defensive replacements, max 50% of games at P or C with 20+ G and 2 or fewer PA per game, I'll assume most specialists would play some full games when someone rested:

2010s: 55, 39, 34, 37, 42, 44
2000s: 58, 59, 46, 57, 53, 46, 47, 45, 49, 38
1990s: 52, 43, 46, 53, 43, 46, 58, 46, 56, 48
1980s: 55, 64, 66, 65, 68, 73, 44, 41, 53, 49
1970s: 56, 51, 52, 48, 66, 56, 56, 64, 52, 55
1960s: 44, 42, 40, 35, 32, 50, 41, 41, 32, 59

1950s: 25, 20, 29, 38, 34, 21, 39, 35, 32, 38
1940s: 18, 10, 12, 9, 9, 19, 16, 19, 15, 21
1930s: 11, 11, 16, 22, 14, 7, 15, 14, 10, 12
1920s: 14, 12, 13, 17, 15, 13, 20, 13, 17, 19
1910s: 5, 9, 6, 24, 24, 17, 21, 16, 5, 11
1905: 1, 1907: 2, 1908: 6, 1909: 7

Big jump from 1968 to 1969, big drop from 1985 to 1986 and adjusting for expansion the last 5 years are among the lowest numbers since WW2 left teams with no benches.

Boileryard Clarke is the first, 31 G and 56 PA in his final season, more games at 1st than C, his entire career is 739 at C and 193 at 1B.

The 18 among the 44 in 2015 with at least 50 G:



Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 4/19/2016.

With the roster squeeze of today's game, most teams try to find a full-time guy to fill first base. So yeah, 1B-only defensive specialists are all but extinct.

To identify the "glove" first basemen, start by identifying the worst hitters.

Lowest OPS+, players with 900+ G, 2500+ PA, 50%+ G at 1B, since 1941:

To identify the "glove" first basemen

15     Bill Buckner  100   12.0 2517 10037 1969 1990

If only.

Yeah, but some good hitters can play first well. Highpockets Kelly is an old example. I'm surprised Babe Dahlgren wasn't on that list, but he might have missed the playing time cutoff.

Lowest OPS+, players with 850+ G, 3000+ PA, 50%+ G at 1B, since 1941:

By looking at players with 3.5 PA per game, you're missing out some of the defensive specialists. Mike Squires misses this list because he played in just 779 games, but he's also woefully short on the PAs with just 1779. Or Tony Muser, with 663 games and 1389 PA.

I don't know if there's a way to search for this, but I think what you'd want to look for is players with the most non-started games at first base.

I don't know if there's a way to search for this, but I think what you'd want to look for is players with the most non-started games at first base.

Use the ratio feature, e.g., fewest PA per game.

Looking at 2016 fielding stats, there are only 2 players who I could consider a first base defensive sub:

Justin Smoak 8 games, 3 starts (kind of a platoon but this year Colabello is getting a lot of starts vs. RHP)
Sean Rodriguez 7 games, zero starts (also plays other positions)

2015:

Efren Navarro
Sean Rodriguez
Marwin Gonzalez
Andrew Romine

3 of the 4 are utility infielders who played some late game 1B defense, Navarro also played some OF.

500+ G at 1B, less than 2.5 PA (first 5), 2.5-2.74 (next 2), 2.75-2.99 (next 3) and 3-3.24 (bottom 8) per game career, number after name is final year of career:



Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 4/19/2016.

Some of these are pinch hitter or strict-platoon types, of course. Here are all player with PA<3.5*G, 710+ G, and 50%+ G at 1B, since 1941:


I think this shows that the career part-time 1B is all but gone from today's game.

DanG (153)'s list is quite a good thing to see. To compare to Mike Jorgensen in 1985:

Jorgensen played 72 games, but only got 146 PA. He hit .196 with no power. However, his OPS+ was 79; he hadn't seen over 100 in five years. That's lower than anyone on the list, but in a smaller sample size. As a pinch hitter, he had what I consider the most important ability - he could take walks. That is, he could pass the inning on to a better hitter without damage. I've always thought that the most important ability for a PH to have. In any case, if you're looking for a real glove caddy at first base, you should be looking at a guy who really can't hit. If he can hit, he's more a PH than a 1B Glove.

