1969!!!!!!

[roger_that]

In re 1969, this is a good summer to reflect on Gil Hodges' managerial skills. I don't know if any other Met manager--not Davey Johnson, not Bobby V., not Terry Collins-- was spoken of with the respect from his players that Hodges had and has from his. His early death, of course, sanctifies his life, but I think it's more than that. He had a very strange place in Mets history, partly because he managed the miracle of 1969, but there's more. He was one of the last "authoritarian" managers, but unlike Billy Martin, Earl Weaver, Leo Durocher, he wasn't a loudmouthed, bad-tempered dickhead either to his players or to the press, but rather a soft-spoken authority figure of a type that is rare in leadership generally.



It's hard to say whether Gil could have been successful if he'd managed into the 1980s and beyond (he would have turned only 60 in the mid-1980s, hard as it is to imagine him managing the Mets through the Berra-Frazier-Torre-Bamberger years) when the players became so much more outspoken about their rights, their salaries, and their opinions, but I like to think he would have figured out a way to adapt to the free agency MLB while giving up little of his stern managerial style. His is the first HoF induction that I've ever been been tempted to attend in person.

[Edgy MD]

I'm sure if we think about it, there have been more than a few managers in later years who projected authority in a similar matter, but I imagine part of what you speak of as having been lost is a byproduct in part of the loss of an era where most leaders had meaningful military service.



It didn't necessarily make a guy a better person, but it taught a feller how to carry himself in front of underlings in a way that reminded them to respect the rank.



And with the players all having either served in the military, done some time in the reserves, or being scared shit they would have to, they learned quickly to respect such guys whether they liked them or not.



A guy like Gil Hodges, who players were deeply scared of at the surface, but came to like one-on-one, was the kind of dude people went to the mat for. It also helped that there were so many stories throughout baseball about his legendary strength that he almost never had to display it.

[roger_that]

"his legendary strength that he almost never had to display it"



That, too. But more.



I started writing an article about authoritarian-style managers, which was probably close to 100% of managers (I'd guess at least 80% pre-1960) and the rise of more sensitive types, which is the majority today. No manager today would ever rip his players publicly, get into fistfights with them, abuse and denigrate them in the clubhouse, and so on. Anyone who tried would make headlines, and probably get fired PDQ but the reason I say Gil might have been able, had he lived, to manage into the modern era is that screaming, punching, badmouthing people wasn't his personal style but he still projected strength.



Not that he was perfect for his time or for ours. He was extremely decisive, as managers go, not doing a lot of experimenting, waffling, second-guessing himself--he made a decision, and he stuck with it, sometimes when it wasn't working out so well. One decision, that I think was very bad for the franchise, was that I think he soured on Nolan Ryan, held him back when he was a Met, and gave the green light when management was looking to trade him. I see Hodges' hand behind a lot of the deals they did for American Leaguers whom he'd gotten to see in his years managing the Senators. This worked out well sometimes--obviously, Gil pushed hard to get Tommie Agee-- but it also, I think, got us Fregosi and Joe Foy and other moves that worked out poorly. His opinion of Ryan was strange, partly because he had witnessed, as a player, upclose and personal, the very slow development of Sandy Koufax who suffered from most of Ryan's problems, so you'd think he would have been Ryan's biggest fan, but no.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Otis was a guy who for whatever reason, got on Gils bad side and was fumbled away. I wanna pin the Ryan trade on the GM who succeeded Johhny Murphy, but i don't know how much he vs. Gil was actually responsible. One thing I've detected at times in Mets history was, a lack of "bench strength" when front office people get whacked, or die

[roger_that]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Otis was a guy who for whatever reason, got on Gils bad side and was fumbled away. I wanna pin the Ryan trade on the GM who succeeded Johhny Murphy, but i don't know how much he vs. Gil was actually responsible. One thing I've detected at times in Mets history was, a lack of "bench strength" when front office people get whacked, or die

