A-P Baseball BS stories

[Guest iramets]

Some thread (couldn't find it, after two minutes of rigorous searching) has me and FK and some others discussing the tendency of humans in general to tell BS stories about having played MLB, wherein I commented that the amount of BS told by peeps flabbergasts me.

So I thought I'd do a thread, based on BJ's "Tracers" series that I liked a lot, when I come across these BS stories. Since I've been reading Joe Morgan's autobio, I've been finding a lot of tales that are suspect, and every once in a while I like to trace them, just to find out what really happened.

So on pp. 197-8 of A Life In Baseball, he tells about a dramatic incident that happened in 1977, in the first game of a DH vs PIT, wherein future Met Frank Taveras gratuitously stole a base with a huge lead in the middle innings and Sparky Anderson "ordered our pitcher to get Taveras's attention on his very next at-bat." The anonymous Reds' pitcher failed to knock Taveras down effectively, so, while Taveras's at-bat was in progress:

"Sparky jumped to his feet.

"Time out!' he bellowed. He ordered veteran reliever Joe Hoerner, who was sitting on the bench, down to the bullpen to begin warming up. Then he went to the mound and talked and talked and talked until finally the ump came out and broke it up. Sparky went back to the bench but then before the next pitch was thrown he popped out of the dugout again, to remove the pitcher and bring in Hoerner. It was the only time in my life that I have seen a pitcher brought into a game for the sole purpose of drilling a batter."

Which Hoerner did, Taveras threw his bat at him, got ejected, a brawl broke out, etc. but none of that is to my point. There are two very unusual things here, closely related: The timing is the first. Is it even plausible that Hoerner could have thrown even a single warmup pitch in the timeframe Morgan gives here? Mind you, Morgan has Hoerner sitting on the bench when Sparky first called time, and most umpires would have gotten Sparky off the mound no matter how much he talked and talked and talked before Hoerner even got down to the bullpen. Again, an at-bat is in progress, with no visible reason for an extended timeout. But the larger implausibility is Hoerner coming into the game in the middle of an-bat specifically to hit the batter, after a few attempted knockdown pitches have already been thrown, yet Morgan claims that this is memorable, and in fact is the only time he ever saw such a strange thing.

Needless to say, he never saw such a strange play, because it didn't happen. Originally, I was just curious who was the Reds' pitcher who got taken from a game in mid at-bat. If it was such an unusual sight, and Morgan's memory is otherwise clear, how come he identifies the first Reds pitcher as "I forget who he was"?

The answer to that is simple: it was future Met Dale Murray, no big deal, and the incident took place on August 5th , 1977. It was easy to identify the game via retrosheet because Joe Hoerner only pitched in one game vs. Pittsburgh while wearing a Reds uniform, and this was it. It was also Hoerner's final MLB game (and final pitch) of a fourteen-year career, but the timing was nothing like what Morgan says:

He claims Taveras stole the base with the game out of reach in the middle innings. FACT: the Pirates did have a seven-run lead, but his only stolen base in the game came with one out in the third inning. Oddly it came immediately after Omar Moreno had stolen second, but no mention is made of Moreno's diss of the Reds, just Taveras's.

Morgan claims that Sparky was so agitated at Taveras's violation of protocol (when it occurs, he claims, "the other team has to respond," though why Moreno gets off scot-free I don’t understand) that he ordered retribution "on his very next at-bat." FACT: Taveras batted several times between his stolen base and his HBP, which occurred in the 9th inning.

He claims that the thing that made this so memorable was Hoerner's being brought into the game specifically to hit Taveras in the middle of an at-bat. FACT: Not only did Hoerner not come in to the game in the middle of an at-bat, after Dale Murray had failed to brush Taveras back, but Hoerner began the ninth inning. (Murray had been pinch-hit for in the bottom of the eighth.) He faced two other Pittsburgh batters before Taveras came to the plate.

So all the drama--Sparky ordering an HBP and Murray lacking the guts, Sparky bellowing "time out" and stalling while Hoerner runs down to the bullpen and gets warmed up, al this happening the next time Taveras got up to the plate--is pure BS. Nothing resembling it ever occurred.

