Heard a funny rumor

[Guest Kong76]

Yogi, Inc. charged the Mets an appearance fee to get him to slum it and
show up at Shea on Sunday.

[stevejrogers]

Wouldn't be surprised if several of the non regulars "charged a fee."

Especially those thought not to be coming like Kingman and Gooden.

Though I hope by "fee" Yogi Inc. means "donation to the Yogi Berra Museum and Learning Center in Montclair, NJ."

[soupcan]

Good, why not?

Everybody associated with the Mets laughed all the way to the bank this summer while all of us fans felt sick to our stomachs during most of it.

[Guest Kong76]

SJR: Wouldn't be surprised if several of the non regulars "charged a fee."<<<<

Uh, no, he was the only "entity" that charged a fee.

soup: Good, why not?
Everybody associated with the Mets laughed all the way to the bank this summer while all of us fans felt sick to our stomachs during most of it.<<<

Note to self, steer clear of soupy for a month or so.

[metirish]

I hope Yogi got cash because it's as good as....never mind.

[Guest cooby]

heheheh

[Centerfield]

How did the fans treat Yogi? If anyone deserved boos, it would be him.

[Guest AG/DC]

I've got a rule about hating on octogenarians.

[Benjamin Grimm]

One newspaper account said that Yogi got the biggest hand of all, but I suspect it was written by a Yankee-loving troll who was just hearing what he wanted to hear.

He was greeted nicely, but not as loudly, I don't think, as Piazza, Seaver, Strawberry and Gooden.

[Guest themetfairy]

I concur with BG. Warm, but not the warmest.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Centerfield wrote: How did the fans treat Yogi? If anyone deserved boos, it would be him.

Why boo Yogi? Obviously some serious Yankee taint, but the guy did lead us the the World Series in 1973 and was a coach for close to a decade. I've never heard him say anything bad about anybody other than Steinbrenner.

Now, "Traitor Al" Leiter, I get.

[Centerfield]

Not having lived through his tenure here, the only story I hear about Yogi is his decision to pitch Seaver on three-days rest rather than hold him back for Game 7.

Plus the Yankee taint.

[Guest themetfairy]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Why boo Yogi?

Yes CF. I didn't boo, but pitching Tom Seaver on three days' rest in Game 6 of the 1973 World Series when George Stone was available for the game and a rested Seaver would have been more effective if there was a need for a Game 7 is eternally boo-worthy.

My husband says I have to let this one go, but I can't....

[Centerfield]

No one can. Certainly not Howie Rose. He was lamenting about it earlier this month.

[Frayed Knot]

Yogi is a good guy who was an only so-so manager, but the fact remains that no one should get booed at this sort of thing.

[G-Fafif]

I applauded and yelled for Yogi but immediately thought "George Stone" as soon as he showed his face.

Two weeks earlier, in the time it took for Greg Norton's home run off Luis Ayala to sail to right field (and it took a while to land), the first four words to cross my mind were "Don Aase" and "Brian Jordan". Sometimes I think I retain too much.

[HahnSolo]

Since I was only five, I'll ask this: why not Stone in game 4 or 5? Was it the fact they lost game 3, and Yogi felt 4 and 5 were must wins, so he was going to go with Matlack and Koosman in 2 must games? Was the plan to pitch Stone in game 4 if they had held on in game 3?

[stevejrogers]

Granted it mostly comes from Yogi and Met-Hating or Yankee-loving spinners, but there is a theory that Seaver went to Yogi and demanded to pitch the clincher in Game 6.

[stevejrogers]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: ="Centerfield"]How did the fans treat Yogi? If anyone deserved boos, it would be him. Why boo Yogi? Obviously some serious Yankee taint, but the guy did lead us the the World Series in 1973 and was a coach for close to a decade. I've never heard him say anything bad about anybody other than Steinbrenner. Now, "Traitor Al" Leiter, I get.

Interestingly enough, Wally Mathews (who is one of the those who I've heard tell the "Seaver demanded the ball for Game 6" theory from) actually said he lost a ton of respect for Yogi when he actually buried the hatchet with George and came back to Yankee Stadium.

I wouldn't be surprised if Yogi got boos because of that warped line of thinking.

[Guest AG/DC]

Matlack was a co-ace. The idea, then and now, was to try and align your rotation to get three starts from an ace. To try to get through the series, in fact, with a three-man rotation.

But his number four was good and should have gotten a start, which would have benefited the other three presumably. When Davey Johnson went to a four-man rotation in the World Series, it struck me as the exception --- and the right move.