That was Bob Scheffing. But sabr's bio on Amos Otis screws up a lot of details https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/amos-otis/https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/amos-otis/, including mixing Murphy up with broadcaster Bob Murphy. The nut quote, though, has Gil Hodges meeting Otis at the 1970 All-Star and saying "Good Luck" to him, which Otis noted was about as many words as Hodges had said to him in his two seasons with the Mets. Scheffing was a newbie, thrust into the GM spot when Johnny Murphy died, and I think it's safe to read between the lines and make Hodges the moving force behind the Otis deal. Otis certainly pinned the blame on Hodges, and I think he was correct. As I say, Hodges was very decisive, and as sabr says, he was a man of few words who didn't explain things to his players as much as he made decisions and let the players adjust to his choices, which Otis and Ryan found difficult. This is the downside to Gil's leadership style--the players who get the playing time say "He leaves us alone and lets us do our job" but the ones who don't get pissed off and bitter.

[Edgy MD]

For what it's worth, the online versions of my SABR bios on Ed Charles and Donn Clendennon are very badly edited — or simply not edited at all. Embarrassingly so. The versions in the book are mostly tight, fact-checked, and well formatted, but I've never successfully gotten them swapped into place for the online versions. I don't know if the editor turned in the early versions to SABR based on a tight deadline or by accident, but maybe the same thing happened to the author of the Otis bio, Bill Lamberty.



As far as Hodges being behind the Otis trade, I think we're still too fact-poor to put ourselves in "safe to say" territory. We're mostly in the realm of speculation, though I'll accept "likely."



As far as Scheffing, he's also in the middle of the Mets-didn't-draft-Reggie-Jackson-because-of-racism argument, so he just can't escape the Mets World of Unsubstantiated Conclusions. Maybe he has an unpublished memoir somewhere.

[roger_that]

Today is Ron Swoboda's birthday, by the way, an interesting date because if he had been born a few hours later, he would be listed in bbref as a whole year younger.

[roger_that]

Edgy MD wrote: For what it's worth, the online versions of my SABR bios on Ed Charles and Donn Clendennon are very badly edited — or simply not edited at all. Embarrassingly so. The versions in the book are mostly tight, fact-checked, and well formatted, but I've never successfully gotten them swapped into place for the online versions. I don't know if the editor turned in the early versions to SABR based on a tight deadline or by accident, but maybe the same thing happened to the author of the Otis bio, Bill Lamberty.

Yeah, they're pretty messed up. A few years ago, I wondered why they hadn't fixed a pretty fixable generic problem--that of rendering pitchers' innings in 1/3 or 2/3rds form. In other words, you read things like "Job Loew pitched 173? innings in 1932" the question mark being a placeholder for a partial inning. The answer I got from the chief executive in charge of editing sabr bios was "Stop asking us questions, we're doing just fine here, no thanks to you" roughly translated. When I suggested that it would be simpler, and less confusing, if they'd just dropped the question mark and round off the number of innings, I got a less polite response, so I gave up on offering suggestions.





It's still going on, btw. I don't know how many innings is ? innings.

[Ceetar]

in regex, ? means the previous character is optional. So that means it's either 173 or 17 IP, clearly.

[kcmets]

Edgy MD wrote: For what it's worth, the online versions of my SABR bios on Ed Charles and Donn Clendennon are very badly edited — or simply not edited at all. Embarrassingly so. The versions in the book are mostly tight, fact-checked, and well formatted, but I've never successfully gotten them swapped into place for the online versions.

That's nutty. I have pretty good communication with the national SABR office.

I can probably help with this, or at least get an explanation as to why they won't

change it. I mean, it's a SABR book right? Why have online bios different than in

a published book? Nutty, wait already said that...

[Edgy MD]

That might help.



I can send you a PDF of a scan from the book, but it'll take a while and search of three or so computers to find a clean copy of the text.

[Edgy MD]

Here we go:



https://metsrostercentral.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/ed-charles-by-edward-hoyt.pdfEd Charles



https://metsrostercentral.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/donn-clendenon-by-edward-hoyt.pdfDonn Clendenon



If I have to extract that text from the PDFs, so be it, but it might take me a while.

[kcmets]

Edgy MD wrote: If I have to extract that text from the PDFs, so be it, but it might take me a while.

I can do that. Email the files.

[Edgy MD]

Done!

