What I loved about the Davey Johnson Mets

[Elster88]

]Davey was smart, tough, funny and took the Mets from winners to losers.

I still give more credit to Frank. He built the team. Davey took it and did a lot of things wrong. He wasn't the best in-game manager. And he was unable to keep Doc and Darryl from ruining their careers. I don't blame Davey for their problems, that would be unfair. But he sure as hell didn't help them.

But when it comes down it he managed the only World Series championship for my favorite team in my lifetime. So I love him.

[Guest KC]

Well, Counselor Murdock � if your going to mention �no-brainer�
you should also comment on �genius�. The former was retracted
by me, and the latter -- although not retracted by the original poster
-- w�as also questioned in this thread.

No one discredited Johnson's role in bringing up his kid to pitch,
the argument was over how big a deal it was, how big a gamble it
was, and if it makes him the great promoter of young players that
the Mets of today sorely lack.

Or at least that was I was arguing about.

Nice speech anyway.

[Guest Matt Murdock, Esq.]

]I still give more credit to Frank. He built the team. Davey took it and did a lot of things wrong. He wasn't the best in-game manager. And he was unable to keep Doc and Darryl from ruining their careers. I don't blame Davey for their problems, that would be unfair. But he sure as hell didn't help them.

He may not have been the best in-game manager, but he was the best one this organization has ever had... BV included.

And no, he wasn't a den mother. as i said. But Doc and Darrrrryl were responsible for ruining their own careers.

Yes, KC, keeping Doc (against Frank's expressed preferences) was NOT a no-brainer. Nor was Davey a genius or a particular acolyte of youth over experience. He'd play a ham sandwich if it would give him the slightest edge. But any manager that would play Kevin Mitchell at SS is my favorite manager ever.

[Zvon]

TheOldMole wrote: I was gonna go with G-Fafif's, so I'll ditto his. And, what the heck, everyone else's.

Im only on the 2nd page so far and i already am gonna echo the old mole.

Those were just damn good times for Met fans.
Davey J wasDaMan.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: Well, Counselor Murdock � if your going to mention �no-brainer� you should also comment on �genius�. The former was retracted by me, and the latter -- although not retracted by the original poster -- w�as also questioned in this thread.

"Well, teacher, if you're gonna yell at me for setting your desk on fire, you should also yell at Bret for picking his nose."

[Theoldmole]

I'm not sure I like the idea of a ham sandwich with an edge.

[Guest Matt Murdock, Esq.]

how about if you use sharp cheddar?

[Guest mlbaseballtalk]

Matt Murdock, Esq. wrote: And no, he wasn't a den mother. as i said. But Doc and Darrrrryl were responsible for ruining their own careers. Yes, KC, keeping Doc (against Frank's expressed preferences) was NOT a no-brainer. Nor was Davey a genius or a particular acolyte of youth over experience. He'd play a ham sandwich if it would give him the slightest edge. But any manager that would play Kevin Mitchell at SS is my favorite manager ever.

I forget who it was, but over in the MOFO someone in a simillar thread suggested that if Johnson was better at handling young talents maybe Gregg Jefferies may have reached his potential if he was handled the way Jose Reyes and David Wright have been instead of mocked and riddiculed by the veterans in Davey's clubhouse

That be an interesting case study

But then again, back in the real old days there was this cocksure, mean and arrogant SOB that bursted into his clubhouse full of veteran aholes who wanted to shut this rookie up, but the rookie stayed. His name?

Ty Cobb

Okay, Cobb being a HOFer and quite possibly, err I mean he was a psycopath, but still sometimes that attitude works in the right (err, no pun intended) culture. Perfect example is a USC educated fellow entering the clubhouse of a simply horrid baseball team.

I think we know how THAT turned out...

Steve

[Elster88]

]I forget who it was, but over in the MOFO someone in a simillar thread suggested that if Johnson was better at handling young talents maybe Gregg Jefferies may have reached his potential if he was handled the way Jose Reyes and David Wright have been instead of mocked and riddiculed by the veterans in Davey's clubhouse

What, do you expect these managers to be den mothers? They're grown men. So what if the entire dugout takes a dislike for one poor rookie prick? No need for Davey to get involved.

So what if Darryl is showing up hungover to games? No reason for Davey to get involved.

So what if the team destroys an airplane? Some people like Jeff Pearlman think this is cool and want to hang out with those guys. No reason for Davey to get involved.

He's not a den mother for crying out loud.

[Zvon]

Oh, and Hail Heep.
(im only two pages behind on every thread,lol)

[Vic Sage]

]What, do you expect these managers to be den mothers? They're grown men. So what if the entire dugout takes a dislike for one poor rookie prick? No need for Davey to get involved.

