1951 Dodgers

[penncentralpete]

Why did Dressen bat Carl Furillo lead-off? The Reading Rifle was as slow as a scungilli!

[Squeeze Play]

A question I have long pondered too, because as I remember it, not only was Carl slow afoot, he was also a notorious first-ball hitter, with absolutely NO patience...two qualities you DO NOT want in a lead-off man.

While that decision may be a head-scratcher, remember that it was made by the same manager who, despite having had a front-row seat all season long, was completely oblivious to the fact that all season long, the Giants in general, and Bobby Thomson in particular, had OWNED Branca.

YET HE CHOSE TO BRING IN BRANCA ANYWAY!!!

The same manger who ordered Hodges to hold Dark on first with no one out and the Giants three runs down, so that Mueller’s ground ball toward first became a single to right rather than a double play.

So your question isn’t really a difficult one at all. We’re talking here about Charlie Dressen...a legend in his own mind but the author of some of the dumbest managerial decisions ever.

[tonypug]

Hold on now, we are talking about Charlie "The Genius " Dressen here. The same guy tha allowed his wife to talk him into talking himself out of the greatest job in baseball. Pete is a squingilli slower then a calamari?

[BigRon]

All joking aside, Furillo wasn't really slow, particularly during the first half of his career. He had about average ML speed for the time.

I assume we're talking about the '51 playoffs. Furillo, to my knowledge, rarely batted leadoff- Reese was the guy.

That said, batting Furillo leadoff wasn't necessarily idiocy. The guy was a .300 hitter, often better, with plenty of pop in his bat. He didn't walk a lot, so his OBA's weren't outstanding, but he was a good offensive player. I wouldn't put him there, but....

Does anyone know how many times he actually led off? I'll bet it was very few.

The real question should be, why did the Yankee managerial geniuses bat Bobby Richardson leadoff? He of the career .069 Isolated Power- yes, you read that right. He of the .299 lifetime OBA- yep. The guy who walked 243 times in 5783 career plate appearances. The guy who led the AL in outs made 4 times. Let's see, weren't those managers Casey Stengel and Ralph Houk?

[Squeeze Play]

All joking aside, Furillo wasn't really slow, particularly during the first half of his career. He had about average ML speed for the time.

The record says otherwise. Even early in his career, Furillo was among the leaders in grounding into double plays.
Double Plays Grounded Into
1947 NL--17--4th
1949 NL--16--8th
1950 NL--19--6th
1952 NL--16--8th
1954 NL--17--8th
1955 NL--15--7th
1956 NL--27--1st
Career--207--76th


I assume we're talking about the '51 playoffs. Furillo, to my knowledge, rarely batted leadoff- Reese was the guy.

Furillo did bat leadoff for many games in '51; in fact, he led the league in AB that year. And in the playoffs -- at least in the final game, and most likely in all three --he also led off.

Here's the box score of the final game:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/boxscore/10031951.shtml


That said, batting Furillo leadoff wasn't necessarily idiocy. The guy was a .300 hitter, often better, with plenty of pop in his bat. He didn't walk a lot, so his OBA's weren't outstanding, but he was a good offensive player. I wouldn't put him there, but....

It may not have been idiocy, but it surely wasn't the best use of a "good offensive player...a .300 hitter with plenty of pop in his bat." And someone who, as I recall, was a pretty good clutch hitter and decent RBI man.

Batting him in the lead-off spot robbed the Dodgers of that run-scoring potential, and was, in my opinion, another wrong-headed decision by Dressen.

[penncentralpete]

Hold on now, we are talking about Charlie "The Genius " Dressen here. The same guy tha allowed his wife to talk him into talking himself out of the greatest job in baseball. Pete is a squingilli slower then a calamari?

I spelled it wrong in my previous post. It only has one "l". Scungili translates to "snail"........you tell me how fast Carl was to earn that nickname.

[penncentralpete]

Furillo batted lead off most of the '51 season and even into the first part of 1952.

[Squeeze Play]

I spelled it wrong in my previous post. It only has one "l". Scungili translates to "snail"........you tell me how fast Carl was to earn that nickname.

I believe scunjilli has TWO "l"s, so your first post was correct.

As I recall, Carl's nickname ("Skoonj") was a variation of that word, and was a used as a reference to his Italian heritage, not to his foot speed.

