Earl Weaver Is Overrated

[LouGehrig]

Weaver is a highly overrated manager. He lost three of four WS, two playoff series, and in 1979 became only third manager to have his team lose the WS after leading in games, 3-1. His philosophy has damaged the game and helped remove the basic strategy used in the past --- until the playoffs begin.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/earl_weaver_is_overrated

[brett]

Weaver is a highly overrated manager. He lost three of four WS, two playoff series, and in 1979 became only third manager to have his team lose the WS after leading in games, 3-1. His philosophy has damaged the game and helped remove the basic strategy used in the past --- until the playoffs begin.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/earl_weaver_is_overrated

I agree he's overrated and should not be in the hall of fame. I disagree with the article. A higher percentage of runs are scored in the post season on extra base hits versus the regular season. The relative value of a double or home run is greater when the team's involved are better pitching teams, HOWEVER the value of 1 run is also greater so its a little more complex than presented.

[Brian McKenna]

This is the ultimate homer crap.

Tons and tons of positive Yankee threads sprinkled with negatives about their rivals.

[SamtheBravesFan]

This is the ultimate homer crap.

Tons and tons of positive Yankee threads sprinkled with negatives about their rivals.

If you can consider the Orioles a rival of the Yankees. :laugh ;)

I hardly think the game is damaged because some teams sit around and wait for the three-run homer. As if it's good strategy to waste outs with bunts by non-pitchers anyway.

[LouGehrig]

I agree he's overrated and should not be in the hall of fame. I disagree with the article. A higher percentage of runs are scored in the post season on extra base hits versus the regular season. The relative value of a double or home run is greater when the team's involved are better pitching teams, HOWEVER the value of 1 run is also greater so its a little more complex than presented.

Agree. But I was talking primarily about the three run home run and his philosopy of playing for one run. Yesterday's Indians' game is a good example.


This is the ultimate homer crap.

Tons and tons of positive Yankee threads sprinkled with negatives about their rivals.

Since when are Gil Hodges and New York's other team Yankees?

The article is about Weaver and Gil Hodges. Not too much in it about the Yankees or Red Sox.

[Brian McKenna]

If you can consider the Orioles a rival of the Yankees. :laugh ;)



I didn't realize the Orioles of the Weaver were a running joke with the Yankees. Your history book must be different than mine.

[DTF955]

I believe he is a Hall of Famer for his 3 100-win seasons in a row, 5 total, and all the division titles and near titles - however, he is not a genius as much as an innovator and team leader along the lines of Marv Levy of the NFL, who is enshrined in Canton.

A lot of what Weaver did was gathering data on opposing players and knowing what matchups worked well in a way that would be done only a few years later by computer. He was able to do this in such a way that his clubs often had late season runs that allowed them to pull away, and played over their heads at times. The 1977 Orioles team was not a 97-win team, but more like the 88-90 win club of '78. His '81 squad, IIRC, allowed more than they scored. In 1986, he had a bad team 2.5 games behidn Boston befor ethey collapsed in the stretch, becasue the game had sort of caught up with him and how he played, with computers more accessible by that time. The 1983 club won because of the success he'd built on, IMHO, knowing what players were best in what situations.

I suppose you could argue for him as an innovator more than a manager, if you don't like him as a manager. Apart from Yankee skippers, though, how many have won 100 5 times? I'm not sure.

[Brian McKenna]

Since when are Gil Hodges and New York's other team Yankees?

The article is about Weaver and Gil Hodges. Not too much in it about the Yankees or Red Sox.

I was referring to the slew of Yankee threads started by the nom de plume Lou Gehrig.

[LouGehrig]

It is I, and I am a Yankees fan who recognizes their shortcomings as well as their former greatness.

If one analyzes my thread and posts (what a waste of good time), it would be concluded that I have recognized and been upset with much of what most Yankees' fans love.

Today's Yankees are not my Yankees. Lou Gehrig epitomizes my Yankees. The game, the Yankees, the other teams, and society no longer respect humility and modesty.

It was disgusting to see how Yankees and anti-Mets fans zapped Mets fans, who would have (and in a day or two might have the chance to) laced into Yankees fans even more vehemently.

Winning is enough. The loser feels bad enough. Leave her alone.