Tulo (151) I would not call it hitting to the score. I did a small study of this, way back, and decided that, when under pressure - in the clutch - players tend to revert to their best skill. Jack Clark hit homers in the clutch, but did not walk as much as normal. Jose Oquendo, about as opposite a hitter from Clark as you can think of except for strike zone judgment, took boatloads of walks in the clutch. I call this "retreating to the central skill" and think that it is a very good way to approach pinch hitting.

All you guys have made this into a great thread. No explosions, no ad hominems, nothing but baseball analysis. I love this thread. - Brock

One of my favorite instances of 1B defensive replacements has not been mentioned, and it does involve Pedro Guerrero.

Pedro Guerrero was the 1st baseman on the 1989 St. Louis Cardinals. The 1989 Cardinals had a very set starting lineup. 3/4 of the infield (Guerrero, Jose Oquendo, and Terry Pendleton) played at least 162 games, and SS Ozzie Smith played 155. All of the starting OFers (Tom Brunansky, Milt Thompson, Vince Coleman) had at least 545 ABs. Catcher Tony Pena played in 141 games.

This did not leave much playing time for the bench players. Willie McGee wasn't a regular due to injury, but he had 199 AB. Reserve OF John Morris was the only other bench player with over 100 AB.

Getting back to Guerrero, Guerrero had some odd stats. Playing 162 games, he hit .317 with 17 HR and 79 walks, but only scored 60 runs! So counting hits, walks, and HBP, and subtracting HR, he was on base 243 times that year, but only scored 43 times. He also had 42 doubles, so he was in scoring position a few times too. 43 for 243 has to be close to a record; another query for bbmck.

I figure Guerrero probably got pinch-run for a few times. The Cardinals had a backup 1B, Jim Lindeman. Lindeman had odd stats, 73 Games, 45 AB, 5 H for a .111 BA. 8 runs scored with only 5 hits and 3 walks. Lindeman played 42 games at 1B and didn't start any of them. He did start one game in the OF out of the 5 he played there.

Lindeman's deployment:
27 games as a PH only
24 games as a 1B only (defensive replacement)
14 games as a PR who stayed in the game at 1B
3 games as a PH who stayed in the game (2 at 1B, 1 LF)
1 game as a PR only
1 start in LF
2 games as a defensive sub in the OF
1 game entering as a defensive sub at 1B then as switch to OF.

Lindeman's last hit of the season came June 20th. He also spent about a month in the minors in July and August.

Shortly after Lindeman's last hit, Leon Durham, who'd been in the minors, played his first game for the Cardinals in 1989. Durham was apparently a replacement for or augmentation to the Lindeman role. Apparently the Cardinals had some times where both were just on the team, just one, or neither. Durham was even less successful, playing 29 games and going 1 for 18 with 2 walks and a HBP. Durham scored 2 runs.

Durham's deployment
11 games as a PH only
10 games as a defensive replacement at 1B
5 games as a PR who stayed in the game at 1B
2 starts at 1B
1 game as a PH who stayed in at 1B

How many managers do you know who have a roster spot dedicated to a late-inning glove replacement at FIRST BASE?

Jorgensen also filled the OBP-PH role Tenace had had a few years prior, as compared to the Dane Iorg/Steve Braun role which was the make contact, "Professional Hitter"-PH.

1985 was the year of the "bullpen by committee." Whitey didn't want a bullpen by committee; one of the things he obsessed over the most was his closer.

He said at the time that he was cool with it, though. I didn't understand and didn't see the contradiction as a kid but now I do. He talked-up the bullpen by committee thing to the media to play down the sting of losing Sutter but really (you're right, I think) he didn't ever want to be without a capital-C Closer even though the Dayley/Lahti tandem was pretty good for a while.