If it effects a rookie's ability to perform, or even if a manager thinks it might, he should get involved. Some players have tougher skin than others. But its not about off-the-field activity. Its about on-the-field performance.

]So what if Darryl is showing up hungover to games? No reason for Davey to get involved.

I don't think Casey got too involved with Mick's hangovers, either. Didn't stop them from winning a WS or 2, did it?

]So what if the team destroys an airplane? Some people like Jeff Pearlman think this is cool and want to hang out with those guys. No reason for Davey to get involved.

The Oakland As, the Yanks of the Bronx Zoo, the Dykstra/Kruk/Daulton Phillies.... there have been skads of winning teams that acted like ANIMAL HOUSE. No, i don't think Davey needed to get involved.

]He's not a den mother for crying out loud.

that's the only correct thing you said in your post.

[Elster88]

Vic Sage wrote: ]What, do you expect these managers to be den mothers? They're grown men. So what if the entire dugout takes a dislike for one poor rookie prick? No need for Davey to get involved. If it effects a rookie's ability to perform, or even if a manager thinks it might, he should get involved. Some players have tougher skin than others. But its not about off-the-field activity. Its about on-the-field performance.

So what are you saying? Jefferies' on the field performance wasn't affected? So why did he instantly become a better player when he switched teams? That's one fucking amazing coincidence.
Maybe Davey could've some of the veterans aside and said, "Why don't you lay off the poor bastard?" He could've taken Jefferies aside and said "Stop being a whiny bitch."

Vic Sage wrote: ]So what if Darryl is showing up hungover to games? No reason for Davey to get involved. I don't think Casey got too involved with Mick's hangovers, either. Didn't stop them from winning a WS or 2, did it?

So to paraphrase:
"My young player with immortal HOF talent is damaging his career and the team's performance by drinking too much and showing up hung over at games. But it's okay because Mickey Mantle did it."

Yeah, good argument.

Vic Sage wrote: ]So what if the team destroys an airplane? Some people like Jeff Pearlman think this is cool and want to hang out with those guys. No reason for Davey to get involved. The Oakland As, the Yanks of the Bronx Zoo, the Dykstra/Kruk/Daulton Phillies.... there have been skads of winning teams that acted like ANIMAL HOUSE. No, i don't think Davey needed to get involved.

So by this do you mean: "Let the team I'm managing behave like assholes, trash planes and ask stewardesses for blow jobs while on a team flight. As long as they keep winning like the A's, Yanks, and Phillies, I'm all for it!"?

That's what Pearlman seems to think, too. I don't agree with this. I don't think I need to explain why. It seems to be a very bad belief.

Vic Sage wrote: ]He's not a den mother for crying out loud. that's the only correct thing you said in your post.

No need to be a complete prick. Maybe I was overly sarcastic in my post, but at least I didn't blindly dismiss what you were saying.



I feel the need to reiterate: I like Davey. I'm only using the behavior of the Mets from the late '80s as examples.

I agree that managers don't need to be baby-sitters. But the complete non-interference policy that Vic is advocating and Davey followed is going too far to the other extreme.

I'd like to think that managing a team is more than just putting a lineup together and teaching fundamentals.

Davey should've done more off-the-field than he did. There are plenty of reasons why that team only won one WS, but one of the main reasons they didn't reach their potential was that they ran wild off the field. The manager could've helped.

_____________
This post had the designation 70) Doug Flynn

[Vic Sage]

so, you dump a bucket of sarcasm on my head, then call me a complete prick for responding?

I'd say i was only a partial prick. But you've sure got a lot of balls.

Inferences about how guys might've performed, or how the Mets might've won even MORE (despite the fact that they were the WINNINGEST TEAM IN BASEBALL during Davey's tenure) if Davey had done this or that are pure speculation. He could've walked Straw into AA meetings and ended up with the same result.

Jeffries might have BEEN a complete jerk who deserved whatever hazing he got. Or Davey might've seen it as a standard right of passage that all jocks endure, to some degree. (by the way, we don't really KNOW what Jeffries endured, beyond heresay and innuendo, do we?) Jeffries didn't just blossom when he left. He was actually pretty good HERE, but he came up pretty young, and the Mets got tired of tolerating his glove in the infield and lost patience with him just as he was approaching his peak years. I wasn't surprised he blossomed once he was relieved of defensive obligations and got to play everyday in a park suited to his gap power bat. But you seem to want to credit his improved performance to the fact that Ron Darling wasn't around anymore to pick on him. Hmmm. Ok.