[RuthMayBond]

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/earl_weaver_is_overratedDo you actually get paid to write this?

<Weaver’s approach produced four pennants but only one World Championship,>

So Cox is no good, and McCarthy is God?

<The "Can't Lose" Orioles Lost
The 1969 Orioles won 109 games. Future Hall of Famers Jim Palmer, Frank Robinson, and Brooks Robinson were key members of the team that was prohibitive favorites to beat Gil Hodges’ Mets in the World Series. The Birds pitching staff had a 2.83 team ERA, allowed only 7.4 hits and 3.1 runs a game, and had an incredible 20 shutouts, 19 of which were complete games. The Orioles offense averaged 4.81 runs a game and hit 175 home runs. After winning the first game of the Series handily, the “can’t lose” Orioles lost the next four.>

Earl definitely went into a hitting slump

<Gil Hodges and Earl Weaver: Contrasting Styles
Years later, Mets’ shortstop Bud Harrelson asked, “Do you think Earl Weaver would have gotten that call from DiMuro?”>

Wow, there's a provable speculation

<Two World Series Losses to the Pirates
The Orioles repeated as pennant winners in 1970 and 1971. They beat the Reds in a five game World Series, led by Brooks’ Robinson great defense at third base in 1970, but in the 1971 World Series, Weaver and the Orioles found themselves losers as Danny Murtaugh’s team rebounded after losing the first two games at Baltimore to win in seven. Many blamed Weaver because he played injured first baseman Boog Powell, who hit only .111 in the Series and was visibly in pain at each at-bat.>

I guess the Dodgers were stupid for playing Gibson in 88

<Weaver Confronted Palmer
Earl Weaver’s character was clearly visible at the Sports Boosters of Maryland Headliners Banquet in November, 2000. Weaver was being “roasted” as guest of honor when Jim Palmer needled Weaver about his height and drinking habits, at one point saying that the Maryland police were relieved that Weaver moved to Florida. Weaver got wild and told the audience that during his career, Palmer had claimed injuries he didn’t have. Weaver then confronted Palmer directly and had to be led away by former Orioles’ first baseman Lee May.>

Assuming this actually happened, what exactly does this have to do with his Hall of Fame qualifications? :crazy

<Playoffs and World Series Record
Earl Weaver is in the Hall of Fame based on his managerial achievements during the regular season.>

Problem being ...?

<He is 0-2 in the playoffs and 1-3 in the World Series. Too bad Gil Hodges didn’t manage those Orioles teams.>

Would Hodges have even gotten Earl's team to the playoffs?


If you can consider the Orioles a rival of the Yankees. :laugh ;)What were they from 1966-1975?

[SamtheBravesFan]

What were they from 1966-1975?

A rival. I was saying that in a scale that was too broad. Sorry about that.

[Rome Colonel]

Weaver had his problems in the WS but, contrary to what the article states, did very well in the playoffs:

1969 3-0
1970 3-0
1971 3-0
1973 2-3
1974 1-3
1979 3-1

That's 15-7 overall. Between 1969 and 1973 his team won 10 straight playoff games. That may no longer be a record (I didn't check) but it's still impressive.

I don't know how much stock you want to put in pythagorean projections. In any case Weaver's are pretty good. From 1969 to 1982 he was +24. The last 7 years of that stretch the Orioles were over their projection every season (+38 total).

I always felt much of Weaver's success was due to the fact that the man was working in what was then a truly great organization, perhaps the best in baseball. Paul Richards, somewhat forgotten today, laid the foundation in the late 1950s. From their breakthrough year in 1960 until their last WS win in 1983 the Orioles had a tremendous record, possibly the best overall record in the majors for those 24 seasons. During that time their superb farm system developed many excellent players and their front office masterminded several key trades, the most important being the steal of Frank Robinson from the Reds (the Ken Singleton trade was another beaut). Weaver, who had grown up in the organization and had already managed a number of his players in the minors, was the ideal choice for a field manager.

The truly remarkable thing about their success was that the Orioles were not a wealthy club. They often drew under one million in the 60s and 70s and didn't go over 1.2 million until 1979 (1.68 million, good for only 6th in the league). They didn't reach the 2 million mark until 1983.

