Foolish Baseball - Earl Weaver Played Moneyball before Moneyball

[SteveA]

1 minute ago, scbalt52 said:

Sure, he could pitch two shutout innings. I don't know if that wins the game though. Then you go to Ubaldo and might get the same result. Britton could've blown the game too. It's fine to bring him in the 11th, I just think you would've brought him in sooner then. I just don't think what happened was a wrong or bad decision. But yes it turned out horribly. If only we could've scored a run in any of those innings so Britton could've (hopefully) done what his job is.

Obviously if you just assume we never would have been able to score, based on the pathetic offense we showed that night, obviously we couldn't have won the game.

But you can't manage based on that assumption.   You have to maximize your chances of winning by using your best pitchers before you use lesser pitchers.

[scbalt52]

39 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Obviously if you just assume we never would have been able to score, based on the pathetic offense we showed that night, obviously we couldn't have won the game.

But you can't manage based on that assumption.   You have to maximize your chances of winning by using your best pitchers before you use lesser pitchers.

But using your best pitchers means he would've came in before Brach and Givens. It's whatever. I don't think it was a bad call nor made a difference.

[Moose Milligan]

Finally got around to watching that video, it was fantastic.  Really wish I could have seen those teams.

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, scbalt52 said:

Sure, he could pitch two shutout innings. I don't know if that wins the game though. Then you go to Ubaldo and might get the same result. Britton could've blown the game too. It's fine to bring him in the 11th, I just think you would've brought him in sooner then. I just don't think what happened was a wrong or bad decision. But yes it turned out horribly. If only we could've scored a run in any of those innings so Britton could've (hopefully) done what his job is.

Honestly I wasn't even considering bringing in Britton when Ubaldo came in. I would've done the same thing. I was shocked at the reaction it got.

But if that happens, nobody faults the manager. At that point you can say you used all your best pitchers and had to go what was left. 

You don't keep your best weapon for "just in case" in a one and done situation. While Britton could have easily been used earlier, and that would have been fine, the fact he kept him around in case the team got a lead was a ridiculously bad decision. 

While you are 100% right that we don't know whether Britton would have been beaten or  not, what we do know is that Britton was the league best reliever that year and to use him because you were waiting on a lead was one of the worse managerial decisions ever made in a playoff game. 

As much as I respect Buck as a person and a manager, that was an awful blunder and was the exact moment I lost confidence in him as a major league manager.

[LA2]

On 3/18/2020 at 2:32 PM, Redskins Rick said:

Who was the brain child that built this team, nothing against Weaver, he  knew the game better than most.

Im sure if you look deep enough you will also see Earl blunders, and none of us are prefect. I seem to recall my Buddy livid at Earl of the 69 WS loss, but I think they just ran into a hotter team.

 

I think the '69 Mets' pitching was underrated, but yes when you look at what players like Ron Swoboda and Al Weis did, they were a team of destiny. I don't remember blaming Earl at all for the WS loss and he did come back and win it the next year--almost again the year after that.

In regard to Earl's "blunders," I remember feeling that they were pretty specifically tied to his hunger for obtaining or calling up and sticking with home run hitters.

The catcher-1st baseman Earl Williams, Jr. is the example that really sticks in my mind because of the irony of the fact that one of the players we traded to Atlanta for him (Davey Johnson) proceeded to hit 43 and 15 homers the next two seasons while Williams hit 22 and 14 and then was traded back to the Braves for practically nothing. At the time of the trade though, Weaver was overjoyed: Williams had been on his wish list. I'm sure he felt he needed to compensate for the fading of Boog and Brooks (and Blair and Rettenmund), and the departure of Frank. Baylor and Grich were on the rise but still at the beginning of their careers and not really sluggers yet.

To make matters even worse, a still-very good Pat Dobson, Roric Harrison, and Johnny Oates were included in with Johnson. Not as bad as the Glenn Davis trade, but I think it deserves to be painfully recalled more often by masochistic old-time O's fans.

[BRobinsonfan]

2 hours ago, LA2 said:

I think the '69 Mets' pitching was underrated, but yes when you look at what players like Ron Swoboda and Al Weis did, they were a team of destiny. I don't remember blaming Earl at all for the WS loss and he did come back and win it the next year--almost again the year after that.

In regard to Earl's "blunders," I remember feeling that they were pretty specifically tied to his hunger for obtaining or calling up and sticking with home run hitters.