[penncentralpete]

I believe scunjilli has TWO "l"s, so your first post was correct.

As I recall, Carl's nickname ("Skoonj") was a variation of that word, and was a used as a reference to his Italian heritage, not to his foot speed.

Both "Food Network" and "Cooks.com" spell it with one L. I have read in more than a few places, the nickname poked fun at Carl's foot speed (or lack of same). But--thank you for paying such close attention.

[penncentralpete]

Here's Carl with 3 other types of fish..............

[VIBaseball]

I would never have dreamed The Big O would wear such a rootin-tootin' shirt!

[jayzeeg]

furillo leading off was not so far fetched. first off he wasn't that slow as a younger player. don't forget he played a lot of center field before snider came to stay 1n 1949. the reason he hit into so many double plays was because he hit the ball so hard. in 1951 he had 197 hits and 43 walks for an OBP of .344. reese was an ideal 2nd place hitter, so who else was there to lead off. his leading off did not really hurt that lineup because 3-7 was snider. robinson, campy, hodges and pafko. none of those guys was in ideal leadoff hitter. when he slumped badly in '52 due to the eye problem, he used cox at leadoff, because he had nobody else.

[penncentralpete]

furillo leading off was not so far fetched. first off he wasn't that slow as a younger player. don't forget he played a lot of center field before snider came to stay 1n 1949. the reason he hit into so many double plays was because he hit the ball so hard. in 1951 he had 197 hits and 43 walks for an OBP of .344. reese was an ideal 2nd place hitter, so who else was there to lead off. his leading off did not really hurt that lineup because 3-7 was snider. robinson, campy, hodges and pafko. none of those guys was in ideal leadoff hitter. when he slumped badly in '52 due to the eye problem, he used cox at leadoff, because he had nobody else.

How about Jackie?

[Squeeze Play]

Furillo’s foot speed is less measurable than his batting ability.

I will simply point out again that whether it was because he was slow afoot or that he hit the ball so hard (and he did; many of his hits were like golf tee shots – screaming line drives), the numbers say that even early in his career, with a runner on first and less than two out, he was a good bet to ground into a double play. (See Post #5 above)

More important, in my opinion, was what Carl could do (and DID do) with the bat. Hodges, of course, was the team leader in career Grand Slam home runs with 14. But the player with the next highest number isn’t Snider(5) or Campy (6) or Robinson (2)…it is FURILLO, with 8!

Now of course that stat is meaningless without knowing the number of OPPORTUNITIES each player had to bat with the bases loaded. But the number does confirm what I recall: that Furillo was as dangerous as his more celebrated teammates in pressure situations. By batting him leadoff, Dressen took the grand slam bat out of Carl’s hands and sacrificed that asset.

Given Furillo’s impatience and his average-to-low on-base percentage, I would have placed him deeper in the batting order to take advantage of his bat…which of course is what the Dodgers did prior to 1951 and beginning in 1953, when Gilliam arrived.

As for 1951, Dressen could have batted Cox in the lead-off spot.

[penncentralpete]

Furillo made 499 outs during the 1951 season. This number lead the league.

[penncentralpete]

Furillo made 499 outs during the 1951 season. This number lead the league.

Furillo played in all 158 games in 1951. He ranked 5th amongst the Dodgers in runs scored! The Dodgers lead the Major Leagues in runs scored that season (855) and Carl (batting leadoff) scored 93.

[Squeeze Play]

Furillo made 499 outs during the 1951 season. This number lead the league.

Furillo also led the league in Plate Appearancea AND AT Bats that year, so it's not surprising that he led in Outs as well.

When you bat lead-off for the team that scores the most runs in the majors, you're going to come to bat VERY OFTEN, with many chances to succeed OR fail.

[penncentralpete]

Good reason NOT to bat him lead off.

This was my point in post #1. It's fun discussing it though.

[jayzeeg]

you are so right pete! discussions like this used to take place on the stoops of brooklyn every night when it was it was too hot to go inside. we'd run to the corner to get the night owl edition of the paper (remember the pink front and back page) and discuss the days games. some of my best friends were yankee or giant fans because their parents lived in manhattan before moving to brooklyn before WW2.