Getting back to Weaver, he could really be a jerk, his teams clearly underperformed in the WS, and he was a fool to come out of retirement, but for all that I don't think he could be regarded as over-rated. There might have been better managers in the majors during his time in Baltimore but not very many, and I doubt any of them would have done as well with the team as Earl did.

Incidentally, the banquet story is true:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-weaver110400,0,5275070.story?coll=bal_sports_baseb all_xpromo

[LouGehrig]

For some baseball fans and a few, a very few players, other things are more important than money.

What does Bobby Cox have to do with Weaver other than not being able to hit against Weaver's pitchers?

In 1969, neither Earl nor the Orioles realized what they were dealing with or up against.

Bud was merely asking a question. Each can draw her own conclusions.

Gibson delivered as a pinch hitter. Big difference.

Does it state anyplace in the article that Weaver

1. Should NOT be in the Hall of Fame and
2. That his relationship with Palmer should have kept him out of the HOF?

Would Earl Weaver have gotten the 1969 Mets to the WS and won it?

Weaver was not too different from Leo Durocher, and we all know about Leo and his 1969 Cubs.

This is very difficult, because as a Yankees' fan, the 1969 Mets are not one of my favorite teams. But what was done was done, and as one who rooted against the Mets and Hodges, I saw first hand how difficult it was to beat them. I rooted for Weaver, and would have loved the Orioles to have won.

[leecemark]

--Anything can happen in a 7 games series. Lots of mediocore managers have won one and some great managers haven't. The fact that Gil Hodges team once beat Weaver's 4 out of 5 games tells us very little about their relative merit as managers.

[philkid3]

His philosophy has damaged the game and helped remove the basic strategy used in the past
I'm not sure how changing strategies is an inherrently bad thing. The point is to win, no?


Agree. But I was talking primarily about the three run home run and his philosopy of playing for one run. Yesterday's Indians' game is a good example.

So you're saying making progress towards better ways to win games is a bad thing because it destroys a more exciting, interesting form of baseball?

[LouGehrig]

So you're saying making progress towards better ways to win games is a bad thing because it destroys a more exciting, interesting form of baseball?

Who said making progress towards better ways to win games is a bad thing? Who said that the way Gil Hodges managed or the 1969 Mets played a more interesting form of baseball?

Waiting for the three home run is not a better way to win games. Just watch the playoffs and WS in today's era of Arena Baseball. The bunt (four by Cleveland in Game 2), hit and run, and stolen base are employed because there are not too many three run home runs.

Now, the fact that attendance is the best it has ever been and new records are being set confirms the fact that most fans find Arena Baseball more interesting than the brand of baseball of the 1960s and 1970s, or the approach taken by Hodges and many others.

But the fact that when Weaver managed the game was more interesting doesn't mean his way of managing was a better way to win games.

[philkid3]

Who said making progress towards better ways to win games is a bad thing? Who said that the way Gil Hodges managed or the 1969 Mets played a more interesting form of baseball?

Waiting for the three home run is not a better way to win games. Just watch the playoffs and WS in today's era of Arena Baseball. The bunt (four by Cleveland in Game 2), hit and run, and stolen base are employed because there are not too many three run home runs.
I interpret that as working the count and looking for the right pitch to hit, other than that, I can't see Weaver's "destructive" influence on the game today.

And that most certainly is a way to win games and get the most value out of your players. Outs are precious and should be conserved as such. Situations arise where playing for one run makes sense, but a team still does well to protect its outs until absolutely necessary, and certainly efficient baseball tends to balance out over a season. Thing is, the playoffs are such a small sample size, and the talent level is so relatively equal, that a team does need to adjust.

I'm still not seeing how that damages the game.



Now, the fact that attendance is the best it has ever been and new records are being set confirms the fact that most fans find Arena Baseball more interesting than the brand of baseball of the 1960s and 1970s, or the approach taken by Hodges and many others.
I find winning baseball the best approach, which is why I'm happy the Rangers are apparently heading towards a Moneyball approach. Finally.


But the fact that when Weaver managed the game was more interesting doesn't mean his way of managing was a better way to win games.
It certainly won a whole lot of games. And I never said it was more interesting, I'm saying that I don't see how patient hitting is a detriment to the game.