[roger_that]

Frayed Knot wrote: Is he the one they called ‘Moms' or something like that? Yeah, he was a real, soft-spoken, modest sort of guy and they teased him about that. I thought he got jobbed by the tyranny of W-L records--he lost a bunch of games that the Mets didn't score for him and he never really got a shot a full-time starting job, I think, in large part because of that. We heard that Jim was a the type to hang around the Post Office and catch up on the gossip kind of guy when back in his home town. But he wasn't there when we dropped by Instagram WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM

Wait--is that Jim McA himself? On the left I presume? Or two randos photobombing McA's hometown PO? Is there a story here? Do tell.

[Edgy MD]

Those two are the worst sort of randos.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Yes I know who scheffing is, and that he was thrust into position, but in a sense Johnny Murphy was as well, and it would seem the need for executive bench strength heightened given the fact that was so old.



History gives Murphy a lot of credit, but he was basically in the right place at the right time to benefit from the moves Devine made and the halo around the 69 club. I'm not suggesting he was incompetent, in fact it could be argued that he was wise to leave well enough alone until taking advantage of an opportunity in the Clendonon trade.



But not hiring his own successor was a mistake that doubled down on the fact that he too was an unexpected appointee due to Devine's sudden departure.



In my mind, the Mets ought to have done more to make Devine happy inasmuch as he would prove to have a very long and successful career ahead of him... and came from a point of view that the GMs job was to improve the club not just be sure the players don't get paid well. Instead they seemed to say let's give this important job to whoever the senior guy who happens to be around is, and the problem with that was Murphy didn't seem to have his successor in mind either, as the next man up, Scheffing, also wasn't destinted for success.



Consequential decisions post 69 were nearly all pretty bad. Berra hiring, drafting and scouting deteriorated, one bad trade trade after another, wrong posture and behavior once the player union made progress, wrong GM, wrong manager, and it sorta all points to there not really being an overarching guiding philosophy that was imaginative and forward looking, and that wasted of the potential of a young World Series winner that should have plowed their momentum into getting better all around.



This same kind of pattern would repeat itself often in the Wilpon era.

[roger_that]

That seems like a fair and judicious reading of the overall situation to me. You've obviously devoted a thought of serious thinking to this subject. Sorry I took your "the guy who succeeded Murphy" line as implying you didn't remember who that was--plainly, you know this stuff pretty thoroughly.



I did a bit of delving into McA's career stats to see if I could figure out how he earned his "pitch good, get shitty W-L record" rep and it turns out it ain't hard to find: his first start was against Bob Gibson, 1 ER, 6 IP, and a 2-0 loss, next outing a 2-0 loss to the Dodgers, next a seven-inning 1-0 loss to the Giants, and fourth another 1-0 loss to the Astros. So that's an 0-4 W-L record and a 1.82 ERA.



Made an impression on me, which the rest of his hard-luck career did not dispel.

[Edgy MD]

It's a scenario that plays itself out in history and literature all the time. An aging executive — inexpert and not particularly engaged in management — exploited by an ambitious mediocrity of an advisor.

[Frayed Knot]

=roger_that post_id=97853 time=1656675695 user_id=128]


Wait--is that Jim McA himself? On the left I presume?

[kcmets]

Edgy MD wrote: Those two are the worst sort of randos.

I didn't get this earlier this morning. Gotta click on the instagram link...

[roger_that]

Frayed Knot wrote: =roger_that post_id=97853 time=1656675695 user_id=128] Wait--is that Jim McA himself? On the left I presume?

Please tell me you don't think the guy on the left looks like he's nearly 80 y/o

[Edgy MD]

Was McAndrew the only 1969 Met who had a big league son?

[Frayed Knot]

JMcA, we were told, has lived in Texas for a long time now.

Probably been many years since he was in the bustling metropolis that is Lost Nation, Iowa.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: Was McAndrew the only 1969 Met who had a big league son?