My point being that all the drama was Morgan's point in relating that story, which kinda makes you question the value of all other dramatic incidents he tells there and tells elsewhere, doesn't it?

Some excerpts from the game in question:

PIRATES 3RD: Dyer struck out; Moreno singled to third; Moreno
stole second; Reuss singled to center [Moreno scored]; Taveras
forced Reuss (shortstop unassisted); Taveras stole second;
Gonzalez doubled to right [Taveras scored]; Parker reached on an
error by Armbrister [Gonzalez scored (unearned) (no RBI), Parker
to second]; Macha doubled to left [Parker scored (unearned)];
Oliver grounded out (second to first); 4 R (2 ER), 4 H, 1 E, 1
LOB. Pirates 10, Reds 0.


REDS 8TH: Auerbach flied out to left; GERONIMO BATTED FOR
MURRAY; Geronimo popped to third; Knight flied out to right; 0
R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Pirates 12, Reds 1.

PIRATES 9TH: HOERNER REPLACED GERONIMO (PITCHING); Moreno popped
to third; Reuss struck out; Taveras was hit by a pitch;
Taveras threw bat at Hoerner, was punched, ejected; BORBON
REPLACED HOERNER (PITCHING); Gonzalez flied out to right; 0 R, 0
H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Pirates 12, Reds 1.

[Guest iramets]

Anyone can join in with your favorite Baseball/BS stories.

I decided to check out Morgan's accounts of World Series games. He can't make up shit about these, can he? I mean, several people tune in across the nation, and there are widely distributed printed accounts, which he can check and, more important, so can we.

Surprise: he self-aggrandizes anyway. He tells of a spectactular example of his own hustle in game 5 of the 1972 Series, which turns out to be true (no one claimed that Joe wasn't a fantastic player), but then he adds to the tale. The true part was that he had tried a steal of second base, which turned out to be a hit by Bobby Tolan, so Joe just kept running and scored on what he described as a routine single. But then:

"We tied the game in the eighth on a similar play. I walked, broke for second on a steal, Bobby Tolan lined a long single to right center field, and I scored." Since the similarity was "scoring from first on a single," the two accounts support the incredible feat of this feat being achieved twice on the same day.

The key word is "incredible." What Morgan DOESN'T tell us is that, the second time, he stole second base, and then on a subsequent pitch, Tolan singled, and Morgan scored from second base. You'd think we didn't keep track of such things as stolen bases in World Series games.

Two questions: do you suppose I could find a hundred such errors in Morgan's book if I keep looking? And: what does it say about me that I'm thinking of doing so?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't know about your second question, but the answer to your first question is a definite maybe. (If you had said "many" instead of "a hundred" I'd have given you a solid "yes".)

There seem to be many baseball books with insufficient fact checking. The author just goes by memory, I guess. Errors like that spoiled my enjoyment of The Bad Guys Won. I didn't spot many errors in that book, but the several that I did notice cast suspicion on everything else in the book.

[Guest Edgy DC]

And it's not that it wouldn't be well-served. I don't blame the authors entirely (though they're the ones with their names on the books. But the idea is that fact-checking is unimportant in baseball reads is disappointing and patronizing). As if the reader prefers a good yarn presented as fact to an actual fact.

Sports books are grape soda in publishing. Publishers don't give much thought to their sports divisions because they, on one hand, rarely break the bank for them (sports-scandal crossover books like Juiced and As Bad as I Wanna Be excepted) but the audience is loyal and consistent, and the publishers pretty much know exactly how many to print. So it's unsurprising to find out that they keep overhead like fact-checking out of the budget. It's not going to win the Pulitzer either way. It's certainly disappointing though, and readers should demand more.

(Note: Bill James may hate bad fact-checking, but his books typically have terrible copy editing, and in The Mind of Bill James the author writes about James's outright antagonism toward editors.)

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: in The Mind of Bill James the author writes about James's outright antagonism toward editors.)

Haven't read it (haven't heard of it) but my impression is that James's hate on editors stems from their putting time-pressure on him to get the stuff out faster than it can be fact-checked and proofread properly, making a wreck of the guy for years on end. Apparently, as best as I can recall, they'd be sending him frantic messages during the World Series saying, "When's that damned book going to get here already?", making it no wonder that he walked away from an annual best-seller every year for the relative peace and stability of working for the Red Sox.