[RuthMayBond]

What does Bobby Cox have to do with Weaver other than not being able to hit against Weaver's pitchers?In case you forgot what you were talking about, it was how managers who don't win the World Series were worthless

<Gibson delivered as a pinch hitter. Big difference.>

For hindsight, you're not half bad :rolleyes:

<Would Earl Weaver have gotten the 1969 Mets to the WS and won it?>

Your crystal ball has already decided he wouldn't

<Weaver was not too different from Leo Durocher,>

If you say so :rolleyes:

<and we all know about Leo and his 1969 Cubs.>

But you don't know about Earl and his SIX division titles

<I rooted for Weaver>

Must have been the only time

[RuthMayBond]

But the fact that when Weaver managed the game was more interesting doesn't mean his way of managing was a better way to win games.Nor does it mean it was worse

[LouGehrig]

It certainly won a whole lot of games. And I never said it was more interesting, I'm saying that I don't see how patient hitting is a detriment to the game.

I agree with all your points and contrary to what the media states, walks in this decade are less than in many other decades.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/batters_are_not_walking_more


Nor does it mean it was worse

Absolutely. It depends on the roster.

[LouGehrig]

In case you forgot what you were talking about, it was how managers who don't win the World Series were worthless

Please show me where I made that statement.

<Gibson delivered as a pinch hitter. Big difference.>

For hindsight, you're not half bad :rolleyes:

<Would Earl Weaver have gotten the 1969 Mets to the WS and won it?>

Your crystal ball has already decided he wouldn't

Please show me where I made that statement.

<Weaver was not too different from Leo Durocher,>

If you say so :rolleyes:


Do some reading about Durocher.

<and we all know about Leo and his 1969 Cubs.>

But you don't know about Earl and his SIX division titles

Oh, I certainly do. Winning a division title is meaningless unless winning 11 more occurs. Kind of like the worm who lived in vinegar and didn't know there was anything sweeter.

<I rooted for Weaver>

Must have been the only time

Weaver winning in 1970 was great. I was extremley upset in 1971, and even more upset in1979.

An American Leaguer supports his league in the World Series. I think you've inferred that I like the Yankees a little, but if given the choice of the Yankees winning the division, both playoff rounds, but then losing the World Series OR the Red Sox winning the division, the playoffs and WINNING the WS, I prefer having the Red Sox win.


You may not agree with that, but is certainly is logical, and it is consistent with being a Yankee first and an American Leaguer second.

[philkid3]

I agree with all your points and contrary to what the media states, walks in this decade are less than in many other decades.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/batters_are_not_walking_more

Patient hitting isn't the same thing as trying to get a walk. It's recognizing the walk is a useful tool and you're not surrendering anything by drawing one. Patient hitting is looking for the right pitch to hit, looking for the most bases possible with a swing and avoiding an out if possible.

I'm still not really sure how any of this is a destructive influence on the game, though.

[LouGehrig]

The article referred to in my first post does not say anything about a destructive influence. I have not used the term until this reply.

Being aggressive or taking pitches for a walk or waiting for a better pitch in not destructive.

I prefer hitters who are passively aggressive, such as Mickey Mantle, who would accept a walk in most situations, who would seek a walk leading off an inning in which his team trailed by more than a run, and who would be aggressive most other times.

[AstrosFan]

If you want to say Weaver is overrated, that's fine. But when you say, "His philosophy has damaged the game," I can no longer take you seriously.

[Solair Wright]

I didn't think Earl Weaver was overrated at all. Weaver's first run as a manager (1968-1982) was very successful in my opinion. He never posted a losing season through that time, and usually had a 20-game winner. But, one thing that annoyed me about Earl's managing was the "three-run homer," when it usually ended up as a flyout or GIADP (grounding into a double play).

Look at an Orioles' team like 1970, when Weaver won his only World Series championship. Here are the Orioles' stats in 1970. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1970.shtml) Successful, correct? I think so.

Then you look at his second run as the O's Manager. Let's take the 1986 season, for example: 1986 Orioles' season stats (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1986.shtml) It's a whole different story in my opinion.

[KCGHOST]

All managers of winning teams are overrated. It's always the horses that do the work not some boob sitting in the dugout drawing up a lineup that is almost obvious.

[LouGehrig]

If you want to say Weaver is overrated, that's fine. But when you say, "His philosophy has damaged the game," I can no longer take you seriously.

