1986: A Postseason to Remember

[HahnSolo]

Holy crap, this looks good:

http://www.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111103&content_id=25882718&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

Particularly some of the stuff from John McNamara:

McNamara on Boyd not being available to pitch in Game Seven of the World Series because he was drunk: Well you said it, ... that's the exact reason.

And a little admission from Mike Scott:

Scott on accusations that he scuffed baseballs in the 1986 NLCS: They can believe whatever they want to believe. Every ball that hits the ground has something on it. ... I've thrown balls that were scuffed but I haven't scuffed every ball that I've thrown.

[seawolf17]

That sumbitch.

[Edgy MD]

If you look back on Clemens' post-season career, game by game, he's the least game guy ever with the reputation of a gamer. It's like he carefully planned on how to develop a post-season reputation and made each decision with an eye toward that. Enormous phony.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

The Torre/Verducci book I'm reading actually has some good stuff on Rajah, who's painted as a well-meaning, but high-strung and self-doubting coward. Not that that should surprise anyone but its pretty well told amid all the Jeter ballwashing.

[bmfc1]

MLB Network has a new show on the '86 post-season debuting on Wednesday night (11/9) at 9 PM:

9:00 p.m. MLB Network Special "A Postseason to Remember: 1986" A look back at the 1986 postseason

The Times says that John McNamara discusses his decisions from the Series:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/sports/baseball/former-red-sox-manager-john-mcnamara-recalls-final-out-that-wasnt-to-be.html?ref=sports

[metirish]

Thanks, I'll check it out. Looking forward to some revisionist history from McNamara too.He was vilified up in Boston for some of his decisions?

[Edgy MD]

I'm prepared to buy anything MacNamara wants to tell me about Roger Clemens, including his hatred of America and contempt for rappers and the representatives and employees of Death Row Records.

[HahnSolo]

Sniff. Are my threads so easily forgotten?

http://cranepoolforum.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17092

[G-Fafif]

I rewatched the key moments of Game Six, 2011, last night (recorded the day-after broadcast on MLBN). Egads, it hurt from nothing more than empathy's perspective to watch Freese's triple take flight knowing Cruz wasn't going to catch it, and that's two weeks after rooting for that game not to end so soon. It hurt watching Oliver and Feldman not protect the lead Josh Hamilton gave them. By the time it got to the eleventh, you knew what was coming.

Which is to say, despite being very happy with how Game Six, 1986, came out, I fully understand why this stuff keeps getting brought up again and again and again (it was one of the major subjects in Bob Costas's interview with Wade Boggs and Jim Rice that aired last night, and they were mostly bystanders). Someday Ron Washington and Cruz and Michael Young and a dozen Rangers will be answering the McNamara questions for a billionth time, too. And it won't ever get any easier for them.

[metirish]

HahnSolo wrote: Sniff. Are my threads so easily forgotten? http://cranepoolforum.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17092

You know , I thought I had seen about this show before.

[Edgy MD]

Merged.

[Frayed Knot]

Same format as in the 'Twenty Greatest Games' series: Costas & Verducci on stools facing the guests, in this case Mookie, Bruce Hurst, and Calvin Schiraldi. Also taped comments from Keith, Clemens, & McNamara.

Mookie opted to wear the same suit jacket he wore when he did the Game 6 special from '20 Greatest ...'. Did change his shirt at least.
Hurst looks exactly the same. Not only has his hair not changed color or even moved since 1986, I wouldn't be surprised if it somehow hasn't grown since then.
Schiraldi on the other hand - wearing a sweatshirt from the Austin, Tx area HS team he's apparently coached for many years now - has close-cropped hair replacing that big birds nest he once had and has added a salt-n-pepper beard that's 2-3 times longer than the hair. His eyes no longer look so droopy/sad.

Both Hurst & Schiraldi seem at peace with their roles in the series while McNamara clearly wants to get his side of the story(s) out and sounds like he's tired of being the whipping boy of Red Sox Nation over how things came out. According to him:
- Roger asked out of Game 6 after 7 innings citing a finger problem which prompted a "you gotta be shitting me" response from his manager
- Boyd (as mentioned above) got drunk after being bumped from the Game 7 start following the rain-out and was in no condition to throw any relief that day
- Buckner was the better fielder than Stapleton who he claimed was nicknamed "Shakey", a moniker Hurst claimed never to have heard.

[HahnSolo]

Watched the beginning to hear Costas say that due to developments during production (I guess some of the stuff Johnny McNamara said?) they would only cover the World Series and not the Playoffs. I kinda wanted to hear what Mike Scott had to say.

[G-Fafif]

Mookie: Classy as ever. Hurst: The designated spokesman for disappointment stood in admirably. Schiraldi: Reminded me of a Kids In The Hall bit wherein several computer-generated photos are shown to identify a suspect (played by Dave Foley) depending on how he disguised himself. In one of them, "this is how he'd look if he put on some weight, panicked and grew a beard."

Calvin "wouldn't change a thing" since he's happy with his life as it stands now. Great rationalization.