The catcher-1st baseman Earl Williams, Jr. is the example that really sticks in my mind because of the irony of the fact that one of the players we traded to Atlanta for him (Davey Johnson) proceeded to hit 43 and 15 homers the next two seasons while Williams hit 22 and 14 and then was traded back to the Braves for practically nothing. To make mattes even worse, a still-very good Pat Dobson, Roric Harrison, and Johnny Oates were included in with Johnson! Not as bad as the Glenn Davis trade, but I think it deserves to be painfully recalled more often by masochistic old-time O's fans.

I wish we were always so lucky to have a manger who made as many blunders as Earl Weaver.   

[DrungoHazewood]

10 hours ago, LA2 said:

I think the '69 Mets' pitching was underrated, but yes when you look at what players like Ron Swoboda and Al Weis did, they were a team of destiny. I don't remember blaming Earl at all for the WS loss and he did come back and win it the next year--almost again the year after that.

In regard to Earl's "blunders," I remember feeling that they were pretty specifically tied to his hunger for obtaining or calling up and sticking with home run hitters.

The catcher-1st baseman Earl Williams, Jr. is the example that really sticks in my mind because of the irony of the fact that one of the players we traded to Atlanta for him (Davey Johnson) proceeded to hit 43 and 15 homers the next two seasons while Williams hit 22 and 14 and then was traded back to the Braves for practically nothing. At the time of the trade though, Weaver was overjoyed--Williams had been on his wish list. I'm sure he felt he needed to compensate for the fading of Boog and Brooks, and the departure of Frank. Baylor and Grich were on the rise but were still at the beginning of their careers and not really slugging yet.

To make matters even worse, a still-very good Pat Dobson, Roric Harrison, and Johnny Oates were included in with Johnson. Not as bad as the Glenn Davis trade, but I think it deserves to be painfully recalled more often by masochistic old-time O's fans.

I almost never blame a manager for a short-series loss. 

Earl probably underplayed or overlooked the fact that Williams was not a great guy (at least from a baseball perspective).  Long, long ago a read Earl's book, and at least in retrospect it seems Earl Weaver regretted taking on someone he saw as defensively inept and lazy.

If Davey had his '72-'74 seasons today everyone would just assume he's on the 'roids.  Maybe he was.

[LA2]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I almost never blame a manager for a short-series loss. 

Earl probably underplayed or overlooked the fact that Williams was not a great guy (at least from a baseball perspective).  Long, long ago a read Earl's book, and at least in retrospect it seems Earl Weaver regretted taking on someone he saw as defensively inept and lazy.

If Davey had his '72-'74 seasons today everyone would just assume he's on the 'roids.  Maybe he was.

1972: 5 homers in 376 ABs; .221/.320/.335/.655, 93 OPS+.

1973: 43 homers in 559 ABs; .270/.370/.546/.916, 143 OPS+.

Very hard to explain it otherwise. Johnson despised Weaver and the humidity in Atlanta is supposed to boost home runs, but that was one of the sickest sustained acts of revenge in sports I've ever seen.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

55 minutes ago, LA2 said:

1972: 5 homers in 376 ABs; .221/.320/.335/.655, 93 OPS+.

1973: 43 homers in 559 ABs; .270/.370/.546/.916, 143 OPS+.

Very hard to explain it otherwise. Johnson despised Weaver and the humidity in Atlanta is supposed to boost home runs, but that was one of the sickest sustained acts of revenge in sports I've ever seen.

 

Barring a deathbed confession we'll never know for sure, but it's somewhat plausible this was a natural thing.

Memorial Stadium's HR park factor in that era was something like .9 or .95.  A little below average.  Fulton County Stadium was like 1.4.  Coors Field range.  In '72-73 the Braves and their opponents hit 379 homers at home, and just 270 on the road.

In '72 Johnson was hurt and missed a third of the schedule.  In '71 he hit eight homers at home, 10 on the road.  In '73 he hit 26 at home, and 17 on the road.  So if you apply the Memorial Stadium effect to his '73 numbers that works out to more like 14 or 15 at home, 17 on the road, so about 30 overall.  In '71 he hit 18.  Going from 18 to 30 isn't that crazy.

Why he went back to seven home, eight on the road in '74, who knows?

[Redskins Rick]

18 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

But if that happens, nobody faults the manager. At that point you can say you used all your best pitchers and had to go what was left. 

You don't keep your best weapon for "just in case" in a one and done situation. While Britton could have easily been used earlier, and that would have been fine, the fact he kept him around in case the team got a lead was a ridiculously bad decision. 