OE: Fixed typo ("roofread"!)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Here are some examples from my e-mail archives of UMDB visitors checking up on people they know who claim to have been former Mets. I'm leaving out the names of the "players":

March, 2001:
I'm not sure what year he played but I know that he was a Pitcher for the
Mets and was traded either from the Indians or to the Mets. Please let me
know. He is now a coach for my sons Bronco Pony team.
Thanks

March, 2002:
I have a friend who played for the Mets in the 80's. I'll have to get the year. He played AAA and went-up for several games. Many years ago, his mother died when he was out of the country and all of his stuff was lost. He doesn't even have his old jersey. I was wondering if you could point me to a place or someone who could help me locate any photos or footage of when he played. I would also like to find jerseys, caps, etc from those years. I will try to get more details on the years.


August, 2001:
Hello ultimateMETSdata,
Your site is EXCELLENT, thank you!! Today while gathering information I
decided to search your player database. The results were unexpected, and I am sure this "missing player" would be disappointed a second time to find that his potential career was even further diminished by this "oversight" in your list.

Yes, I read your FAQ on the subject: "...we've received numerous e-mails
telling us that we've missed one player or another, almost always based on
the word of the alleged missing player. ...but have yet to discover that we
have in fact missed anybody.". Perhaps this is a spelling error on my part
(quite possible) and since you "check out every claim..." I will apologize in
advance for yet another email.

However, this is true:

In the "early days" of the METS (during the 60's), though only for a portion
of the season, a young FASTball pitcher named XXX XXXXXX (now in his late 50's) was dropped due to a shoulder injury. His speed was clocked amongst the highest-ever (at the time). Needless to say, this misfortune redirected his life. As a result, he does use this as an accomplishment of "...an imaginary past.". Rather, he is surprised by one's discovery, and uncomfortable with the attention that results.

However, I know you agree that credit earned is truly credit deserved.
Whether or not he ever visits your site (at present I am not sharing this
info) will you be so kind as to revisit your database concerning this player
and keep me apprised?

June, 2001:
I would think Todd Hundley would be on the list and Edgardo Alfonzo should be too along with John Franco. And whats with Mays making the list I mean 2 years at the end of a great career do not a Met all time make, if so then Foster should be too. And Valentine should not be unless as a mgr. Fun list anyway and I am a lifetime fan of the team. Thank You.


May, 2000:
I was wondering if you ever had a player named XXX XXXXX play for the
Mets. He graduated from the University of Miami. He won a national
championship with the University of Miami back in 1983 (I think). He played catcher and played most of his career in triple A. I think he said he played around 1989. I would appreciate any information you can give me on this player.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Here's the thread I started on James's complaint.

YSG's post is better reading, though.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: Here's the thread I started on James's complaint. YSG's post is better reading, though.

Yeah, that's pretty obnoxious of James. Not only do I disagree with James, I agree with Reality Chuck, which happens once every other "Never." Sounds like an insecure student reacting to the news that commas and periods usually go inside quotes. "I like it better my way, prof."

[Guest iramets]

This one pretty much checks out, with some cause for wondering about the uncheckable details: on p. 102, Morgan claims that a pitcher whom he (several times) calls "Claude Ramon" (it was pronounced that way, but spelled "Raymond") gave up a dramatic 9th inning game-tying solo HR to a determined Willie Mays, with no one on in a game in Morgan's rookie year.

Close. It was September 14, 1965, when Mays hit a two-run HR of Raymond to tie the game with two outs in the ninth. My quibble has to do with the length of time Morgan devotes to the pitch by pitch detail of what the count was, how many Willie fouled back (Morgan says six straight after the count went 3-2, and then HRed off the seventh.) If Morgan gets the score wrong (Astros up by two, not one, with a man on base when Mays batted) and gets the pitcher's name spelled wrong, I'm supposed to believe he remembers the count and number of fouls correctly?

