Oct.3, 1951

[JACKIE42]

Just a great photo, even though it still hurts.

http://images.mastronet.com/images/Auction30/photographs/36709.jpg

[The Commissioner]

I know that Rube Walker (seen walking off the field in background) played that game because Campanella had hurt his thigh. From what I've read Campanella tried to get Dressen to let him play, but was denied. Walker did hit a homerun the day before, but do you feel the outcome of game 3 might have been different had the MVP been behind the plate instead that day?

[JACKIE42]

Campy being in the game would have changed nothing. It was Chuck Dressen who lost that game, I don't care what the bull pen coach Sukeforth told Dressen about Labine, not being ready, Clem had struck out Thomson in clutch in game one, Branca had already given up 11 hr's to the Giants that season, and one to Thomson in game one. The Giants had beaten Branca 6 times that year, how do you still bring him in with the pennant on the line, we Brooklyn fans are still asking that question.

[JACKIE42]

http://images.mastronet.com/images/Auction30/photographs/38955.jpg

[JACKIE42]

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/exhibits/online_exhibits/1951/images/giants_1952_01.jpg

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Hello all enjoy the photo

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

hello all enjoy the photo

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

here is a photo of the record of russ hodges homerun call in game 3 at the polo grounds.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

ENJOY this 1951 brooklyn dodgers yearbook cover.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Enjoy the photo

[The Real McCoy]

That's a great photo,

I've never seen the shot from that angle.

What is particularly interesting is the confirmation of the oft told tale that Jackie Robinson actually watched Thomson circle the bases to make sure he touched each one...that's a competitor.

[tonypug]

Campy being in the game would have changed nothing. It was Chuck Dressen who lost that game, I don't care what the bull pen coach Sukeforth told Dressen about Labine, not being ready, Clem had struck out Thomson in clutch in game one, Branca had already given up 11 hr's to the Giants that season, and one to Thomson in game one. The Giants had beaten Branca 6 times that year, how do you still bring him in with the pennant on the line, we Brooklyn fans are still asking that question.
The one thing Campanella might have added is this. He had a way of getting into Newcombes head and getting a little extra from him.

[JACKIE42]

The one thing Campanella might have added is this. He had a way of getting into Newcombes head and getting a little extra from him.

You have a good point Tony, but in this case I believe Newk said, he had nothing left, and wanted out.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Hello all enjoy the photo

[Mr. Met]

Thanks for the great shots. However, the revelation that the Giants were using a telescope in center field has somewhat diminished the moment for me.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Thanks for the great shots. However, the revelation that the Giants were using a telescope in center field has somewhat diminished the moment for me.
with this telescope that you mention why did the dodgers beat the giants in game 2 of the playoffs.this telescope you talk about means nothing. the dodger won game 2 by a big margin and the giants won game 3 on thomson,s homer.

[Mr. Met]

Thompson still hit the ball and it was a great moment but I'm just saying that if the Giants used it to win just one game during the regular season, the playoffs don't even happen.

[Swiss]

What a day...!!!

As a RedSox/Giants fan, I always cherish that wonderful moment although I hadn't born yet (I'm 34 years old).

[GIANT]

Thompson still hit the ball and it was a great moment but I'm just saying that if the Giants used it to win just one game during the regular season, the playoffs don't even happen.

The Dodgers blew a 13 1/2 game lead. If Brooklyn played .500 baseball from August on it really wouldn't matter what the Giants did.

[shlevine42]

The Dodgers blew a 13 1/2 game lead. If Brooklyn played .500 baseball from August on it really wouldn't matter what the Giants did.

Oh, but Brooklyn did play better than .500 baseball from August on, but it STILL didn't matter.

The Dodgers were 63-32 at the end of July -- a .663 pace.
For August and September, they were 33-26 -- a .559 pace.

The Giants, on the other hand, were 56-44 at the end of July -- .560
But for August and September, they were 40-14 -- an astounding .741

And the bulk of that improvement came at home.

Through July, the Giants were 29-23 at home -- a respectable but not sensational .557

Over the last two months, however, they went 20-4 at home -- a remarkable .833 percentage

Away from home, they played at a .562 clip through July (27-21), and improved to .667 over the last two months, for an impressive, but not nearly as dramatic an improvement as they showed at home.

Could anything have been going on at the Polo Grounds that would explain that improvement???