[tonypug]

you are so right pete! discussions like this used to take place on the stoops of brooklyn every night when it was it was too hot to go inside. we'd run to the corner to get the night owl edition of the paper (remember the pink front and back page) and discuss the days games. some of my best friends were yankee or giant fans because their parents lived in manhattan before moving to brooklyn before WW2.Sitting on the stoops of Brooklyn, what great memories that phrase brings back. Our moms on the stoop, us kids playing stickball in the street. Ah yes, where is my broomstick.

[penncentralpete]

you are so right pete! discussions like this used to take place on the stoops of brooklyn every night when it was it was too hot to go inside. we'd run to the corner to get the night owl edition of the paper (remember the pink front and back page) and discuss the days games. some of my best friends were yankee or giant fans because their parents lived in manhattan before moving to brooklyn before WW2.

My dad would take me down to the corner store after dinner in the dead of summer. He would get himself cigars and the bulldog edition of the Daily Mirror. If he was in a good mood, I would get an ice cream cone. The front stoop was filled with family (we lived in a 4-family with my dad's brothers and sister) when we returned. Lightning bugs and the talk of Snider's latest exploits permeated the sidewalk before us all. Mom would nurse her coffee, while dad and his brothers would swill the Schaefers.

[VIBaseball]

Did you guys smuggle transistor radios into school to listen to the World Series or other afternoon games? (Ah, to have those games on at a time where kids could see/hear them. Heck, even adults find it hard to stay awake now).

Also, on leadoff hitters -- well into the 1970s you'd see guys who had either good average or good speed but terrible on-base percentages leading off. Managers weren't very scientific.

[penncentralpete]

Did you guys smuggle transistor radios into school to listen to the World Series or other afternoon games? (Ah, to have those games on at a time where kids could see/hear them. Heck, even adults find it hard to stay awake now).

Also, on leadoff hitters -- well into the 1970s you'd see guys who had either good average or good speed but terrible on-base percentages leading off. Managers weren't very scientific.

Yeah, we smuggled transistors into class during the World Series. Sister Rita Baptista still has one of mine!

[tonypug]

During the world series, they used to put the games on the intercom, for the 45 minutes or so we were still in school. Then we ran home to catch the rest of the game. Tony LaRussa was probably the first manager to use charts and tendencies when making out his lineup. Then of course Moneyball became the rage. Bill James and all his tables and charts put a lot of emphasis on OBP and the like.

[Number 4]

In the DC area we too broght our transitiro radios to school. It wasn't until gym class about mid afternoon that we could play them in the open, without fear that they would be taken away from us by the teachers.

[tonypug]

One of the greatest inventions of all time was the transistor radio.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

During the world series, they used to put the games on the intercom, for the 45 minutes or so we were still in school. Then we ran home to catch the rest of the game. Tony LaRussa was probably the first manager to use charts and tendencies when making out his lineup. Then of course Moneyball became the rage. Bill James and all his tables and charts put a lot of emphasis on OBP and the like.
Speaking of changes in the game, as you are, Al Dark was the first manager to use the pitch count on his '61 Giants staff [Ref. A Flag For San Francisco, by Harry Jupiter].
... and yes, the transistor radio is an MVP!!

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

In the DC area we too broght our transitiro radios to school. It wasn't until gym class about mid afternoon that we could play them in the open, without fear that they would be taken away from us by the teachers.
... with the ear plus going up mr sleeve. Seven kids would react to a ground ball to Pee Wee or a Willie basket catch. The teacher would wheel around, chalk flying, cheers and laughter erupting. THE WOILD SERIOUS of my yute.
Thanks for helping to elicit the nice memories, guys.

[Ralph Zig Tyko]

All joking aside, Furillo wasn't really slow, particularly during the first half of his career. He had about average ML speed for the time.

I assume we're talking about the '51 playoffs. Furillo, to my knowledge, rarely batted leadoff- Reese was the guy.

That said, batting Furillo leadoff wasn't necessarily idiocy. The guy was a .300 hitter, often better, with plenty of pop in his bat. He didn't walk a lot, so his OBA's weren't outstanding, but he was a good offensive player. I wouldn't put him there, but....

Does anyone know how many times he actually led off? I'll bet it was very few.

The real question should be, why did the Yankee managerial geniuses bat Bobby Richardson leadoff? He of the career .069 Isolated Power- yes, you read that right. He of the .299 lifetime OBA- yep. The guy who walked 243 times in 5783 career plate appearances. The guy who led the AL in outs made 4 times. Let's see, weren't those managers Casey Stengel and Ralph Houk?