I am rarely serious, but seriously, based on my premise, waiting for the three run home run has damaged the game. It is not required that my premise be accepted, but when it is, what follows is logical.

The way the game is played and managed in the playoffs is more interesting to some than the way it is played and managed during the season.

There is no question that fans prefer offense and high scoring games, as evinced by the increased attendance, but that doesn't mean that those who don't like such a type of game are wrong. Because of Weaver, the game that was baseball has been damaged --- at least until the playoffs when managers don't remember what Weaver espoused.

[LouGehrig]

All managers of winning teams are overrated. It's always the horses that do the work not some boob sitting in the dugout drawing up a lineup that is almost obvious.

So tell me about Joe Torre.

[RuthMayBond]

So tell me about Joe Torre.He's overrated

[RuthMayBond]

I am rarely serious, but seriously, based on my premise, waiting for the three run home run has damaged the game. It is not required that my premise be accepted, but when it is, what follows is logical.

The way the game is played and managed in the playoffs is more interesting to some than the way it is played and managed during the season.

There is no question that fans prefer offense and high scoring games, as evinced by the increased attendance, but that doesn't mean that those who don't like such a type of game are wrong. Because of Weaver, the game that was baseball has been damaged --- at least until the playoffs when managers don't remember what Weaver espoused.How did Weaver and the home run "damage" baseball any more than Babe Ruth?

[LouGehrig]

How did Weaver and the home run "damage" baseball any more than Babe Ruth?

You make a great point. The difference is that Ruth HIT the HRs, and others wanted to emulate him. Weaver didn't hit HRs --- he tried to win games by having players hit them.

It didn't ruin the game. It changed the game in ways that most fans love. Some do not. That's really all that is being claimed.

[RuthMayBond]

It didn't ruin the game.You said this

"I am rarely serious, but seriously, based on my premise, waiting for the three run home run has damaged the game."

Which is it?

[LouGehrig]

For some fans, the game has been damaged. "Damaged" is not ruined. My brain and the brains of others have been damaged by many things. It is damaged, but not ruined. It's close, but not yet.

For me, the game has been damaged, based on my premise which the way some playoff games are managed is better than waiting for the three run home run.

For most fans, that is NOT the case. Fine. I still watch and follow Arena Baseball, but many things are disgusting, like a player whose team is down by two runs swinging at a 3-1 pitch instead of taking it, even if it's a strike, in the hope of working out a walk or at least working the pitcher.

[RuthMayBond]

but many things are disgusting, like a player whose team is down by two runs swinging at a 3-1 pitch instead of taking it, even if it's a strike, in the hope of working out a walk or at least working the pitcher.So you saw the Arizona/Cubs game too? :choke: :hp :eek: :mad: :ughh :dismay: :disbelief: :crazy

[LouGehrig]

So you saw the Arizona/Cubs game too? :choke: :hp :eek: :mad: :ughh :dismay: :disbelief: :crazy

I really didn't. I DID see the DPs in the last game. Seriously, explain.

[digglahhh]

Now, the fact that attendance is the best it has ever been and new records are being set confirms the fact that most fans find Arena Baseball more interesting than the brand of baseball of the 1960s and 1970s, or the approach taken by Hodges and many others.

Or linear population increase, in addition to an exponential increase in the proportion of corporate ticket sales as a percentage of ticket sales as a whole, in addition to the emergence of technology that "shrinks the world" and enables unprecedented market reach, in addition to, in addition to, in addition to...

50 Cent outsold Sam Cooke, what shall we conclude?...

[RuthMayBond]

I really didn't. I DID see the DPs in the last game. Seriously, explain.Seriously, the Cubs are only down 3-1 in the bottom of the 5th. Livan Hernandez walks the bases loaded around an out, so he's obviously a little wild. Mark DeRosa gets a 3-1 count so there's no reason for him to swing at the next pitch. He promptly grounds into an inning-ending double play, and Byrnes adds a HR for Arizona in the top of the 6th for good measure.

[LouGehrig]

Or linear population increase, in addition to an exponential increase in the proportion of corporate ticket sales as a percentage of ticket sales as a whole, in addition to the emergence of technology that "shrinks the world" and enables unprecedented market reach, in addition to, in addition to, in addition to...