[GIANT]

Could anything have been going on at the Polo Grounds that would explain that improvement???[/QUOTE]

I direct you to my earlier post on the improvement of the Giants.

The Dodger fans just won't admit they blew a 13 1/2 game lead, which is the real issue involving the National League pennant for the year 1951. Instead they now want the universe to believe that the Giants somehow stole the 51 pennant. Prior to the Wall Strret Journal article one wonders what excuse they were using for the collassal collapse of "Dem Bums."?

The new excuse is that the Giants caught the Brooklyn Dodgers in the second half of the 1951 season by taking advantage of a spying coach planted in center field at the Polo Grounds. I forewarned the flock that relying on the recollections of elderly retired ball players is not always reliable. Memories fade over time and the following research clearly cast doubts on the recollections of the former players.

David Smith has conducted some invaluable research. Mr. Smith is an admitted Brooklyn Dodger fan who stated he "wanted to conclude that the Giants only won because they cheated." Giant fans know that Dodger fans have problems with alleged cheating except when they are alleged to have engaged in it.

By way of background, Mr. Smith is founder and President of Retrosheet. Retrosheet collects and disseminates play-by-play accounts of every major league game in history. Mr. Smith researched the 1951 season. This is what he found. On the morning of July 20, the Giants were batting .266 at home and .252 on the road. For the rest of the season, the Jints hit .256 in the Polo Grounds and .269 away. If there was a sinsister plot, these numbers don't support it. However, Mr. Smith found that prior to July 20, the Giants pitching staff had a 3.47 ERA at home and a 4.49 on the road. From July 20 to the end of the season their ERA was 2.90 at home and 2.93 away. The improvement is dramatic and consistent.

Mr. Smith concluded the improved performance of the 1951 Giants from July 20 through October 3 was a result of their improved pitching not as a result of enhanced offense. Mr. Smith further stated " In fact, the overall team batting average held pretty consistent for the year. The Giants tied Philadelphia for fourth in the league at .260, well behind Brooklyn's league-leading .275. The Giants pitchers were so effective that they led the league in ERA with a mark of 3.48." (This information was contained in a USA article authored by Paul White in USA TODAY).

[shlevine42]

I can't argue with the numbers, so I'll accept Mr. Smith's research and concede that the Giants' performance in the last two months of the season was the result of vastly improved pitching, and not a sudden surge in hitting.

But I'm not ready to concede that the Dodgers "blew" the pennant.

Although they didn't play as well from August on as they did from April through July, a team that wins 56 percent of its games over the last two months of the season can reasonably be expected to maintain its 13-1/2 game lead.

Brooklyn didn't "collapse." They were "caught" by a team that simply played unbelievably well -- and far above its historical norm -- during that same period.

[westsidegrounds]

<...>
Brooklyn didn't "collapse." They were "caught" by a team that simply played unbelievably well -- and far above its historical norm -- during that same period.

???????

.741 is well above anyone's historical norm, if that's what you mean.

[shlevine42]

I'm aware that .741 is well above anyone's historical norm, but while that's interesting, what's more relevant in this case is that it's well above the Giants' own historical norm...for the first part of that season...for the season before...the season after...for any full season in their history.

Their performance in August and September of '51 was sensational. But it was an aberration.

[zman]

http://www.sportsartifacts.com/pub52dell.JPG
(sportsartifacts.com)

[StanTheMan]

The alleged Center Field Telescope..... I think I read that speculation at the time was that he was stealing the catchers signs, and then relaying to the hitter the pitch that was coming?

Turning on a light or something to signifiy fastball, or something to that effect?

The numbers listed above show that the Giants did not hit better at home late in the season than in the early part of the season, but I am just curious how this supposed cheating went down?

[Brownie31]

To some of us the question is not whether the telescope helped the Giants or whether or not it was ethical. Richard M. Nixon would have won the 1972 election without the Watergate Break-in. A failed bank robbery is just as wrong as a successful one. Brownie31

[rcl986@aol.com]

You're right, Nixon didn't need the Watergate break in to win the 1972 election and I'll will never be convinced that the Giants won the pennant off of stolen signs during the second half of 1951. Nor will I believe that Thomson's home run was the result of a stolen sign. He himself denies having gotten the sign AND, lets not forget, he also homered off of Branca in the first game of the playoffs at Ebbets Field. Thomson ALWAYS hit well against Branca. What I find interesting however, is how little is ever made of the fact that the Dodgers won the coin toss prior to the opening of the series and chose to open at Ebbets Field. Under the rules in play at the time this then gave the Giants the home field in games two and three. Like their choice of Branca to face Thomson in that fateful 9th inning, I've always found this strange.