But this one was pretty close, AFAiCT

[Guest iramets]

Here's a whopper, though:

from p. 108:

"Here's a typical Jimmy Wynn story:...we were in Pittsburgh during 1966 for a day game on July 3rd with a July 4th doubleheader scheduled to being the next morning at ten." Morgan, Wynn, Jesse Gonder and Willie Stargell of the Pirates go out the evening of July 3rd, Morgan calls it an evening after a few drinks but the other three go out and get loaded until the wee hours (all the time Morgan is reminding them of the 10 A.M start the next day). Wynn shows up in the clubhouse with a bleeding hand, etc, but "in the first game of the doubleheader, Jimmy went 5 for 5, with two home runs." Morgan further claims that "Gonder got three hits the first game, didn't play the second," and that Stargell "went 4 for 4 the frirst game (with two home runs) and 5 for 5 in the second while I, playing both games on lots of rest and a full tank of natural energy, scratched out one bunt single."

Where to start? Let's see. If Morgan thought the Astros were in PIT that weekend, he was wrong: they played a single game at home against ATL that July 4th. They did play a DH against PIT on Memorial Day but nothing like that happened--perfectly ordinary stats for Stargell and Wynn, and Gonder didn't play.

I checked for 5-for-5 games for Wynn that year. He had none. His best was 4-for-4 which is probably the game Morgan was thinking of, JUNE 5, 1966. Wynn went for 4-for-4, Stargell 5-for--5, each with two HRs. But this was NOT the first game of the doubleheader (it was a single Sunday game) and Jesse Gonder didn't play in it. The next day they travelled to SF, so Morgan wasn't misremembering that second game where Wynn and Stargell excelled. He was making it up. (There are all sorts of specific references to the DH in Morgan's account: Stargell sending him a teasing note "between games", Morgan's excited observation that the events of the 'first' game "was not even the half of it!") It's a good story w/o the second game, and w/o Gonder, of course, but you have to wonder if Wynn had a badly injured hand, how late they stayed out the night before, etc, because without those details, it's just another tale of a good game by his teammate Jimmie Wynn, not some kind of Babe-Ruth superhuman feat kinda story.

It's not, finally, a typical Jimmie Wynn story, as much as it's a typical Joe Morgan story.

[Guest iramets]

Here’s a pretty good one: this is his account of the 1980 NLCS, final game (which you’d think would be pretty memorable, especially for him.) He gives the game account of his Astros taking a three run lead over the Phillies in the seventh on an RBI triple by Art Howe (Morgan calls it a “two-run triple,” but what the hell, we’ll give him that small error for free.) Morgan then says that as “soon as we took that lead, Bill [Virdon] sent one of his coaches, Deacon Jones, down to where Art Howe and I were sitting on the bench to tell us we were out of the game. He said it just like that, too: ‘Art, you’re out of the game. Joe, you’re out of the game.’ Art, who was everyone’s hero at that point, didn’t say anything, but I did. [Morgan gives his reasons for Virdon’s maliciously removing two vets from the game, etc] So [Jones] went back to the other end of the bench to talk to Virdon. I don’t know what he told Bill but he came back and said, ‘You’re out of the game.’ Art and I together then left the dugout and went upstairs to watch the rest of the game on TV.

[Another paragraph criticizing Virdon’s motives for the switch, ending with:] …knowing that if we had been out of the field we might have made a difference.”

“In the eighth inning the Phillies got a leadoff man on against Nolan. Then there was a bunt—and Nolan fumbled it. Now they had runners on first and second and none out—and no one went out to mound to talk to Ryan. Art and I, both infielders, were guys who as a matter of course would have done that. All that was needed in the moment was for someone to go in and let Nolan know that, hey, no one was hurt, we were up by three runs [Morgan yammers on in this vein for a few sentences, calls Virdon ‘dumb,’ etc]…--and then Nolan walked the next couple of guys, and they wound up tying the score…”


OK, first place. Howe was taken out for a pinchrunner, while the 8th inning was in progress. There was no “Art, you’re out of the game” speech on the bench between innings-even Art Howe understood that he was out of the game at that point, I’d hope.