Incidentally, the last game I went to, near the end of the '14 season, my friend and I sat behind a guy in a Lahti jersey. My friend discreetly asks me about the weird name; I know that he doesn't recognize it as a baseball name but as a gun name; I tell him what I know about Lahti's career, how he was underrated. So the guy hears me talking in an enthusiastic way and very nicely told us he's known and been friends Lahti for years, then presented his right hand upon which was Lahti's '82 WC ring. He took it off and even, understandably somewhat tensely, let my friend hold it, and I touched it and looked at it up close. I was suspicious but it was the real thing AFAICT, with just the right amount of soft-gold wear and the right markings. Said he bought it from Lahti a few years back. All the while I'm thinking, maybe this guy really is Jeff Lahti but doesn't want to say so for some reason? I didn't and don't think so but I'm not 100% sure; the guy looked about 5 years too young but seemed like the right height though of course with middle-aged thickness.

I like the Lahti story, and I had no idea it was a gun name. Whitey pretty much had to SAY he liked the committee during the season, because to do otherwise would be to cheese off Gussie Busch and make his relievers feel like trash. However, the instant insertion of Worrell into the closer role, as soon as he'd had a some games in that role in AAA, was much more telling than Whitey's words. The story about his AAA manager calling Whitey up and asking what to do with Worrell was well documented at the time, which is why I posted it as true.

Ah, Jim Lindeman. Boy, do I remember him. Whitey had gotten it into his head that Andy Van Slyke could not hit lefty pitching, and brought Lindeman up to be Van Slyke's platoon partner in RF, and then traded Van Slyke for Tony Pena. I will never understand that. - Brock

One thing that it is VERY important to remember if you want to understand the Cardinals of 1989-1995 is that the Gussie Busch who bought the Cards in 1953 - the one who hired and enabled Whitey - died in September, 1989. His son, also called Gussie (there are 4 of them altogether, and I can never keep the numbers straight) did NOT like the team. This was a public matter in STL at the time, because he never attended the games, and left real early whenever he did show up. My take on his treatment of the team, which includes the Joe Torre managerial stint, is that he acted like he felt that he'd competed with the team for his father's attention, and had lost. I'm not sure of that, but Whitey's being the father's man may well have led to his departure from the team. In any case, the Cards were not a real force again until the new Gussie sold them to one of the Bill De Witts (I can't keep track of them, either). Much of Whitey's last couple of years in STL were marred by not begin able to do what he wanted to do, which meant that he could not construct the rosters he wanted. - Brock

Whitey had gotten it into his head that Andy Van Slyke could not hit lefty pitching

He wasn't wrong there. Van Slyke had an unusually large platoon split for a regular player.

Even if we look at only 1987-92 (where he played very well and every day) he hit only .240/.308/.371 in just under 1400 PAs (brought up by one pretty good year) vs LHP.

But you can live with that to get the .311/.382/.532 he put up against RHP. Particularly since he threw in speed, versatility and had a pretty good glove.

In any case, the Cards were not a real force again until the new Gussie sold them to one of the Bill De Witts (I can't keep track of them, either).

The one who owns the team now was once a batboy for the SL Browns, and it was his uniform that was used for Eddie Gaedel's historic plate appearance.

One thing I learned from Howard Megdal's excellent book.

165 - I somehow missed the part of your previous post about Jorgensen's OBP so apologies for being redundant.

166 - I think you're right about the Busches' changing attitude to the team. I read the scandal-type biography book of the family some years ago and IIRC, August II was known the familiar Gussie while August III, the business only non-baseball fan and otherwise a real hardass, is known as Augie.

I remember reading the Worrell story before, same as you tell it. Now, I wonder why he didn't let Dayley do it full time. Did he not believe a closer could be left-handed? (I'm not old enough to remember how he used Hrabosky once he got him in Kansas City.) Dayley had fantastic stuff - a hell of a curveball.

Actually, until Worrell arrived, Ken Dayley was the Cardinal closer, to the extent that they had one. He had 11 saves in 65 IP. However, he had also lost 4 games. As a side note and possible excuse for Whitey, Ricky Horton had not pitched well in the 1985 postseason. However, this was not a Royals starter at bat; this was Dane Iorg.