50 Cent outsold Sam Cooke, what shall we conclude?...

That 50 cent outsold Sam Cooke. That was the easy one.

Why don't you compare television ratings as the games are being played to ticket sales?

How do television ratings of baseball games (regular season, playoffs, and WS) during the last decade compare to television ratings of past decades?

How many season ticket holders are individuals as opposed to season ticket holder being corporations (recognizing that a corporation is an individual).

[LouGehrig]

Seriously, the Cubs are only down 3-1 in the bottom of the 5th. Livan Hernandez walks the bases loaded around an out, so he's obviously a little wild. Mark DeRosa gets a 3-1 count so there's no reason for him to swing at the next pitch. He promptly grounds into an inning-ending double play, and Byrnes adds a HR for Arizona in the top of the 6th for good measure.

Thanks. I did see that and I was disgusted.

[digglahhh]

That 50 cent outsold Sam Cooke. That was the easy one.

Why don't you compare television ratings as the games are being played to ticket sales?

How do television ratings of baseball games (regular season, playoffs, and WS) during the last decade compare to television ratings of past decades?

How many season ticket holders are individuals as opposed to season ticket holder being corporations (recognizing that a corporation is an individual).

I'm not comparing anything. I am simply asserting that increased attendance is not incontrovertible evidence that the brand of baseball being played today is more popular among fans than the brand played twenty five years ago was. I am simply saying that there are other factors that could explain spikes in attendance.

As for television ratings, I don't have the data, nor am I particularly motivated to research it. However, watching television is also a different experience than it was twenty five years ago, with many new variables. Television ratings as a metric for fan interest (especially of the post season) are not immune to bias or a changing socio-cultural dynamic. I'm not entirely willing to take ratings data as prima facie evidence of fan preference of a particular style of play. Seems like a leap of logic to say the least.

Either way, there are about a thousand unaccounted for variables.

[LouGehrig]

I'm not comparing anything. I am simply asserting that increased attendance is not incontrovertible evidence that the brand of baseball being played today is more popular among fans than the brand played twenty five years ago was. I am simply saying that there are other factors that could explain spikes in attendance.

As for television ratings, I don't have the data, nor am I particularly motivated to research it. However, watching television is also a different experience than it was twenty five years ago, with many new variables. Television ratings as a metric for fan interest (especially of the post season) are not immune to bias or a changing socio-cultural dynamic. I'm not entirely willing to take ratings data as prima facie evidence of fan preference of a particular style of play. Seems like a leap of logic to say the least.

Either way, there are about a thousand unaccounted for variables.


Great. Thank you. It's too bad more individuals don't question as you question.

[philkid3]

The article referred to in my first post does not say anything about a destructive influence. I have not used the term until this reply.

Being aggressive or taking pitches for a walk or waiting for a better pitch in not destructive.

I prefer hitters who are passively aggressive, such as Mickey Mantle, who would accept a walk in most situations, who would seek a walk leading off an inning in which his team trailed by more than a run, and who would be aggressive most other times.

Then I guess I'm looking for an explination for this: "His philosophy has damaged the game and helped remove the basic strategy used in the past."


You make a great point. The difference is that Ruth HIT the HRs, and others wanted to emulate him. Weaver didn't hit HRs --- he tried to win games by having players hit them.

It didn't ruin the game. It changed the game in ways that most fans love. Some do not. That's really all that is being claimed.

That's a completely different thing to say.

Saying "the game is damanged," and saying, "the game is not as fun for me and some other people to watch," is not the same.


I still don't see some lasting influence of damage on the game, though. You really have to show it to me. If anything, there are too many teams throwing away their outs playing for one run.

[philkid3]

He's overrated

co-sign

The importance of managers in general is overrated.

[DTF955]

For me, the game has been damaged, based on my premise which the way some playoff games are managed is better than waiting for the three run home run.

For most fans, that is NOT the case. Fine. I still watch and follow Arena Baseball, but many things are disgusting, like a player whose team is down by two runs swinging at a 3-1 pitch instead of taking it, even if it's a strike, in the hope of working out a walk or at least working the pitcher.

I'm curious, since I was not around in the '40s and '50s, as to how the 40s and 50s type of baseball differs from the Weaver philosophy.