ASTROS 7TH: CHRISTENSON REPLACED SMITH (PITCHING); GROSS
REPLACED BRUSSTAR (PLAYING LF); Puhl singled to right; Cabell
out on a sacrifice bunt (first to second) [Puhl to second];
Morgan grounded out (third to first); Cruz walked; Walling
singled to right [Puhl scored, Cruz to third]; Christenson threw
a wild pitch [Cruz scored, Walling to second]; REED REPLACED
CHRISTENSON (PITCHING); Howe tripled to right [Walling scored];
BERGMAN RAN FOR HOWE; Ashby flied out to left; 3 R, 3 H, 0 E, 1
LOB. Phillies 2, Astros 5.

But neither did Joe Morgan hear such a speech in the dugout BECAUSE HE WAS STILL IN THE GAME, and still available to calm Ryan down, if that was called for. He was still playing second base after Ryan messed up the bunt:

PHILLIES 8TH: BERGMAN STAYED IN GAME (PLAYING 1B); Bowa singled
to center; Boone singled to pitcher [bowa to second]; On a bunt
Gross singled to third [bowa to third, Boone to second]; Rose
walked [bowa scored, Boone to third, Gross to second]; SAMBITO
REPLACED RYAN (PITCHING); MORELAND BATTED FOR MCBRIDE; Moreland
forced Rose (second to shortstop) [boone scored, Gross to
third]; FORSCH REPLACED SAMBITO (PITCHING); LANDESTOY REPLACED
MORGAN (PLAYING 2B); AVILES RAN FOR MORELAND; Schmidt was called
out on strikes; UNSER BATTED FOR REED; Unser singled to right
[Gross scored, Aviles to second]; Trillo tripled to left [Aviles
scored, Unser scored]; Maddox flied out to center; 5 R, 5 H, 0
E, 1 LOB. Phillies 7, Astros 5.


Morgan left the game, a whole pitcher after Ryan was replaced (after walking one batter, not two). Sambito replaced Ryan, and proceeded to get the next batter to hit a groundball TO JOE FREAKING MORGAN! at which point Schmidt came to the plate, and Virdon changed pitchers again, and also switched Morgan out of the game at the same time, five batters into the 8th inning, when Morgan claims to have been steaming in front of the clubhouse TV.

You can criticize Virdon’s moves and motives all you want, but if the point of your ranting is to damn Virdon for taking you out of the game when you should have been left in because of your special ability to calm Ryan down, don't you think it would help if you weren't standing fifty feet from the mound the whole time Ryan was in the game? If you get all these details wrong about the game, how reliable is your account of the stuff in people’s minds going to seem? Again, this was a HUGE game in terms of its importance within the 1980 season, and it’s not as if Joe didn’t have plenty of accounts to consult on these factual issues.

Reading Morgan is like sitting in a shrink’s chair listening to your psychotic patient telling blatantly self-serving stories, and murmuring “mmm-mmmm.”

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: (Note: Bill James may hate bad fact-checking, but his books typically have terrible copy editing, and in The Mind of Bill James the author writes about James's outright antagonism toward editors.)

I don't mean to stifle your point, which is well-taken, but James' aversion to editors, while nutty, doesn't approach the mangling of facts that I'm lambasting Morgan for. James is saying (wrongly, IMO) "I get to make all judgments as to stylistic choices, not some stupid editor" while Morgan is saying "I get to make up my facts, and then to draw conclusions about people's motives and characters based on my willful and self-serving fictionalizing" which is a whole different level of psychosis.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

ira: >>>"I get to make up my facts, and then to draw conclusions about people's motives and characters based on my willful and self-serving fictionalizing"<<<

Someone throw me a life preserver, I'm drowning over here.

[Guest iramets]

="Kid Carsey"]ira: >>>"I get to make up my facts, and then to draw conclusions about people's motives and characters based on my willful and self-serving fictionalizing"<<< Someone throw me a life preserver, I'm drowning over here.

AND...we're back, folks, to the "Ira is a Met-hating asshole" Show.

We've been on hiatus, for the last few posts, but Gosh it's great to back here, talking about Ira, Ira, Ira and why does he make up nasty stuff about the Mets while showing no ability to talk about anything else.

My, he's a sick little fuck, isn't he?
[applause]


KC, be so kind as to cite where I've done what you're talking about, specifically the part about making up facts and drawing conclusions based on those fictions. But just please do it in another thread, preferably in the RFL, so I can give you what-for. Thank you.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

Oh stop, you've completely lost all touch with anything resembling a
sense of humor if you don't think that was funny on some level.