I have Howard's book, too, and IIRC, the whole DeWitt family got its start in baseball when the grandfather of the guy who owns the Cardinals was a message runner / errand boy / maybe batboy for the Cardinals. The DeWitts actually have a very strong connection to the Cards and STL, considering that they're primarily from Cincy. - Brock

One thing I learned from Howard Megdal's excellent book.

I'm in the middle of it now and am enjoying it as well, although one of the big takeaways for me is that even for a team like the Cardinals, many scouts are still peddling the same kind of crap that they got reamed for in Moneyball - looks like a ballplayer, gut feeling, see the will to win from the look in his eyes, "pitchability," etc. etc.

I watched the 9inn/game 6 again to see what BJ is saying and of course yea. Some other things I noted:

on the Clark, foul ball, non catch. I dont think its a tarp he's worried about, but rather falling into the dugout, he glances at a couple of times probably right at the moment he lost track of/should have been tracking the foul. Even when the ball is about to land behind him, and he has no chance he's still looking into the dugout! How much play time did Clark have at 1b? There's no way for Porter to make the play, not only its not his play, he'd have to run Clark over to get to the ball.

They tried to bunt Orta to third and it looks like Worral is dialed into throw to third and it looks like he has no chance to get him. Then he does get Orta at 3b and wow that was some play. BUt on the replay Orta starts his slide a full stride BEFORE even reaching the cut out. I dont know how big the cutouts are, he must be at least 15 feet in front of the bag. Bad play from someone I thought was a decent player.

Worral was a physical specimen. Not only is he tall,he's got huge shoulders and long arms.

On the wild pitch/passed ball, that pitch must have crossed POrter up. Its a slider i guess, it breaks sharply at the end and Porter's glove does get turned downward. Porter even talks to WOrral, I think it was maybe the only slider he throws in that inning? Did Worral throw many sliders?

Whitey doesnt seem to even think about bringing in a new pither to face Iorg. Thats the first thing the announcers say when Iorg comes up, is whitey going the bull pen?

Could they have drawn the outfielders in for Iorg? Its only one out, but if they catch a shallow fly ball they might holder the runners on 3b. Iorg does not appear to have any power is he likely to hit it over their heads? He hit a shallow pop fly that might have been catchable.

Sunday - You may very well be right about the dugout instead of the tarp. But Clark was certainly looking at something other than the ball. As for playing time, Clark was the starting 1B. The Cards, of course, didn't have a DH slot for him. He didn't have the speed to play in Busch Stadium's huge outfield territory.

Worrell, who is 6' 6" and has wide shoulders even for that size, really pretty much relied on heat, heat, and only the heat. If he threw a slider, it would make sense, as Iorg was well-know for destroying fastballs. However, the question remains of just how many of Worrelll's sliders Porter had ever seen. Worrell was a late-season call-up one-pitch closer.

Iorg's total stats don't show a lot of power, but all of it is when hitting righties, and against them, he has good power. I doubt that any outfield would come in to play him with a hard-throwing righty on the mound. Also, IIRC, the bases were loaded. If Iorg hit a screamer out there for what would look like a hit, there was an actual chance that a good outfielder could have thrown out the runner heading home. There wouldn't be a tag play needed. - Brock

its' bases loaded I think,, cause there was the wild pitch/passed ball when McCrae was up so they decided to IBB him. That brings up Iorg with bases loaded. I think. Im thinking he threw that slider to McRae but maybe Im forgetting.

ANyhow, does it matter if bases loaded? Im just wondering what the percentage play would be with Iorg batting with one out, the tying run on third and wining run on second. Its got to be prety complex. And I think it matters how likely Iorg is to hit a deep fly. If he's likely to, then i guess you cant bring the OF in. But if he's not then I guess you can bring the OF in and hope to prevent what did happen: a short fly ball that scores a run or two.

also there's one other bat left on the KC bench and that is greg Prior, who's right handed and plays most INF positions. His OBP is 30 pts less and his SLG is 50 pts less than Iorg, so yeah basically as STL you'd take that match of Prior or Lynn Jones vs lefty reliever.