When a team has three catchers hit over 20 homers each, and the M@M show going on, it mattered not that Bobby was out of place. But other than Kubek, who could they have used?

[BigRon]

When a team has three catchers hit over 20 homers each, and the M@M show going on, it mattered not that Bobby was out of place. But other than Kubek, who could they have used?

Well, that was the great flaw of those Yankee teams. Did you ever wonder why Mantle's RBI totals were so low some seasons? Look no further than the top of the order.

By the way, the 1961 Yankees scored 827 runs in 162 games. The 1951 Dodgers scored 855 runs in 157 games. The Yanks were 4th in BA, 5th in OBA, 1st in SA. The Dodgers were 1st in all 3. The 51 Dodgers were the better offensive team.

THe Yankees would have been far better off batting McDougald 1st- even Hector Lopez would have been an improvement most years. Richardson was one of the alltime out machines. He almost never walked, and if his BA was below about .280 his OBA was around .300. Not good, not good at all. Furillo was WAY ahead in effectiveness.

That said, I agree that batting Furillo leadoff was ususally not in the Dodgers' best interest, but as a strategic blunder it pales in comparison to the top of the Yankees order.

[penncentralpete]

Skoonj busting it out of the box........

[Squeeze Play]

Skoonj busting it out of the box........

Carl was one of my favorites, but with that wide body (which I never realized he had!), he's probably grounding into another double play.

[penncentralpete]

Carl was one of my favorites, but with that wide body (which I never realized he had!), he's probably grounding into another double play.

Furillo was always listed as 6' and 190lbs.

[Squeeze Play]

Furillo was always listed as 6' and 190lbs.

From this photo, at least, most of those pounds were below the waist. Which does not make for blinding (or even average) foot speed.

[tonypug]

I never realized that Al Dark was responsible for the dreaded pitch count. As for Yankee leadoff men Phil Rizzuto and Hank Bauer were the usual leadoffmen from after WWII until Bauer was traded in the late 50's. Stengel used Richardson for a couple of years and then Houk continued that. For the Brooklyn Dodgers Reese was the primary lead off man until Gilliam came on the scene in 1953. The last couple of years in Brooklyn, Sandy Amoros spent some time at the top of the order. On the 1951 Dodgers, only Billy Cox, was a below average hitter and Cox was known for getting some clutch hits. On days when Don Newcombe pitched, there were no sure outs in that lineup.

[penncentralpete]

Skoonj led off in 91 games in '51 (NY Times, March 5, 1952). He led the NL in homers to lead off the game with 5.

[BigRon]

From this photo, at least, most of those pounds were below the waist. Which does not make for blinding (or even average) foot speed.

I wouldn't read too much into one photo. Camera angles can provide distorted images. Furillo WAS very muscular- he certainly wasn't a lithe guy. But, he wasn't fat or overweight at all for his body type. He truly did run reasonably well (at least ML average) for most of his career.

[Squeeze Play]

I wouldn't read too much into one photo. Camera angles can provide distorted images. Furillo WAS very muscular- he certainly wasn't a lithe guy. But, he wasn't fat or overweight at all for his body type. He truly did run reasonably well (at least ML average) for most of his career.

I feel like Strother Martin in “Cool Hand Luke:” You know…when the Captain says, ”What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” At least it’s what I’ve got here.

We seem to have vastly different memories of Furillo. You keep claiming that he “truly did run reasonably well (at least ML average) for most of his career.”

And I keep pointing out that, having seen Carl play throughout his Brooklyn career, I have NO image of him as a speedster, either on the base paths or in the field. So I have to rely on the record books.

According to the numbers, then, and insofar as “running well” can be measured by any statistic, he did NOT run well.

As I pointed out earlier, for most of his career – even when he was a young 25 – Furillo was among the leaders in grounding into double plays. And he held that distinction through his early thirties.

And while he didn’t try to steal often, he was successful only about 65% of the time…well below the league average of about 75-80% during the 50s.

Final thought: I admired Carl as a fierce competitor, a dangerous hitter, a smart fielder with a powerful, accurate arm who mastered the tricky right field wall at Ebbets Field.