I'm enjoying this thread, sorry to interrupt.

[Guest Edgy DC]

iramets wrote: ="Edgy DC"](Note: Bill James may hate bad fact-checking, but his books typically have terrible copy editing, and in The Mind of Bill James the author writes about James's outright antagonism toward editors.) I don't mean to stifle your point, which is well-taken, but James' aversion to editors, while nutty, doesn't approach the mangling of facts that I'm lambasting Morgan for. James is saying (wrongly, IMO) "I get to make all judgments as to stylistic choices, not some stupid editor" while Morgan is saying "I get to make up my facts, and then to draw conclusions about people's motives and characters based on my willful and self-serving fictionalizing" which is a whole different level of psychosis.

I agree it doesn't approach the mangling of facts. But he's probably recounting them as he remembers them, and only realizing that he's embellishing, and plowing ahead. Old guys get that way when tale-telling. Janet Paskin logged on to the Crane Pool because she interviewed all these survivig New York Mets for a book and their tales just didn't check out against the historical record.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ira,

You should post a paragraph or two on Amazon.com telling about how inaccurate the book is. Just spelling out that self-serving Art Howe/Bill Virdon anecdote should be sufficient.

[MFS62]

I don't like Joe Morgan. But I'll cut him some slack on the Wynn 5 for 5.
Wynn hit near the top of the lineup, and may have come to bat five times in that game, maybe getting a walk thrown in there. If Morgan remembers him being on base five times, and he really went 4-4, that's close enough.

But, his coment about "making up facts" in another post does trouble me.

Later

[Guest cooby]

Yancy, do you get claims like that from folks often? They are very funny

[Benjamin Grimm]

Not anymore. It pretty much stopped a few years ago when I put a comment on the roster page telling people, essentially, that the burden of proof was on them.

I especially liked the guy who told me that I was missing Todd Hundley and Edgardo Alfonzo, and that Willie Mays didn't belong.

[stevejrogers]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Not anymore. It pretty much stopped a few years ago when I put a comment on the roster page telling people, essentially, that the burden of proof was on them. I especially liked the guy who told me that I was missing Todd Hundley and Edgardo Alfonzo, and that Willie Mays didn't belong.

Was that the Top 20 All Time Lookup list?

In any event, I would have to add another form of BS, which may not fit the same BS of fact checking for a book, and a form that I know I'm guilty of, is making a comment without realizing how stupid the comment really sounds.

Take Alex Ochoa who is often cited as an example of how the Mets "overhype" their prospects who turn into nothing (also see Gregg Jefferies, David West, Generation K for other popular examples) and therefore is the reason that the Mets should trade hot prospect A (or multiple) for veteran help B

The problem is, that Ochoa was not a Met "home grown" prospect, he was accquired from Baltimore in a trade, therefore Ochoa's name should be lumped in with the list of bad trades that the Mets have made.

The other problem is, that Ochoa wasn't exactly a product of organizational overhype either (This was a topic in a thread over the winter about the definition of a bust and the distinction between organizational PR and around the game (scouts, reporters, ect) attention of a player) which is what the comments imply. Ochoa did crack the BA Top 100 in 1993 and kept rising (42 in 1994 and 35 in 1995) did slip in 1996 though, but this wasn't the Mets calling Ochoa a "5 Tool Player" this was the industry saying that Ochoa was a jewel of the Baltimore farm system.

Ochoa wasn't a case of the the Orioles saying "Hey we got this can't miss kid, 5 tools...Yeah I know you haven't heard a thing about him, but we've been hiding him in Rochester...He's yours and we'll just take Bonilla off your hands!"

Better examples of organizational overhype probably are Victor "Mini-Manny" Diaz and Mike Jacobs (neither rank anywhere in BA's Top 100s), I mean its one thing to be self-made and coming on like gang busters (and Jacobs has put up good numbers, I'm just giving two opposite examples) but those are the examples of "Ya know, team A is always overhyping these kids like ya know, they're ahh gonna be the like ya know the next uh, uh Mickey Mantle. So like, uh yeah, we send them this kid to Minnesota for Johan Santana."