If Whitey went to the lefty it would probably have to be Prior because you're gonna need a 1b for Balboni.

WHich brings up the interesting question of what happens to the lineup if Iorg had merely SF'd and tied the game? IF it goes to extras, Orta goes to RF for Sheridan, Concepcion goes to SS for Biancalana, but Iorg has never played first, has he BJ? SO it has to be Prior who has played 1b a few times over the years there. At least you can slot the pitcher into the 8th hole; and Prior fits into the 9th hole.

Concepcion was JOse Lind's cousin, I see.

...there was an actual chance that a good outfielder could have thrown out the runner heading home

I dont think I've ever seen that though. A force out at home plate on a throw from the OF?

A force out at home plate on a throw from the OF?

I don't think I recall seeing that either. If it's a clean hit to the OF, I think it's almost impossible to get the runner at home, even from shallow left, if he gets a good break. What's a bit more likely, but still I'd say pretty rare, would be a sinking liner or a shallow fly that looks like it will be caught, causing the runner to hold at 3rd. A lucky bounce and good arm in left, plus Jack Cust at 3rd, and you could get a force out at home on an uncaught ball to the outfield.

Does anyone have the means to check how often a 7-2, 8-2 or 9-2 non-double-play putouts have occured?

I'd also be curious to see how often a force out at home happens. The last time I can remember that happening was Austin Kearns when he was with the Nats in 2009. He threw out Felipe Lopez, who had gone with him from Cincinnati in a somewhat controversial trade a few years back. The single was a sharp liner right to Kearns. Lopez had stayed at the bag in case he needed to tag up. Kearns made a strong one-hop throw, and Lopez was still barely out.

gotta say this has been a real fun thread dissecting a game that took place 30 years ago. I wish we had the footage to rehash the 1926 world series or some such...

Oh actually I had a question about that. Ruth made the final out trying to steal second and took the bat out of Gehrig's hands...Except not quite it was Bob Meusel at the plate. in fact the entire WS Meusel batted 4th and Gehrig 5th even though Gehrig outslugged him by a ton. And they even pitched around gehrig in the series there was an IBB to him in game 5 I think and another walk in another game. So it was obvious even that this guy was really a strong hitter. And it seems like it might have made a difference in a couple of the games.

So did anyone ever explain why Meusel batted 4th and not Gehrig?

That was only Gehrig's second season as a regular, and he was an excellent hitter but not really LOU GEHRIG yet, with just 16 homers. Meanwhile, Meusel had led the league in HRs and RBIs just the year before.

but he was outslugging Meusel by a lot, and I think he had double the number of walks Meusel had. It seems clear in the Ws that they are pitching around him sometimes, and it must have been very clear during the season with all the walks he was getting.

If it really is because its his second season, that seems like a poor reason. If you can slug the ball you can slug the ball what difference does it matter what your experience level is? Its not like he has to call plays or something from the four slot.

If it really is because its his second season, that seems like a poor reason.

It's not because he was too inexperienced or anything. It's because it wasn't fully clear that he was a legitimately better hitter than Meusel.

Miller Huggins might know, but he's been dead for 86 years, so if he hasn't said so by now we're probably not going to get it out of him.

So did anyone ever explain why Meusel batted 4th and not Gehrig?

Break up the lefties. Miller Huggins was probably terrified that a time travelling Tony LaRussa might have been advising his opponents and getting a loogy ready in the pen.

Break up the lefties. Miller Huggins was probably terrified that a time travelling Tony LaRussa might have been advising his opponents and getting a loogy ready in the pen.

Would have happened, too, but LaRussa was drunk in his time machine and fell asleep at a red light on the space-time highway.

9-2 for a single out, runners started on 1st and 3rd by Barfield.

I have only seen a very few, may be 3, OF throws for force outs at home, but the few stick in my mind, although I can't remember a single person involved. One of the things going on in my head when I wrote that is that Andy Van Slyke was playing RF for the Cards.