[G-Fafif]

HahnSolo wrote: Since I was only five, I'll ask this: why not Stone in game 4 or 5? Was it the fact they lost game 3, and Yogi felt 4 and 5 were must wins, so he was going to go with Matlack and Koosman in 2 must games? Was the plan to pitch Stone in game 4 if they had held on in game 3?

Honest to gosh, I don't remember (and it's a great question). Stone pitched Game Four in the NLCS and did quite well (Rose homering off Harry Parker in extra innings was the killer). Seaver had pitched a complete game loss in Game 1 against Cincy (10/6) and into the ninth in the clincher (10/10). Three days' rest there, much less sharp in Game Five than Game One (when he had four days rest after the division clincher, when he ran out of gas against the Cubs). He was brilliant in Game 3 of the World Series (on five days rest), another hard-luck situation where eight innings of two-run ball ND'd him (and we lost in extras). The prevailing wisdom as I recall it was Tom was tired, Stone was rested and we had a 3-2 lead. Stone would have represented well and, had we not won, there's Seaver, four days rest, ready to go on Sunday.

I can understand Yogi's default logic: it's Seaver. But it's always bugged those of us who don't let it go that he could have had an even better Seaver and a pretty darned good Stone.

Tom threw 314.2 innings in 1973, postseason included, entering Game Six. That was more than he'd ever thrown in his entire career. He gave the Mets seven more on Saturday. He was wonderful by modern standards (7 IP, 2 R, 6 H, 2 BB, 6 SO), but you could see he didn't quite have it. Plus the Mets didn't hit. One more day, facing Holtzman instead of Hunter...ah, who knows?

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: When Davey Johnson went to a four-man rotation in the World Series, it struck me as the exception --- and the right move.

I suppose it would depend on the team. On most teams, there is a huge gap in talent between the #1 pitcher and the #3 pitcher ... between the ace and the #2. Not so with the '86 Mets. Rick Aguilera probably could've been the ace starting pitcher for a few teams that year. Sid was relegated to the bullpen. I agree with you: it was a terrific move. With a starting rotation as deep and talented as Davey's '86 squad, it was never necessary to pitch anyone on short rest.

[G-Fafif]

Times change. Jack McKeon had a four-man rotation through the first four games of the 2003 World Series and then shocked the world by skipping the eminently skippable Mark Redman and coming back up three games to two with his ace Josh Beckett. It worked.

[Guest AG/DC]

Talent gaps is the key, and measuring that against the estimated gap created by the short restage.

Let's look at it this way

Seaver = 10
Matlack = 9
Stone = 7

Seaver on short rest = 8
Matlack on short rest = 7

So, going with with Stone (7) followed by Seaver (10) gives you 17 points of starter power. Berra went with Matlack on short rest (7) followed by himself on short rest (8) giving him 15 points of starter power. It may not have made enough of a difference the way the Mets were hitting, but you look for any edge, even one based on numbers I made up. Plus you may want to use Matlack out of the pen in game seven.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I would guess that McKeon's method is not so unusual, and that there would be numerous instances of postseason pitching rotations set up on a hybrid four days rest/three days rest schedule, instead of purely four or three days rest.

A manager would obviously want to maximize the use of his very best pitchers while reducing, if not altogether eliminating, the back of the rotation guys. But unless your staff is as deep as the '86 Mets, this might mean starts on three day rest throughout the entire post season, depending on how long each series lasts. This might be too demanding, particularly with the current three-tiered playoff system. So the Manager compromises by going hybrid, picking and choosing his short rest spots as he sees fit, on the fly.

[Guest AG/DC]

Comes down to how impressed you were by George Stone's impressive second half and how real you though it was

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=stonege02&t=p&year=1973

[Guest Iubitul]

AG/DC wrote: Comes down to how impressed you were by George Stone's impressive second half and how real you though it was http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=stonege02&t=p&year=1973

I totally disagree - what Stone does in game 6 is irrelevant. Having Seaver on 4 days rest in game 7 is.

[Guest AG/DC]

Irrelevant? You'd start Rich Rodriguez and bump Matlack to get Seaver in there a day later?

We're on the same side of this, but it's got to be more complcated than that.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: When Davey Johnson went to a four-man rotation in the World Series, it struck me as the exception --- and the right move.

Hey! You fooled me. Davey went with a three man rotation against the BoSox. Darling, Ojeda and Gooden were the only WS starters for the '86 Mets.

[Guest Iubitul]

no, of course not. George Stone > Rich Rodrojas.

My point is that no matter what Stone does, at the very least, we have Tom Seaver on 4 days rest, which is better than Tom Seaver on 3 days rest, and I would take my chances with Seaver in his prime in a game 7 any day of the week.