Came away not quite buying anything Clemens or McNamara had to say, Clemens based on his sterling presentation of self and facts all these years, McNamara because Hurst and Schiraldi all but said he was talking out his hat. Mac reminded me of not a few seniors I've encountered who have settled on their version of reality and that's the one they're going with. Presentation of Dave Stapleton's slick fielding of Knight's bunt in Game One examined so as to undermine McNamara's later dismissal of Stapleton and his alleged nickname of "Shaky" -- which Hurst insisted he'd never heard before.

But let's not forget what a self-aggrandizing truth-mangler Clemens is. Sucker came out after seven is all that matters.

Mex, taped from a remote location, was quintessential Keith. Man, does he enjoy being a 1986 World Champion Met. And Davey, also in taped segments...good for him still managing.

Favorite nugget (since we won): Hurst marveling at how World Series was like attending "the University of Seaver" for him, just in awe of his DL'd teammate -- even though he's a lefty and Tom's a righty.

Do hope they get around to cobbling together the LCS discussions. It's a network devoted to baseball. What else have they got to do?

[Frayed Knot]

Schiraldi: Reminded me of a Kids In The Hall bit wherein several computer-generated photos are shown to identify a suspect (played by Dave Foley) depending on how he disguised himself. In one of them, "this is how he'd look if he put on some weight, panicked and grew a beard."

He did sport a kind of 'groomed by committee' look, didn't he.

[TransMonk]

Schiraldi reminded me of a bearded Damien Echols of West Memphis Three fame.

Overall, I was disappointed in the program. They didn't reveal too much that I didn't already know about the series other than the discrepancies in the recollections of McNamara and Clemens. I thought the production did all it could to suck the drama out of the games by the way the timelines were presented and the herky jerky stop and start of footage and interviews. It was definitely for Mets geeks. I would have been lost if I didn't have any knowledge of what had actually happened.

It was like listening to my boring 10th grade Lit teacher explain Catcher In The Rye to an uninterested class when I could have just been reading it myself.

[Edgy MD]

It's a little late to claim that Buckner was the better fielder after your usage suggested you had been getting him out of there whenever you could. Buckner was a fine fielder in his younger days but by the 1986 post-season he had the mobility and grace of a mailbox.

[HahnSolo]

Buckner got to the ball, though. This wasn't a sharply-hit ball down the line or in the hole he couldn't reach.

He got in position, and missed it.

[Edgy MD]

Sure, that's where grace comes into play. He bent over gingerly, like he was balancing an appliance on his back.

[Edgy MD]

I also continue to feel that the error was a grossly exaggerated part of the rally. Not only had the tying run scored, but I think Mookie beats the play to the bag (although he might not of with a better firstbaseman able to play that ball more aggressively).

Also, I think that wild pitch was a passed ball, and Gedman (it was Gedman, right?) has sort of escaped history on that score.

[G-Fafif]

Olbermann approves of Schiraldi.

Schiraldi said he was obviously unhappy at the outcome of the game and the series, but he would not change the experience if it meant changing who that night made him become. That�s when Schiraldi revealed the meaning of his unusual sweatshirt. For more than a decade he�s been the baseball coach � and a teacher � at St Michael�s Catholic Academy in Austin. And the things he learned in the majors, particularly in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, have formed the core of his value and coaching systems. He�s used that inning to teach kids about sports � and life. You have to hear him say it, to truly appreciate it. The MLB retrospective on the �86 Series runs again tomorrow and Sunday afternoons at 1 PM ET. Find a way to watch, because 25 years later, Schiraldi has had an impact that merely getting the last out could never have afforded him.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: I also continue to feel that the error was a grossly exaggerated part of the rally. Not only had the tying run scored, but I think Mookie beats the play to the bag (although he might not of with a better firstbaseman able to play that ball more aggressively). Also, I think that wild pitch was a passed ball, and Gedman (it was Gedman, right?) has sort of escaped history on that score.

I can still remember the thoughts going through my head as the Mookie/Buckner play was still unfolding. I thought for sure that Mookie was going to leg out a single, even if Buckner fielded the ball perfectly. I was a hardcore fan then, as I still am, and I thought I had seen enough of Mookie running over the years that I had an excellent sense of processing all of the elements of the play -- Mookie's speed, the speed and direction of the grounder, where Buckner was positioned, etc. -- to determine that Buckner couldn't have done anything to prevent Mookie from reaching safely.

[Edgy MD]

Me too. But even if you don't have all that going for you, you can watch the video of that play over and over and Mookie's head appears rounding first so fast that you tend to believe Buckner wouldn't have made that play at all. The Mets had the momentum, and the Mookie, and the Sox were playing on their heels and the Mets on their toes.

Also underplayed: the heroism of Mookie fouling those pitches off. I'd watched Mookie enough to know that staying alive with two strikes wasn't a typical part of his game.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: Me too. But even if you don't have all that going for you, you can watch the video of that play over and over....

It wouldn't be the same. In 1986, I had what I believe was a powerfully accurate feel for whether Mookie would beat out an infield grounder almost from the instant the grounder was struck ... because I'd been watching Mookie's entire career to that point, without any significant lapses.

[Edgy MD]

As I said, me too.