I'm only basing my evaluation of Davey based on what he did, not on what i think he should've done. I know other teams and other players have blossomed and succeeded without a manager acting in loco parentiis, and i know that the Mets won more during his tenure than they ever did before or since, and i know post-season can be largely a crapshoot, so i'm not going to sit here 20 years later and say: "gee, davey, if you just sat on those boys more on flights, we'd have had more world series wins."

You, apparently, want to conflate your moral judgments about how athletes comport themselves with their on-field productivity and draw some conclusions about it.

I don't.

[Elster88]

="Vic Sage"]so, you dump a bucket of sarcasm on my head, then call me a complete prick for responding?

I acknowledged my own sarcasm. You're right, calling you a prick after being so sarcastic is stupidly hypocritical.

="Vic Sage"]I'd say i was only a partial prick. But you've sure got a lot of balls.

I'm not sure about that. It doesn't take a lot of balls to call names on a website. I'd just say that I'm a prick too.

="Vic Sage"]Inferences about how guys might've performed, or how the Mets might've won even MORE (despite the fact that they were the WINNINGEST TEAM IN BASEBALL during Davey's tenure) if Davey had done this or that are pure speculation. He could've walked Straw into AA meetings and ended up with the same result.

I realize it's speculation. But do you have to completely ignore the situation, as it seemed Davey did, just because it might not help? He could've tried something.

="Vic Sage"]Jeffries might have BEEN a complete jerk who deserved whatever hazing he got. Or Davey might've seen it as a standard right of passage that all jocks endure, to some degree. (by the way, we don't really KNOW what Jeffries endured, beyond heresay and innuendo, do we?) Jeffries didn't just blossom when he left. He was actually pretty good HERE, but he came up pretty young, and the Mets got tired of tolerating his glove in the infield and lost patience with him just as he was approaching his peak years. I wasn't surprised he blossomed once he was relieved of defensive obligations and got to play everyday in a park suited to his gap power bat. But you seem to want to credit his improved performance to the fact that Ron Darling wasn't around anymore to pick on him. Hmmm. Ok.

I'm sure there were other factors that went into Jefferies improved performance. I'm sure one of them was that the Mets hated him and he was able to get away from that. If this originated out of nothing but Jefferies being overly sensitive to rookie hazing, then Davey still could've helped, as I said. He could've pulled Jefferies aside and told him to grow up.

="Vic Sage"]I'm only basing my evaluation of Davey based on what he did, not on what i think he should've done. I know other teams and other players have blossomed and succeeded without a manager acting in loco parentiis, and i know that the Mets won more during his tenure than they ever did before or since, and i know post-season can be largely a crapshoot, so i'm not going to sit here 20 years later and say: "gee, davey, if you just sat on those boys more on flights, we'd have had more world series wins." You, apparently, want to conflate your moral judgments about how athletes comport themselves with their on-field productivity and draw some conclusions about it. I don't.

Some athletes are dickheads. Some of them get wasted and try to bang hot stewardesses when they are in a drunken stupor. I realize this and it doesn't bother me. This is nothing about moral judgements. If I was a ballplayer making millions I'd probably be doing much of the same, though I probably wouldn't whip it out on the plane. The specific examples I am using are just examples of their wildness that I am using to illustrate my point.

What does bother me is that they built a talent pool that comes along once in a lifetime and only won one WS. You make the point that the postseason is a crapshoot. My point is that they should've reached the postseason more than twice. They certainly had the talent to do more.

The problem wasn't a lack of talent. So what else could've helped? Davey Johnson taking a more hands-on approach could've helped. I don't think this is an unfair or illogical conclusion.




And I've already said a million times I love Davey. This particular debate didn't come from any dislike for him or the late eighties teams. The first post of yours that I disagreed was when you said he wasn't a den mother and apparently wanted to leave it at that. My argument is that there are degrees. This team, and teams in general, could be better served with a manager that could've calmed down some of the off-the-field shenanigans. This is not a stretch of my imagination or the result of a prudish, holier-than-thou background.

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

Elster88 wrote: I acknowledged my own sarcasm. You're right, calling you a prick after being so sarcastic is stupidly hypocritical. I'm not sure about that. It doesn't take a lot of balls to call names on a website. I'd just say that I'm a prick too.

This is why I like Elster. I appreciate how he can step away from a dialog and re-evaluate it from different angles.

[Elster88]

Thanks, Scarlet.

Of course the opposing argument is that I should reread my original posts before hitting submit and avoid stupid remarks ahead of time. :-)

[Guest ScarletKnight41]

We've all posted off the cuff, or decafienated, or whatnot. Recognizing that is half the battle.