[Guest iramets]

Back to Morgan.

This isn't exactly a falsified MLB BS story, but it's something. Morgan defines the "double-switch" (crediting it to Gene Mauch, which may or may not be true) on p. 254 as follows:

"pinch-hitting for someone and simultaneously making a pitching change, switching their spots on the lineup card so the pitcher's spot would come up in the spot just used by the pinch-hitter."

Does this even make sense? How can you do an offensive move (pinchhitting for someone) AND a defensive move (making a pitching change) simultaneously? You're either on offense or on defense, aren't you? You can't be on both at once.

Unless I'm missing something badly, a doubleswitch has nothing to do with pinchhitting. You're making two defensive changes simultaneously, nad placing the weaker hitter further from the slot your next batter is due to hit in, when you get back on offense.

[Frayed Knot]

]Unless I'm missing something badly, a doubleswitch has nothing to do with pinchhitting...

Well it certainly CAN have something to do with pinch-hitting; like when you PH for the pitcher and the pinch-hitter stays in the game while the replacement pitcher slots into the spot of the guy the PHer replaced.

Morgan's prose (or that of his ghostwriter) is poorly worded and incomplete, most notably using the word "simultaneously" to mean 'before the next half-inning begins'.






* I think I'm turning Turk-ish ... I really think so

[Guest iramets]

Is that really double-switching? It's just pinch-hitting, isn't it? Until the next half-inning begins, you've still the option of putting the new pitcher in the 9 slot and leaving your defensive team otherwise unchanged. It's only a double switch (IMO) if the two changes occur at the same time, which can happen only when you're on defense.

Mauch certainly didn't invent that sort of double-switch, which has been going on as long as there's been baseball, or since Mauch was a little kid, whichever came first.

[Frayed Knot]

I consider that [the PH scenario] to be a form of a double-switch, yes, and frequently hear it referred to that way by announcers and fans.
It's certainly not the only way to do it and if Morgan said that then his writing skills are ... well, about where I've thought they were all along.

[Guest iramets]

Here's a good example of Joe Morgan's penchant for inaccuracy: You'd think every ballplayer could remember his first MLB appearance, wouldn;t you? Well, you'd be wrong.

Morgan p. 55:

"In my first game, I was sent in as a pinch-runner in the seventh inning of game against the Phillies. Then I stayed in the game."

Well, no. Here's retrosheet's account of Morgan's first MLB appearance:

COLT .45S 3RD: Bateman singled to center; MORGAN BATTED FOR
NOTTEBART; Morgan popped to second; Debut game for Joe
Morgan; Vaughan forced Bateman (pitcher to shortstop); White
singled to pitcher [Vaughan to second]; Weekly popped to first
in foul territory; 0 R, 2 H, 0 E, 2 LOB. Phillies 3, Colt .45s
0.

PHILLIES 4TH: UMBRICHT REPLACED MORGAN (PITCHING);

The game Morgan calls his first is actually his second, the next day, when in fact, as he describes, he does come in a pinch-runner, and stays in the game to drive in the winning run in the ninth.

He does manage to get some details wrong, though. He says he comes in as a pinch-runner in the 7th--it was the eighth. He claims he was scheduled to bat fourth in the 9th inning--he was the fifth batter up. He claims he drove in the GW-RBI with a man on second--in fact he came up with men on second and third, and his single drove in the man on third, at which point the game was over.

No big deal, but: he also gives a lot of other details, none of them checkable on retrosheet (the count was 2-0 when he hit the ball, he hit it to RF, it was an inside fastball, etc.), and all of them thoroughly unreliable until fact-checked.

A bigger issue is his memory of how demoralizing this loss was for the Phillies: "The Phillies were fighting for the pennant at that point, three games out...Following the game, the Phils' manager, Gene Mauch, went wild in the clubhouse...Mauch swept the Phillies' food table onto the floor, he raved and ranted to his players, cursing them for letting someone who looked like a Little Leaguer to beat them....Not a bad start to a big league career."

Except it wasn;t Morgan's first career start--and the Phillies were FOURTEEN FUCKING GAMES out of first place on September 22, 1963, and mathematically eliminated. There was zero pressure, much less were they in a fight for the penant. That was a whole year later, in 1964.

