Things I Hadn't Known About the Mets

[Guest Edgy DC]

Wes Westrum, according to the Times, was the pitching coach of the Mets before taking over as manager.

Coaching roles weren't as officially specific in the early days of the Mets, but I had figured if there was a guy called "pitchng coach" in 1965, it would be Warren Spahn.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Spahn was relieved of his duties as pitching coach while he was struggling to keep his own shit together as a pitcher for the Mets. Then they traded him.

[Guest Edgy DC]

There it is. Released a week before Westrum relieved Casey. A rapid battlefield ascent for Westrum.

[Theoldmole]

When Westrum was manager, there was no take sign. "Take" was the default. There was a hit sign.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, but you knew that.

That's actually very instructive. A backup as often as not during his eleven-year catching career, the main skill that set Westrum apart in his day was his batting eye. The guy hit a limp .217 on his career, but reached at an impressive .356 rate, for a ridiculous IsOBP of .139. In the pennant winning year of 1951, he hit .219., but reached at .400. That's a spicey meatball.

I've long wondered if his Hendersonian plate discipline and default-take policy had an effect on the team. Looking it up now, Casey Stengel's 1964 Mets (his last full season) had a .050 IsOBP. Westrum's 1966 Mets (his first full season) had a .062 IsOBP.

Inconclusive, but it's something.

(In 1967, it dropped back down to .050. Get Gil Hodges on the line.)

[batmagadanleadoff]

If you haven't already, I'd recommend you read Ryczek's book on the '60's Mets. I think it's one of the best books ever written about Mets history.
I purchased the book specifically to read about the Wes Westrum years, which are the least documented years of the Mets first decade. To the extent that those years are ever covered, they're treated lightly -- and typically, only as a way to gauge the oncoming miracle of a few years later -- rarely for their own merits (or lack). Most Mets books that covered the '60's couldn't wait to get through this Westrum period where the cutesy lovableness was wearing off of the team while the talent level remained somewhat grim, if embryonic.

I had little expectations from this book. Throneberry's bungled triple, for example, an otherwise fantastic story, loses its' effect somewhere on the way to its' fifteenth telling. But Ryczek didn't simply rehash what you and I already know. He sought out many ex-Mets and conducted fresh interviews, and backed his field work with diligent research -- it's a hunch, but I'm under the impression that Ryczek read the newspaper accounts of every single game the Mets ever played in the '60s to prepare for this book.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Thanks for the recommendation.

This guy clearly read newspaper accounts from every game during the era he covered (and he also has a an Eastern European-sounding name), but his book was a real snooze.



Recommended for Mets history completionists mainly.

[Theoldmole]

Nice plug for it onAmazon by ex-Met Bill Wakefield.

[seawolf17]

I loved that Ryczek book. Great read for those of us who were born way later.

[Frayed Knot]

Things I Hadn't Known About the Mets -- [G-FaFiF]Yeah, I got nuthin' here[/G-FaFiF]