Another fun note. John Tudor got blasted in Game 7, but before then, he had given the Royals exactly one run in 16 IP, winning two games. When he took the mound in Game 7 and wasn't in control of himself, that's when I stated worrying that the whole team was an emotional wreck. - Brock

#179 Gehrig wasn't yet Gehrig in 1926. Meusel was a star a year removed from leading the league in HR and RBI (yeah, tie)

That said, for most of the year they'd gone Koenig, Combs, (or Combs, Koenig) Gehrig, Ruth, Meusel, Lazzeri.

Ruth only batted 3rd in 23 games. He'd actually gone with Combs, Meusel, Ruth, Gehrig, Lazzeri for games 149-154 and he went with an order he hadn't used much during the regular season for the WS. He used CF, SS, Ruth, Meusel, Gehrig, Lazzeri for a 4 game stretch (145-148 -- they went 1-3 while scoring 15 runs in 4 games)

EDIT: Coke for the first bit, since it's pretty much word for word what Tom wrote.

It's because it wasn't fully clear that he was a legitimately better hitter than Meusel.

Yup. And Meusel had been dealing with injuries for much of the season and was finally more or less healthy.

The last time I can remember that happening was Austin Kearns when he was with the Nats in 2009.

Boy, I thought Kearns was going to be a star, in the all-around game kind of way. He just never seemed to develop.

In 2000, 2001 and 2002 Tony Muser and the Royals carried Dave McCarty as defensive replacement for Mike Sweeney. Muser was basically a defensive replacement 1B, so it makes sense that he thought having one might be useful. And Sweeney was not much around the bag at first.

When the Royals picked up McCarty in spring of 2000 he had only 23 major league plate appearances since 1996, but they still managed to get him into 103 games with 295 plate appearance that season.
In 2002 Muser was fired after starting the season 8-15 then John Mizerrock took over as interim manager until May 14 when Tony Pena took the helm. On May 15 McCarty was released.

#184 Not that anybody would have known at the time but it turns out that Ruth had a tiny platoon split in 1926 but Gehrig and Meusel had fairly large ones.

On the right play, a 9-2 forceout could be more likely than a 9-2 putout on a sac fly attempt.

Bases loaded, one out, fly to right where you just aren't sure the fielder will make a catch or not. Runner is tagging at third to be certain.

1. Balls is caught, runner comes home. Catcher has to catch the ball then get into position to make a tag on a runner trying to evade him (or a few years ago, trying to collide with him).

2. Ball drops in front, fielder gets it on one bounce and quickly fires home. All catcher has to do is stretch out and keep his foot on the plate before the runner gets there.

Boy, I thought Kearns was going to be a star, in the all-around game kind of way. He just never seemed to develop.

If I recall correctly Kearns suffered a pretty bad injury on a collision at home plate early in his career, and that often gets cited as the big reason that he never became a star.

#194 It's certainly a plausible explanation. He was hitting .306/.417/.592 after 44 games in his 2nd year (after a pretty good first season). He had a bad collision at home plate with Ray King, tried to play through it (and hit .215/.298/.296 the rest of the way) and then had season ending rotator cuff surgery.

Got off to a slow start next year and then a pitch from Ryan Vogelsong broke his arm. Returned 3 weeks later, injured his thumb and needed surgery again.

He'd lost a lot by this point and still had some serious foot problems and bone spurs to come.

AROM (193) - That is exactly what I was thinking Van Slyke might do. Of course,what you WANT Iorg to do is hit the ball on the ground at an infielder, so you can get a DP. But Worrell really didn't have much of a sinker-type pitch; his heat was high. - Brock

If there had been extra innings, my guess is that Hal MacRae would have gone to the outfield and a tall outfielder would have moved to first. - Brock

they pinch ran for McRae! WIth John Wathan no less.

I thought Wathan was a back up catch, if memory serves. So I guess McRae must have been limping around or something. I guess they PR with Wathan to keep out of the DP (he's on 1b w/ one out). Hell if you want to break up the DP McRae should be the runner, right?

Oh wait, Wathan runs for McRae so Wathan can play 1b and stays in. Iorg presumably will go out of the game, and

..then the new pitcher stays in the 9th slot where Iorg had batted. So wathan stays in plays 1b.