COLT .45S 8TH: DEMETER STAYED IN GAME (PLAYING LF); TEMPLE
BATTED FOR WHITE; Temple walked; MORGAN RAN FOR TEMPLE; LILLIS
BATTED FOR WOODESHICK; Lillis out on a sacrifice bunt (pitcher
to first) [Morgan to second]; SMITH BATTED FOR VAUGHAN; Smith
struck out; Goss struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Phillies 1,
Colt .45s 0.

PHILLIES 9TH: FARRELL REPLACED SMITH (PITCHING); MORGAN STAYED
IN GAME (PLAYING 2B); LILLIS STAYED IN GAME (PLAYING SS);
Sievers struck out; Dalrymple grounded out (first unassisted);
Hoak struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Phillies 1, Colt .45s 0.

COLT .45S 9TH: WINE REPLACED HOAK (PLAYING SS); AMARO CHANGED
POSITIONS (PLAYING 3B); Weekly singled to left; POINTER RAN FOR
WEEKLY; On a bunt Warwick forced Pointer (pitcher to
shortstop); Debut game for Aaron Pointer; Wynn walked
[Warwick to second]; Aspromonte singled to left [Warwick scored,
Wynn to second]; KLIPPSTEIN REPLACED SHORT (PITCHING); STAUB
BATTED FOR BATEMAN; Staub grounded out (first unassisted) [Wynn
to third, Aspromonte to second]; Morgan singled to right [Wynn
scored, Aspromonte to third]; 2 R, 3 H, 0 E, 2 LOB. Phillies 1,
Colt .45s 2.

[stevejrogers]

I blame whomever Morgan's or Morgan's ghost writer's editor was, clearly this sounds like a quick job by someone who worked with Morgan with either no knowledge or causual enough knowledge of baseball to think "hey it's a Hall of Famer and a "know-it-all" broadcaster, clearly he has an elephant's memory for this kind of stuff."

Or they didn't want to change facts and incur the usual "I was misquoted in my own autobiography" flack that most autobiography ghost writers and editors get because the subject was so laissez-faire about the project that they just gave the people working for them a rough outline of their lives and forgot about the whole project untill it comes time to promote it.

[Guest iramets]

SteveJRogers wrote: I blame whomever Morgan's or Morgan's ghost writer's editor was, clearly this sounds like a quick job by someone who worked with Morgan with either no knowledge or causual enough knowledge of baseball to think "hey it's a Hall of Famer and a "know-it-all" broadcaster, clearly he has an elephant's memory for this kind of stuff." Or they didn't want to change facts and incur the usual "I was misquoted in my own autobiography" flack that most autobiography ghost writers and editors get because the subject was so laissez-faire about the project that they just gave the people working for them a rough outline of their lives and forgot about the whole project untill it comes time to promote it.

That's funny. I blame Morgan.

The reason I do is because when someone praises him, he doesn't say "The guys at ESPN do a lot of research--I just talk it."

This shit is so weak, it's funny. I think every reference I've found to a game I could trace out, it's contained errors. Take this account of combatting beanballs his rookie year (p. 90):

"...my second time around the league, Dick Farrell came to my rescue. We were in Philadelphia again, Chris Short was going against us and I knew I was going to be in trouble because the first time I had faced him a couple of months before I had gone 3 for 4. So in the first inning I got knocked down with a pitch right at my head. On the next pitch I lined a base hit to right field."
Okay, now to the record:

Morgan faced Short three times his rookie year. The first time he went 2-for-3. That's not 3-for-4, but it's close. Problem is the next time he faced Short, was nine days, not "a couple of months" later, so it's hard to understand which game he's talking about here. In this second game, he went 3-for-4, and then didn't face Short for two months (and a day) so let's assume that the third game is what Morgan means by the seocnd game. In the first inning, Morgan led off. Short struck him out.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, you can't blame the ghostwriter.

If your name is on the cover as the author, you're responsible for whatever is between the pages.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

I just looked at Amazon, and you can buy Morgan's book for a penny.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0393034690/ref=pd_bbs_sr_olp_2/102-7553408-5541711?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179679722&sr=8-2