Last Six Games, What Do You Want To See?

[OFFNY]

5 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

The 1914 A's went 99-53, won the pennant by 8.5 games, and kind of had a dynasty going on. They hadn't won fewer than 90 games in a 154-game schedule since 1908, and had 3 World Series wins. Then after they lost the 1914 Series 4-0 to the Miracle Braves, Connie Mack decided that he couldn't afford to compete with the Federal League, so he sold off his stars and in 1915 they finished 43-109. Then in 1916 they went 36-117, arguably the worst team since they outlawed syndicate baseball.

Also, last place doesn't always mean much in the 5-team division era. The 2014 Sox had the 4th-worst record in the AL.

 

o

 

Did Mack essentially repeat the process about 20 years later ???

I know that there was not a situation with a 3rd Major League (as was the case in 1914), but I think that I once read that Mack essentially did again what he had previously done 2 decades earlier. The Athletics had a similar solid run of 9 straight winning seasons between 1925 and 1933, including 3 consecutive World Series appearances from 1929 through 1931 before falling into being a perpetual loser from 1934 onward. From 1935 through 1940, they had 6 consecutive seasons of finishing with a winning percentage under .400.

 

o

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, bobmc said:

@Philip doesn't like "Phil".  I wonder if Cornelius McGillicuddy changed to his nickname - "Connie Mack" because of a dislike for his surname and given name?  Or was that just a snarky journalist like Damon Runyan making him more likable?  Good point on the '14 Sawx - but I still see them as losers.  

I just did an exhaustive search spanning tens of seconds and I think Connie Mack used that name simply because Cornelius is a long name that's often shortened to Connie (or was 120 years ago), and many families with Mac or Mc names just informally go by Mack, especially if the last name is really long.

I have a feeling that people had less of a possessive quality about their names 100+ years ago.  Spelling wasn't standardized in many cases, and people seemed to have little problem Anglicizing names if they immigrated.  Not sure if that was because they didn't care, or that they feared getting beat up if they used Müller instead of Miller.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

o

 

Did Mack essentially repeat the process about 20 years later ???

I know that there was not a situation with a 3rd Major League (as was the case in 1914), but I think that I once read that Mack essentially did again what he had previously done 2 decades earlier. The Athletics had a similar solid run of 9 straight winning seasons between 1925 and 1933, including 3 consecutive World Series appearances from 1929 through 1931 before falling into being perpetual loser from 1934 onward. From 1935 through 1940, they had 6 consecutive seasons of finishing with a winning percentage under .400.

 

o

Yes, absolutely.  Connie Mack was a brilliant manager, with several dynastic teams.  His late 20s teams had several seasons where they finished 10+ games in front of the Ruth-Gehrig Yankees.  But he was an old-old school owner, in that he had few resources outside of the A's.  If they weren't making money there was NO cushion to fall back on, they were in real danger of going bankrupt.  So twice he was put in a position where he feared that paying players market rates (which seem comically small compared to today) would put the future of the organization in doubt, so he sold off everyone making much more than a few thousand dollars a year. 

As I mentioned the first case was during the battle with the Federal League, which paid players much more than the AL/NL to jump.  And the second was in the early 30s after the Depression hit.  In 1932 the A's were coming off that string of fantastic seasons and drew under 300k fans for the season.  A team with multiple HOFers in one of the bigger cities in the country beating the Yanks at their own game, and they were drawing fans like the York Revolution does today.

[OFFNY]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Yes, absolutely.

Connie Mack was a brilliant manager, with several dynastic teams.  His late 20s teams had several seasons where they finished 10+ games in front of the Ruth-Gehrig Yankees. But he was an old-old school owner, in that he had few resources outside of the A's. If they weren't making money there was NO cushion to fall back on, they were in real danger of going bankrupt. So twice he was put in a position where he feared that paying players market rates (which seem comically small compared to today) would put the future of the organization in doubt, so he sold off everyone making much more than a few thousand dollars a year. 