I am going to guess that the batters went base to base like now, waiting for the longball, but were much more willing to work the pitcher and draw the walk. (Perhaps instead of "pitching, defense, adn the 3-run homer, it would be best described as "pitching, defense, plate knowledge, adn the 3-run homer?") The only thing I know is that the Williams' and such did walk a lot more, and sluggers struck out far less. But, I only know about the leaders in such things.

If that is the case, if bunting and working the count were a lot more common, then I can certainly understand your thinking. But, when your league leader in stolen bases has less than 30, it's hard to see how they were not adhering somewhat to what would be Weaver's strategy.

[LouGehrig]

Then I guess I'm looking for an explination for this: "His philosophy has damaged the game and helped remove the basic strategy used in the past."



That's a completely different thing to say.

Saying "the game is damanged," and saying, "the game is not as fun for me and some other people to watch," is not the same.


I still don't see some lasting influence of damage on the game, though. You really have to show it to me. If anything, there are too many teams throwing away their outs playing for one run.

RuthMayBond used the example of Mark DeRosa in Game 3 against Arizona. With the bases loaded and one out, he swung at a 3-1 pitch. In that situation, he should have taken the pitch, trying to get a walk and trying to keep the rally alive. He hit into a DP. He was going for the 4 run home run.

That is damaging the game. Finesse is gone. Brute force rules. The subtleties of the game have been lost -- not completely, but to a great degree.

Playing for one run has its time. Look at the Indians.

[RuthMayBond]

He was going for the 4 run home run.That's an assumption. You didn't even watch the game :rolleyes:

[LouGehrig]

I'm curious, since I was not around in the '40s and '50s, as to how the 40s and 50s type of baseball differs from the Weaver philosophy.

I am going to guess that the batters went base to base like now, waiting for the longball, but were much more willing to work the pitcher and draw the walk. (Perhaps instead of "pitching, defense, adn the 3-run homer, it would be best described as "pitching, defense, plate knowledge, adn the 3-run homer?") The only thing I know is that the Williams' and such did walk a lot more, and sluggers struck out far less. But, I only know about the leaders in such things.

If that is the case, if bunting and working the count were a lot more common, then I can certainly understand your thinking. But, when your league leader in stolen bases has less than 30, it's hard to see how they were not adhering somewhat to what would be Weaver's strategy.

Your analysis is accurate, but until the middle 1950s, teams walked more than they struck out. There were fewer home runs and fewer strikeouts, so managers had to hit and run and bunt a lot more. I think that fewer HRs and fewer strikeouts was the main difference because more balls were put into play and that could lead to advancing a runner or an error. Strikeouts don't do that.

Jackie Robinson brought back the stolen base to some degree, but it wasn't until Maury Wills that the stolen base became used a lot.

[LouGehrig]

That's an assumption. You didn't even watch the game :rolleyes:

Fine. But he never should have swung. And I did watch it, but I tend to try to forget unpleasant occurrences, and I was successful in this case.

[digglahhh]

co-sign

The importance of managers in general is overrated.

I don't know if I would say, overrated, per se. However, I think the most parts of a manager's job take place behind the scenes. I think fans are rarely in a position to judge how good of a job a manager is doing.

[RuthMayBond]

Your analysis is accurate, but until the middle 1950s, teams walked more than they struck out.How about until after the end of WW2?

[RuthMayBond]

And I did watch it, What does post #35 in this thread mean then?

[LouGehrig]

How about until after the end of WW2?

How about the AL until 1952?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_1951.shtml

[RuthMayBond]

How about the AL until 1952?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_1951.shtmlA one-year aberration?

[LouGehrig]

What does post #35 in this thread mean then?

I really didn't. I DID see the DPs in the last game. Seriously, explain.

It means just what it says. I watched it, but refused to see it. "See it" means registering it in my brain. I see many things, but are not aware that I have seen them. This is not trying to be funny. It happens to everyone.

I have yet to see Buckner miss the ground ball.

[LouGehrig]

A one-year aberration?

No. If you look at the years, until 1952, the AL generally had more walks than strikeouts. After 1952, it went the other way.

[RuthMayBond]

I really didn't. I DID see the DPs in the last game. Seriously, explain.

It means just what it says. I watched it, but refused to see it. :rolleyes: Ok, you've jumped the shark, and I'm outta this thread :waving

[LouGehrig]

OK. Go to Dangerous in a Short Series.