While you are 100% right that we don't know whether Britton would have been beaten or  not, what we do know is that Britton was the league best reliever that year and to use him because you were waiting on a lead was one of the worse managerial decisions ever made in a playoff game. 

As much as I respect Buck as a person and a manager, that was an awful blunder and was the exact moment I lost confidence in him as a major league manager.

No single manger is ever perfect.

You look hard enough at Sparky, Tommy, Tony, Casey and all made brilliant moves, and bone head moves.

Yes, Buck make a colossal mistake, it happens. Over all, look at this body of work while at the helm, he had a darn good 5 year run.

I still had faith in him, until Peter came back in charge and ruined the team and made it unplayable.

[LA2]

21 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Barring a deathbed confession we'll never know for sure, but it's somewhat plausible this was a natural thing.

Memorial Stadium's HR park factor in that era was something like .9 or .95.  A little below average.  Fulton County Stadium was like 1.4.  Coors Field range.  In '72-73 the Braves and their opponents hit 379 homers at home, and just 270 on the road.

In '72 Johnson was hurt and missed a third of the schedule.  In '71 he hit eight homers at home, 10 on the road.  In '73 he hit 26 at home, and 17 on the road.  So if you apply the Memorial Stadium effect to his '73 numbers that works out to more like 14 or 15 at home, 17 on the road, so about 30 overall.  In '71 he hit 18.  Going from 18 to 30 isn't that crazy.

Why he went back to seven home, eight on the road in '74, who knows?

Interesting. Three other Braves hit over 20 homers that season: 26-years-old Darrell Evans hit 41 (414 over his career), 39-yrs-old Hank Aaron 40 (755 career), and 24-year-old Dusty Baker 21 (242 career). I have no problem calling that trio sluggers. Yet Davey (133 career) hit more than any of them that year. Must have been out to prove he wasn't an old 30! I would really be impressed if the Atlanta braintrust, giving up its young power-hitting catcher (2nd in the NL RoY vote in 1971 after hitting 33 bombs), somehow knew Johnson would overperform in Fulton Cty.

[PaulFolk]

22 hours ago, scbalt52 said:

Sure, he could pitch two shutout innings. I don't know if that wins the game though. Then you go to Ubaldo and might get the same result. Britton could've blown the game too. It's fine to bring him in the 11th, I just think you would've brought him in sooner then. I just don't think what happened was a wrong or bad decision. But yes it turned out horribly. If only we could've scored a run in any of those innings so Britton could've (hopefully) done what his job is.

Honestly I wasn't even considering bringing in Britton when Ubaldo came in. I would've done the same thing. I was shocked at the reaction it got.

Yes, absolutely, then bring him in sooner. (I would've brought him in as early as the 8th inning). Just bring him in SOMETIME. It's inexcusable to use SIX relief pitchers (including Ubaldo, who wasn't normally a relief pitcher) and leave your best one -- the one who had a perfect, Cy Young caliber season -- rotting in the bullpen the entire game. What's hard to understand about that?

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

No single manger is ever perfect.

You look hard enough at Sparky, Tommy, Tony, Casey and all made brilliant moves, and bone head moves.

Yes, Buck make a colossal mistake, it happens. Over all, look at this body of work while at the helm, he had a darn good 5 year run.

I still had faith in him, until Peter came back in charge and ruined the team and made it unplayable.

Buck had a great run, but in a very key situation he proved his rigidness in his philosophies cost his team. Do I think that made him a bad manager, no. Did it mean I would not want him to manage my contending team, yes, that was a disqualifier for me, especially after he refused to take responsibility for that colossal mistake.

[LA2]

On 3/20/2020 at 2:04 PM, PaulFolk said:

Yes, absolutely, then bring him in sooner. (I would've brought him in as early as the 8th inning). Just bring him in SOMETIME. It's inexcusable to use SIX relief pitchers (including Ubaldo, who wasn't normally a relief pitcher) and leave your best one -- the one who had a perfect, Cy Young caliber season -- rotting in the bullpen the entire game. What's hard to understand about that?

Nothing, nothing at all. The next day Mets and Yankee fans I encountered in my neighborhood in Queens (have moved since then) asked me, "Man, I saw what happened! I feel for you, but why didn't you use Britton?" while shaking their heads in disbelief. A Mets fan said, "Hey, now you know what it's like!"