But he truly did not “run well.”

[BigRon]

I feel like Strother Martin in “Cool Hand Luke:” You know…when the Captain says, ”What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” At least it’s what I’ve got here.

We seem to have vastly different memories of Furillo. You keep claiming that he “truly did run reasonably well (at least ML average) for most of his career.”

And I keep pointing out that, having seen Carl play throughout his Brooklyn career, I have NO image of him as a speedster, either on the base paths or in the field. So I have to rely on the record books.

According to the numbers, then, and insofar as “running well” can be measured by any statistic, he did NOT run well.

As I pointed out earlier, for most of his career – even when he was a young 25 – Furillo was among the leaders in grounding into double plays. And he held that distinction through his early thirties.

And while he didn’t try to steal often, he was successful only about 65% of the time…well below the league average of about 75-80% during the 50s.

Final thought: I admired Carl as a fierce competitor, a dangerous hitter, a smart fielder with a powerful, accurate arm who mastered the tricky right field wall at Ebbets Field.

But he truly did not “run well.”

Actually, I think we're disagreeing a little. Please note: I NEVER said Furillo was fast- I did say that, to my memory and reading, he ran reasonably well (i.e. at least ML average) for the time.

Furillo played CF most of the time for the pennant winning/contending Dodgers of 46-47-48. Teams of this caliber don't have inadequate guys playing CF. That suggests me that he ran reasonably well in those days.

As to your comments about double plays and stolen bases: let me provide some data about another rightfielder. This long-time star hit into 275 double plays in 9454 at bats, or 1 double play every 34.3 at bats. He led the league in hit into double plays 2 times, was 4th twice, 5th once, 8th once, 9th once, 10th twice. This is strikingly similar to Furillo, who hit into a DP every 30.9 ABs. He stole a total of 83 bases in an 18 year career, at a 64% success rate- not significantly more or at a much better rate than Furillo. He stole over 10 bases in a season one time.

Looking just at this data, which you use to strengthen your argument about Furillo, one could conclude that this player didn't have much speed and didn't run very well.

Well, this player is Roberto Clemente, and he certainly was fast and ran well. And yes, he was a lot faster than Furillo. That's not my point. My point is that it can be VERY dangerous to look at certain types of info like GIDP, stolen bases, and SB success rate, and make assumptions about running ability in players we haven't seen.

I DID see Furillo play, maybe not as much as you did. I didn't grow up in New York and I didn't see him play until 1954, when he was well into his 30s. I was just a kid then, but I don't have any memory of him being a slug then, and I'm confident he was faster earlier in his career.

[Let's Go Mets!]

My point is that it can be VERY dangerous to look at certain types of info like GIDP, stolen bases, and SB success rate, and make assumptions about running ability in players we haven't seen.


I agree. Stats are deceiving at times, can lead to false impressions, and don't always tell the whole story.

Likewise, photographs. A good example being the picture of Carl Furillo in this thread. The camera angle, baggy uniform balooning in motion, makes his body and bone structure look massive, which it really wasn't.

[penncentralpete]

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain, autobiography, 1904 (but, as yet no actual record of this under Disraeli's authorship)

[Bobcat]

I agree. Stats are deceiving at times, can lead to false impressions, and don't always tell the whole story.

Likewise photographs. A good example being the picture of Furillo in this thread. The camera angle, baggy uniform balooning in motion, makes his body and bone structure look massive, which it really wasn't.

Yes, agree stats can be misleanding, the Yankee Clipper was one the best base runners in the game, taking the extra base, etc., yet when you look at his stats he stole few bases.

Furillo was not the fastest guy on the bases, I recall his misstep in game 3 of the 1956 series, having opened the ninth with a double he tried to stretch it to three and didn't make it and this in a 5-3 game the Dodgers eventually lost.

[tonypug]

We seem to be getting bogged down in semantics, regarding Furillo's speed. He was no burner, but had the quickness and instincts to play center field. There are some extremely fast players, who are terrible base runners. Good baseball Instincts are often better attributes in a baseball player then pure speed. Herb Washington was one of the fastest men in the world, but as Charlie Finley found out, that didn't make him a great base runner.