[philkid3]

RuthMayBond used the example of Mark DeRosa in Game 3 against Arizona. With the bases loaded and one out, he swung at a 3-1 pitch. In that situation, he should have taken the pitch, trying to get a walk and trying to keep the rally alive. He hit into a DP. He was going for the 4 run home run.

That is damaging the game. Finesse is gone. Brute force rules. The subtleties of the game have been lost -- not completely, but to a great degree.

Playing for one run has its time. Look at the Indians.

Yeah, playing for one run has its time. But alot of teams do it too often.

And the DeRosa situation is a good example, but I don't see that as something infesting the game. I'm pretty sure most strategy advocates ranging from small ball to moneyball wouldn't defend that.

[LouGehrig]

Yeah, playing for one run has its time. But alot of teams do it too often.

And the DeRosa situation is a good example, but I don't see that as something infesting the game. I'm pretty sure most strategy advocates ranging from small ball to moneyball wouldn't defend that.

It really has. I have watched almost every Yankees game this season, and they are a team that "works" the pitcher, especially Abreu, but I have seen him and Damon and Jeter and even Posada swing at pitches in the dirt when they are ahead in the count 2-0 or 3-1.

I understand they feel they are going to get a good pitch, but in many situations, taking may result in a walk or force the pitcher to make a 3-2 pitch.

[philkid3]

It really has. I have watched almost every Yankees game this season, and they are a team that "works" the pitcher, especially Abreu, but I have seen him and Damon and Jeter and even Posada swing at pitches in the dirt when they are ahead in the count 2-0 or 3-1.

I understand they feel they are going to get a good pitch, but in many situations, taking may result in a walk or force the pitcher to make a 3-2 pitch.

Ah well, my anecdotal opinion goes against yours. We need some evidence here to really have anything to talk about.

[Ubiquitous]

No real easy answer for the DeRosa situation.

For starters you got Livan on the mound who is a nibbler. You then have a situation in which he walks 3 hitters to load the bases. But he really doesn't look bad doing it. Again he was nibbling and missing. He falls behind on DeRosa 2-0 and throughs a breaking ball down the middle of the plate that DeRosa takes. He then throws the third ball way inside so now he is 3-1. A hitters count. This is the spot where you say this is what I want and if I get it I'm swinging if I don't get it I am not swinging. The fifth pitch was the same exact breaking ball he through over the plater for strike one except it was a little closer to the corner of the plate (I believe both pitches were a slider) DeRosa swung and didn't make good contact. If I am going to fault him I would fault him for swinging at that kind of pitch he should have held on. But I can't really say that he shouldn't have swung at that pitch period. IF the count was 3-0 first and then 3-1 I would say probably take the pitch again. But even then I would probably still tell him to sit on a fastball.

If DeRosa is to be blamed for anything it is for swinging at a bad pitch to swing at. But I think being open to swinging at something in that situation was the right call.

[LouGehrig]

No real easy answer for the DeRosa situation.

For starters you got Livan on the mound who is a nibbler. You then have a situation in which he walks 3 hitters to load the bases. But he really doesn't look bad doing it. Again he was nibbling and missing. He falls behind on DeRosa 2-0 and throughs a breaking ball down the middle of the plate that DeRosa takes. He then throws the third ball way inside so now he is 3-1. A hitters count. This is the spot where you say this is what I want and if I get it I'm swinging if I don't get it I am not swinging. The fifth pitch was the same exact breaking ball he through over the plater for strike one except it was a little closer to the corner of the plate (I believe both pitches were a slider) DeRosa swung and didn't make good contact. If I am going to fault him I would fault him for swinging at that kind of pitch he should have held on. But I can't really say that he shouldn't have swung at that pitch period. IF the count was 3-0 first and then 3-1 I would say probably take the pitch again. But even then I would probably still tell him to sit on a fastball.

If DeRosa is to be blamed for anything it is for swinging at a bad pitch to swing at. But I think being open to swinging at something in that situation was the right call.

You have good points but I disagree. I will not use hindsight because that is unfair, but my approach is to try to keep the line moving and not swing at anything but YOUR pitch when ahead 2-0 or 3-1. Of course, it depends on each situation, but in this one, it really would have been a better approach.