As I mentioned the first case was during the battle with the Federal League, which paid players much more than the AL/NL to jump. And the second was in the early 30's after the Depression hit. In 1932, the A's were coming off that string of fantastic seasons and drew under 300-K fans for the season. A team with multiple HOF-ers in one of the bigger cities in the country beating the Yankees at their own game, and they were drawing fans like the York Revolution does today.

 

o

 

Thanks for the info, Drungo.

 

o

[NCRaven]

My grandfather was a boxer in the 30's.  His given name was Francesco Antonio Littriello.  He fought under the name Frankie Litt and was known that way ever after.

[hutchead]

3 hours ago, Philip said:

At the moment Pitt and Tex are 1-2. It’s not guaranteed, but only Az is really close right now. I’m just rounding up. 
the point isn’t really the exact order though, but where the Os pick, which  could be as high as ~12

Only Az is close right now?? Boston is only 1/2 game ahead of Texas. Washington is only 1 1/2 games ahead of them. Kansas City is only 2 games ahead of them.

[Philip]

1 minute ago, hutchead said:

Only Az is close right now?? Boston is only 1/2 game ahead of Texas. Washington is only 1 1/2 games ahead of them. Kansas City is only 2 games ahead of them.

What matters is where the Orioles are. Pitt and Texas are currently 1-2. If they end up 1-4, with Boston and Arizona in between, I’m not going to lose any sleep. A lot of teams are clustered around 20 wins, but only Tex and Pitt still don’t have that many. We’ll see how it turns out, but except for the Os it doesn’t matter.

[bobmc]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

I was in the army with a fellow E5 whose name was “smoky” one day we were sitting around and we were asking him about his name and he confessed that it was not his real name. We pressed him for a while until he shamefacedly admitted that his real name was “York McMillan” And then he threatened us with violence if we ever called him anything except “Smoky”

Wow!  I would have loved York but not Smoky.  To each their own.  Wow - an E5 - great job.  Ever get busted (in rank) for your lip?  

 

But back to the last 6 daze - no Valaika, no Severino, more Hays, more Tate, more Scott and more Harvey!

[OFFNY]

On 9/20/2020 at 4:29 PM, OFFNY said:

o

 

John Means.

DJ Kremer.

Keegan Akin.

Alex Cobb.

Jorge Lopez.

 

That sounds like it could possibly be a decent rotation for 2021. 

Lopez' Walks walks are high, Kremer and Akin have only dipped their toes in the water at the Major League level, but it has the possibility of being a more-than-serviceable quintet.

 

o

o

 

Not including the runner who was caught stealing, 90% of the Outs that Cobb recorded (18 out of 20) came via the Groundout and the Strikeout. ) 

Cobb's ERA went down from 4.76 to 4.30, his WHIP went down from 1.368 to 1.338, and OBA up from .251 to .252. 

 

 

21 OUTS: )  10 Groundouts (Including 4 Double Plays), 4 Strikeouts, 2 Flyouts, 1 Caught Stealing                    

 

 

ALEXANDER MILLER COBB )))))) (vs. RED SOX, 9/24)

IP:ll.7

H:lllll6 ) l(6 Singles)

R:llll 1

BB:ll2 ) *

SO:ll4

Pitches: l) 89 )(60 )Strikes, )29 )Balls)

2020 ERA: l) 4.30 )  52.33 IP  (25 ER) 

2020 WHIP: l)  1.338  )  52.33 IP  (70 H/BB) 

2020 OPPONENTS BATTING AVG: l)  .252  )l (52 for 206)   

 

* )) Cobb also had 1 Hit Batsman

 

PITCHES BY INNING  

*******************  

13  lll(81 l.Strikes, l.5 llBalls)

21  lll(13 llStrikes, ll8 llBalls)

13  lll(91 llStrikes, lll4 llBalls)

12  lll(91 llStrikes, lll3 llBalls)

12  lll(61 llStrikes, ll.6 llBalls)

10  lll(81 llStrikes, lll2 llBalls)

81  lll(71 llStrikes, lll1 llBalls)

 

o