AFAIK, yes.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Yes I know who scheffing is, and that he was thrust into position, but in a sense Johnny Murphy was as well, and it would seem the need for executive bench strength heightened given the fact that was so old. History gives Murphy a lot of credit, but he was basically in the right place at the right time to benefit from the moves Devine made and the halo around the 69 club. I'm not suggesting he was incompetent, in fact it could be argued that he was wise to leave well enough alone until taking advantage of an opportunity in the Clendonon trade. But not hiring his own successor was a mistake that doubled down on the fact that he too was an unexpected appointee due to Devine's sudden departure. In my mind, the Mets ought to have done more to make Devine happy inasmuch as he would prove to have a very long and successful career ahead of him... and came from a point of view that the GMs job was to improve the club not just be sure the players don't get paid well. Instead they seemed to say let's give this important job to whoever the senior guy who happens to be around is, and the problem with that was Murphy didn't seem to have his successor in mind either, as the next man up, Scheffing, also wasn't destinted for success. Consequential decisions post 69 were nearly all pretty bad. Berra hiring, drafting and scouting deteriorated, one bad trade trade after another, wrong posture and behavior once the player union made progress, wrong GM, wrong manager, and it sorta all points to there not really being an overarching guiding philosophy that was imaginative and forward looking, and that wasted of the potential of a young World Series winner that should have plowed their momentum into getting better all around. This same kind of pattern would repeat itself often in the Wilpon era.

Great history, there. As usual. One of the biggest hits the Mets absorbed from all of this was the eventual defection of Whitey Herzog, who harbored many resentments towards the Mets organization over what Herzog rightfully perceived as a lack of recognition of his accomplishments. Herzog was instrumental in developing the Mets awesome stable of young talent during the second half of the 60s, that was key to the Mets claiming the WS title in '69. Herzog was regarded as a baseball genius by many in the Mets org. Which he was, of course. The last straw for Herzog was getting skipped over for the managerial position that opened up after Gil Hodges's untimely death. Herzog, as we all know, would go on to not only manage, but build and develop powerhouse teams with two different franchises -- the two teams that call Missouri their home.



My favorite Herzog story involves the Mets hunting down an MIA Herzog, who was on a fishing winter vacation at some remote location in the middle of nowhere. I think that Herzog was needed so that the Mets could finalize their trade for Jim Fregosi. Herzog immediately flew into a mini-rage after learning that the Mets had traded Leroy Stanton, a young outfielder recognized by many in the organization as having enormous potential. Herzog didn't think that Fregosi was the solution to the Mets third base problem and certainly wouldn't have given up Stanton for Fregosi. Herzog had yet to find out that Nolan Ryan, of whom Herzog also thought highly of, was also included in the trade.



The saying went that the main purpose of Mets GM's during that post '69 era was not necesarily to acquire good baseball talent, but to ensure that their players weren't paid as much as they ought to have been paid.



Who knows what the Mets post '69 future might have been if Herzog and not Yogi was named Mets manage and Herzog was also given an important say in Mets development. But that'll be for another thread, some day.



I'm so happy that you "passed the audition". The Bob Scheffing audition. I'm so happy that he's now satisfied that you've heard of Scheffing. You must be happy, too, or at least relieved. Having had the pleasure of reading your thoroughly knowledgeable Mets posts over a span of close to 20 years, I couldn't imagine ever asking you or even suggesting that you hadn't heard of Scheffing. And if I'd only joined up here 15 minutes ago, I'd know my place to keep quiet and to not suggest that you were ignorant of Scheffing. It's basic common etiquette. It's how reasonable people behave. At least you got an apology (again). At least he didn't then double down and advance the absurd point that him naming Scheffing first means that you'd never heard of Scheffing. Or that you then faked it and looked up Scheffing only in response to his post to then save face.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

FWIW and not to be mean but the reason I said the "successor" was that this fuckin phone auto corrected me to distraction anytime I try to type a name it doesn't know, like scheffing and turns it into a word like "scheming."



The one thing I'll add to the rest of the discussion is, who did value Herzog? Bing Devine, that's who.

[Edgy MD]

And Casey Stengel, certainly.

[Fman99]

Never knew that Whitey Herzog was a Mets front office type prior to his time in St. Louis. I just assumed his mother birthed him and he popped out wearing a red StL cap

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Fman99 post_id=97899 time=1656704176 user_id=86]
Never knew that Whitey Herzog was a Mets front office type prior to his time in St. Louis. I just assumed his mother birthed him and he popped out wearing a red StL cap