[BigRon]

We seem to be getting bogged down in semantics, regarding Furillo's speed. He was no burner, but had the quickness and instincts to play center field. There are some extremely fast players, who are terrible base runners. Good baseball Instincts are often better attributes in a baseball player then pure speed. Herb Washington was one of the fastest men in the world, but as Charlie Finley found out, that didn't make him a great base runner.


Tony, I agree with all your comments EXCEPT that "we seem to be getting bogged down in semantics". Pete and Squeeze Play have both said that Furillo was SLOW- in fact, it seems like they're saying he was REALLY SLOW- and, that's their right.

My point has been that he wasn't fast, but he wasn't slow either, except perhaps his last few years- that he was at least average. That's my recollection. That is a real difference of opinion. I can't prove who's right. We would benefit from the opinions of several other knowledgable baseball observers who saw Furillo play numerous times.

Not the end of the world- it's great to reminisce about old favorites, and it's clear that we have some different recollections.

[tonypug]

BigRon, that's what makes this fun and enjoyable. Being able to disagree and have a lively debate makes it worthwhile. Rube Walker was slow, Robinson in his prime was fast. I would rate Furillo somewhere in between. Stolen bases is not a good criteria to use for this era or for this team. The Dodgers didn't run much, with all their power, and teams in general didn't run much except when absolutely necessary. Not like the Ricky "I am the greatest in the world" Henderson era.

[VIBaseball]

How much of a premium on taking the extra base was there in Ebbets Field anyway? It was a cozy place, and like Fenway Park is still, I'd venture to stay that baserunning strategy was more "station to station."

[penncentralpete]

How much of a premium on taking the extra base was there in Ebbets Field anyway? It was a cozy place, and like Fenway Park is still, I'd venture to stay that baserunning strategy was more "station to station."

This was the case Rory, with the notable exception of Jack Roosevelt Robinson, who, in his prime took not only the extra base, but many times the extra TWO bases!

[tonypug]

Other then the rightfield wall the other distances were honest. €Doubles and triples were certainl achievable.

[Squeeze Play]

Actually, I think we're disagreeing a little. Please note: I NEVER said Furillo was fast- I did say that, to my memory and reading, he ran reasonably well (i.e. at least ML average) for the time.

Furillo played CF most of the time for the pennant winning/contending Dodgers of 46-47-48. Teams of this caliber don't have inadequate guys playing CF. That suggests me that he ran reasonably well in those days.

As to your comments about double plays and stolen bases: let me provide some data about another rightfielder. This long-time star hit into 275 double plays in 9454 at bats, or 1 double play every 34.3 at bats. He led the league in hit into double plays 2 times, was 4th twice, 5th once, 8th once, 9th once, 10th twice. This is strikingly similar to Furillo, who hit into a DP every 30.9 ABs. He stole a total of 83 bases in an 18 year career, at a 64% success rate- not significantly more or at a much better rate than Furillo. He stole over 10 bases in a season one time.

Looking just at this data, which you use to strengthen your argument about Furillo, one could conclude that this player didn't have much speed and didn't run very well.

Well, this player is Roberto Clemente, and he certainly was fast and ran well. And yes, he was a lot faster than Furillo. That's not my point. My point is that it can be VERY dangerous to look at certain types of info like GIDP, stolen bases, and SB success rate, and make assumptions about running ability in players we haven't seen.

I DID see Furillo play, maybe not as much as you did. I didn't grow up in New York and I didn't see him play until 1954, when he was well into his 30s. I was just a kid then, but I don't have any memory of him being a slug then, and I'm confident he was faster earlier in his career.

BigRon, you’re right. You never said Furillo was fast, and I was wrong to imply that you did. So my apologies for that.

But you DID say he was “at least ML average,” and I still say that according to my memory and Furillo’s numbers, he clearly wasn’t.

Let’s look at Carl’s frequency of grounding into double plays compared to the entire NL during Furillo’s career:

GIDP RATIO
’47: Entire NL: once every 45.58 AB; Furillo, once every 25.70 AB
’48: 48.12/ 52.00
’49: 44.72/ 34.31
’50: 40.59/32.63
’51: 41.02/44.47
’52: 41.02/26.56
’53: 44.18/31.90
’54: 42.93/32.18
’55: 43.65/34.87
’56: 43.87/19.37
’57: 45.85/30.38
’58: 40.25/27.40
’59: 46.41/18.60
’60: 48.20/0
CAREER 46.94/30.81

So, in TWELVE of his 14 ML years -- including early in his career -- Furillo exceeded the league average in GIDP…often by huge margins. And he maintained that pattern over more than 6,000 AB.