That season, I had been successfully cultivating my girlfriend into becoming an O's fan. We watched the game at The Horse Box, an O's and Ravens bar in the East Village (Manhattan). It was packed SRO, we had to hold hands not to get driven away from each other. After the Encarnacion stake to the heart, all along the grim meander to the subway (we took the long way to a further station to try to walk the daze off) O's fans outside of bars were staring down in disbelief or imploring the sky: "Buck! Buck! Why didn't you use Zach?!" or "Britton! Where was Britton?!" My girlfriend was sharp enough about baseball by then to immediately disapprove of bringing Ubaldo in instead--the look of consternation on her face then is unforgettable. When she heard Buck's interviews the next day she gave him a lot less slack than I did, even though she had liked him before, especially his protective rapport with players like Machado. I kept saying there must be a reason that he's too classy to share with us--he must, I insisted, be protecting one of his beloved players. But she always immediately shook her head and said, "No, he blew it. He's just not a good manager." And by the following spring, she no longer noticed the O's outside of Adam's great catch in the World Baseball Classic and the first month of play in 2017. She had more important things to do than watch a team with a dysfunctional FO and choke of a manager who didn't play her favorite players, especially with a boyfriend biased by past Orioles glory.

I have witnessed a good number of the famous bad postseason managerial decisions over the last nearly half-century (often involving sticking with an ace starting pitcher too long), but Buck's was by far the worst. I pity him, it must often make him shudder with regret. He must realize that despite all his accomplishments, knowledge, and virtues, it will be that moment that defines his career--outside perhaps of weeping in his clubhouse office after getting fired by Steinbrenner and a few appearances on Seinfeld.

[spiritof66]

7 hours ago, LA2 said:

Nothing, nothing at all. The next day Mets and Yankee fans I encountered in my neighborhood in Queens (have moved since then) asked me, "Man, I saw what happened! I feel for you, but why didn't you use Britton?" while shaking their heads in disbelief. A Mets fan said, "Hey, now you know what it's like!"

That season, I had been successfully cultivating my girlfriend into becoming an O's fan. We watched the game at The Horse Box, an O's and Ravens bar in the East Village (Manhattan). It was packed SRO, we had to hold hands not to get driven away from each other. After the Encarnacion stake to the heart, the crowd there and all along the grim meander to the subway (we took the long way to a further station to try to walk the daze off) O's fans outside of bars were staring down in disbelief or imploring the sky: "Buck! Buck! Why didn't you use Britton?!" or "Zach! Where was Zach?!" My girlfriend was sharp enough about baseball by then to immediately disapprove of bringing in Ubaldo instead, the look of consternation on her face then is unforgettable. When she heard Buck's interviews the next day she gave him a lot less slack than I did, even though she had liked him before, especially his protective rapport with players like Manny. I kept saying there must have been a reason that he's too classy to share with us--he must be protecting one of his beloved players, I insisted. But she always immediately shook her head and said, "No. He blew it. He's just not a good manager." And by the following spring, she no longer noticed the O's outside of Adam's great catch in the World Baseball Classic and the first month of play in 2017. She had more important things to do than watch a team with a dysfunctional FO and choke of a manager who didn't play her favorite players, especially with a boyfriend blinded by past Orioles glory.

I have witnessed some of the famous bad postseason managerial decisions over the last nearly 50 years (often involving sticking with an ace starting pitcher too long), but Buck's was by far the worst. I pity him, it must often make him shudder with regret. He must realize that despite all his accomplishments, knowledge, and virtues, it will be the moment that defines his career--outside of perhaps weeping after getting fired by Steinbrenner and a few appearances on Seinfeld.

I was at The Horse Box that night, wedged against the wall opposite the bar. I distinctly remember that lots of the O's fans on hand, including me, were howling in protest as soon as we saw Ubaldo coming into the game. It may not have happened that way, but that's the way I remember it. 

Whenever I think back to that game -- and I try not to -- I'm reminded of the time Bill Veeck, in his first season as owner of the Browns (the same year he signed Eddie Gaedel), presented Grandstand Managers Night. The fans seated in a designated section made up the Browns' lineup, in-game personnel, and strategy calls by holding up signs. Tough to do at an away game, but it might have helped against the Jays. (The Browns beat the A's, 5-3, on Grandstand Managers Night behind the pitching of Ned Garver and a big contribution from their reserve first baseman, who sported one of my all-time favorite MLB nicknames, Hank "Bow Wow" Arft. It was one of the Brownies' 52 wins that year.)

https://www.mlb.com/cut4/in-1951-bill-veeck-let-the-fans-manage-the-st-louis-browns-on-grandstand-manager