[rcl986@aol.com]

I'm aware that .741 is well above anyone's historical norm, but while that's interesting, what's more relevant in this case is that it's well above the Giants' own historical norm...for the first part of that season...for the season before...the season after...for any full season in their history.

Their performance in August and September of '51 was sensational. But it was an aberration.

Perhaps not as much an aberration as one might think. How many folks realize that the Giants had a similar finish in 1950 winning 50 of their last 72 games for a .694 clip to finish, I beleive, in third place.

[Brownie31]

Perhaps not as much an aberration as one might think. How many folks realize that the Giants had a similar finish in 1950 winning 50 of their last 72 games for a .694 clip to finish, I beleive, in third place.

rcl986@aol.com: How was the Giants' start in 1950? One thing that made 1951 standout was the big hole they dug themselves at the start of the season. Brownie31

[rcl986@aol.com]

A VERY deep hole indeed. It was initially instigated by an 11 game losing streak which put the Giants at 2-13 to open the season. This included 5 losses to the Dodgers.
My point however is that they seemed to be a second half team in those two years. An aberration being a one time happening doesn't seem to fit. Lets also remember that they didn't start the year with Willie Mays, who after being called up in May went 0 - 12 only to recover and go on to win the Rookie of the Year Award. Even Burt Shotten, Brooklyn manager from '47 - '50 was quoted (prior to spring training '51) as saying "the Giants were the only team with a chance to beat Brooklyn this season". This was echoed by Dodger Veep Buzzie Bavasi who added " We feel that we are the club to beat, and the Giants are the boys who will prove the most troublesome"............. Little did they know how prophetic their words would be.
That Giants team was no slouch and every bit the match for the Dodgers. What a great season and a great memory.

[rcl986@aol.com]

Brownie 31
In answer to your question about the Giants 1950 start they were 36 - 46 when they went on their second half tear. They finished third at 86-68 for the year.

[Brownie31]

Brownie 31
In answer to your question about the Giants 1950 start they were 36 - 46 when they went on their second half tear. They finished third at 86-68 for the year.

rcl: Thanks for the info. Those two Giant years were similar to Joe McCarthy's 1948 & 1949 Red Sox: slow starts and breaktaking finishes, although unsuccesful in McCarthy's case. Thanks again! Brownie31

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Here is a photo showing Leo Durocher going into the polo grounds clubhouse after Bobby Thomsons pennant winning homerun in the 3rd game of the brooklyn at giants playoffs.

PHOTO FROM EBAY LISTING

[EbtsFldGuy]

Here is a photo showing Leo Durocher going into the polo grounds clubhouse after Bobby Thomsons pennant winning homerun in the 3rd game of the brooklyn at giants playoffs.

PHOTO FROM EBAY LISTING


Samll irony from that day:

Both Branca and Thomson later left their respective teams, only to return to them briefly years later before the move to CA.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Here is a photo showing Leo Durocher going into the polo grounds clubhouse after Bobby Thomsons pennant winning homerun in the 3rd game of the brooklyn at giants playoffs.

PHOTO FROM EBAY LISTING


Small irony from that day:

Both Branca and Thomson later left their respective teams, only to return to them briefly years later before the move to CA.

[NYGiantsFan2324]

I was 6 when Bobby Thomson hit the Shot Heard 'Round the
World. I have met Bobby and he is a delightful and thoughtful man. My Dad took my Brother and me to our first ML Game on July 10, 1954 - at the Polo Grounds. The Giants lost that one to the Pirates, but Willie Mays - the Greatest Ballplayer I have ever seen - stole home and threw a runner out at the plate. Typical Willie. I have remained a Giants fan, to this day. I still wear the replica "NY" logo hat, even though the Mets have appropriated it. But I want to point out something in the great picture, taken from centerfield, of Bobby's HR. Ralph Branca is seen dejectedly leaving the mound. But the Great Jackie Robinson is staring, intently, hands on hips, looking at Bobby cross the plate. That is the point. Robinson never, ever quit. I read somewhere that Jackie would not leave the field until Bobby crossed the plate. Had, for some reason, Bobby not touched home plate, Robinson would have protested, in some fashion.