(If he was better than the league average in ’51, it was probably because that’s the year that he often batted lead-off, and coming up after the pitcher, obviously had fewer opportunities to bat with less than two out and a runner on first.)

Then there’s this: It was generally agreed that Roy Campanella was the slowest of the Dodgers. Campy’s career GIDP ratio was 29.40. Furillo’s was 30.81.
I call that a flat-footed (!) tie.

As for the fact that Furillo played CF for three years: We already know that he was a smart fielder, having mastered the tricky right field wall at Ebbets Field. If the above numbers indicate that he had below-average running speed, I would say that if he gave the illusion of speed in the outfield, it was probably because he learned how to get a jump on the ball.

Finally: I’ve spoken with several Brooklyn fans who also saw Furillo throughout his Ebbets Field days, and they all confirm my impression that he was SLOW.

As you’ve noted, “it can be VERY dangerous to look at certain types of info like GIDP, stolen bases, and SB success rate, and make assumptions about running ability in players we haven't seen.”

But if most of those who’ve seen him have the same impression…and that impression seems to be corroborated by the numbers, it seems difficult to make the case that he had "average ML speed."

This was fun, and I thank you for an interesting, civil discussion.

[BigRon]

BigRon, you’re right. You never said Furillo was fast, and I was wrong to imply that you did. So my apologies for that.

But you DID say he was “at least ML average,” and I still say that according to my memory and Furillo’s numbers, he clearly wasn’t.

Let’s look at Carl’s frequency of grounding into double plays compared to the entire NL during Furillo’s career:

GIDP RATIO
’47: Entire NL: once every 45.58 AB; Furillo, once every 25.70 AB
’48: 48.12/ 52.00
’49: 44.72/ 34.31
’50: 40.59/32.63
’51: 41.02/44.47
’52: 41.02/26.56
’53: 44.18/31.90
’54: 42.93/32.18
’55: 43.65/34.87
’56: 43.87/19.37
’57: 45.85/30.38
’58: 40.25/27.40
’59: 46.41/18.60
’60: 48.20/0
CAREER 46.94/30.81

So, in TWELVE of his 14 ML years -- including early in his career -- Furillo exceeded the league average in GIDP…often by huge margins. And he maintained that pattern over more than 6,000 AB.

(If he was better than the league average in ’51, it was probably because that’s the year that he often batted lead-off, and coming up after the pitcher, obviously had fewer opportunities to bat with less than two out and a runner on first.)

Then there’s this: It was generally agreed that Roy Campanella was the slowest of the Dodgers. Campy’s career GIDP ratio was 29.40. Furillo’s was 30.81.
I call that a flat-footed (!) tie.

As for the fact that Furillo played CF for three years: We already know that he was a smart fielder, having mastered the tricky right field wall at Ebbets Field. If the above numbers indicate that he had below-average running speed, I would say that if he gave the illusion of speed in the outfield, it was probably because he learned how to get a jump on the ball.

Finally: I’ve spoken with several Brooklyn fans who also saw Furillo throughout his Ebbets Field days, and they all confirm my impression that he was SLOW.

As you’ve noted, “it can be VERY dangerous to look at certain types of info like GIDP, stolen bases, and SB success rate, and make assumptions about running ability in players we haven't seen.”

But if most of those who’ve seen him have the same impression…and that impression seems to be corroborated by the numbers, it seems difficult to make the case that he had "average ML speed."

This was fun, and I thank you for an interesting, civil discussion.

Squeeze Play- good info. I also appreciate that you've talked to others who saw him a lot and had a similar opinion.

Nonetheless, The GIDP info alone doesn't move me. As I mentioned, Clemente's were almost identical- I could run the numbers and they would look just like Furillo's. They both hit into a lot of double plays because 1) they both frequently had guys on base in front of them- both played for good offensive teams, and 2) they both hit the ball hard- both hit lots of sharp grounders that got turned into easy double plays.

So, my only point here is that high GIDP rates don't always equate to slow speed.

I'll defer to your Brooklyn witnesses who claim Carl was slow.

Wouldn't it be fun to have access to some old scouting reports and see what they said?