RealityChuck

I agree. This is the time to see what your players are capable of, not October. In addition, leaving Burgos in will probably help his confidence in the future. Willie tends to look at the big picture -- not just winning individual ballgames, but in making moves that will make it easier to win games in the future. If Burgos thinks his manager has the confidence in letting him face last year's MVP, he's more likely to pitch without worrying about making mistakes. The percentages are just percentages. Replacing Burgos at that point would not have guaranteed a different result. All it would have done was allow the manager an excuse if it failed. But it's poor managing if you're making decisions solely to avoid having to justify yourself to the press afterwards.

Nothing wrong with him batting 2nd from time to time. I don't necessarily think a player has to be pigeonholed into a particular lineup spot, especially since it doesn't appear to make all that much difference (if sabermetrics are to be believed, of course).

="iramets"]Well, getting Hodges was key, for sure. He made that realization about Kranepool's limitations. Did I say that was the only choice he ever made, or that Kranepool's reduction to a part-time player was the only factor in the Mets' success? How about you make up an argument you don't like and go argue with it? That would make you very happy, I'm sure.I can't help it if you can't see your own lapses of logic. Let's review: ]Certainly the Mets never won a thing until they realized that Kranepool would never be an everyday 1B man in the National League.This is a clear post hoc ergo propter hoc*, and I was just pointing out the logical absurdity of the statement. To imply that platooning Kranepool had any causal effect, as you do, is pure nonsense. ]You seem convinced that fancy modern stats (which you've expressed your disdain for several times on this site) are what allow managers to make critical decisions, which is just plain silly.While I am highly skeptical about the stats -- mostly because the inflated predictive claims -- I am not arguing against them in this case. I am granting every statement you have made about how Kranepool hit, and ironically, I am agreeing on your assessment of his abilities. My point is that, by using the stats to judge Stengel's decisions, you are assuming Stengel had access to the stats; that he thought like you do. As I said originally, understanding that he didn't and couldn't is very difficult, as you are proving in great detail. For the record, I think the stats are a great analysis tool (which is how you're using them here). It's only when they try to predict that they're terrible (PECOTA is wrong over 80% of the time, yet people continue to use it), and, of course, they do nothing to explain why things happen. I will indicate where you fall victim to the projective fallacy (i.e., the belief that people in the past thing like you do) in italics from now on. ]Stengel went on his instincts which led to some conclusions that were good and some which stunk. Modern stats can pinpoint exactly what was loopy in Stengel's thinking--in this case, Once again, you're stuck in the fallacy. Stengel's thinking was perfectly sound for the time. If you're invoking "Modern stats," you're assuming Casey could have gone to his computer and pull up the data and run an analysis of it. That's the fallacy from which your entire argument derives. At best, your only argument was that if Stengel were managing today, this would be a stupid move. But he isn't managing today. You cannot use OPS or lefty/righty splits to comment on his managing because they were not available to him. ] OBP shows that he rarely understood when various batters had no talent for getting on base.Fallacy again. You're assuming that OBP was a consideration. Managers in the 60s looked at BA, not OBP. ] Why he decided that the young Kranepool was a good choice for batting leadoff is "Instinct Gone Bad"--there's no other reason for suspecting he would be any good for getting on base, and he wasn't.Fallacy again. You're assuming that you choose a leadoff hitter with a high OBA, which is how things are in 2007, not 1964. Also, Kranepool lead off a total of six time in 1964, so it's not like Stengel was insisting on it (Casey's statements to the press always have to be taken as a grain of salt), And, of course, a good manager is one willing to experiment (especially when your team is going nowhere and you're trying to develop talend). Finally, the roles of the batters in the batting order were not as strictly defined as they are today. ]It was just a quirky move that we now have tools to describe.Then the accurate statement is, "If Stengel has been managing under the principles of 2007, it was a stupid move." However, he was managing in 1964, a fact keeps eluding your grasp. ] "IHe didn't know" doesn't excuse Stengel's foolish thinking. He knew that you need men to get on base at the top of the order, and chose exactly the wrong person to do that for him.Fallacy again: "exactly the wrong person" if it happened in 2007. "You need men to get on base at the top of the order" is also a 2007 assumption. Ditto "foolish thinking." Granted, you want people to get on base, but they were looking at BA back then. And since Kranepool batted first only six times in 1964, it's hard to make the case that Casey was pushing all that hard for the move. ]Hickman had a few years on Kranepool in 1964. Hickman had spent considerable time in the minor leagues, in the St. Louis system.Irrelevant to my point. The fact is that they had essentially the same numbers that year. From any analysis in 1964, the two players were equivalent. If anything, since Kranepool was a couple of years younger and had little minor league experience, those numbers were very promising. ] Kranepool had spent less than a full season in the minors and was only 19 in 1964--he could have benefitted from a few more seasons, and he later said so himself. Do you need a signed confession from Stengel that he fucked up, too, or is Kranepool's word enough for you?I already agreed that Kranepool needed more time in the minors. But, then, looking at the numbers for 1964, a manager would see a young player who was handling major league pitching as well as Jim Hickman. There was no need to send Hickman down, so why send Kranepool down? ]Did I insist that all players play at Mantle's level, or are you arguing with yourself again? You were the one who made the equivalence: you said that Kranepool wasn't as good a Mickey Mantle. Hardly a fair comparison for any ballplayer, and I'm just reducing your (lack of) logic to an absurdity. Sure Kranepool wasn't as good as Mantle, but that's meaningless. I'm sure Casey knew Kranepool was no Mickey Mantle. ]Stengel could plainly see the advantages of playing someone very young if he showed ability--Kranepool showed very little, and he played him in MLB anyway. Not too swift, in my book.But Kranepool put up similar numbers to Jim Hickman, and was several years younger. Isn't that a sign of ability? Since Stengel had no access to OPS or lefty/righty splits, he -- or any manager of the time -- would see him as a potentially talented mid-level major leaguer who had some problems with lefthanded pitching (I agree that Stengel would have known that; he just couldn't have known how vast the difference it) ]What were the "other issues" you allude to?The fact that he was a popular player who drew fans to the ballpark. So let me make my main point clear: You assume throughout that Casey Stengel was managing Ed Kranepool in 2007. That is the fallacy. The amusing part is that you are so blind to it that you cannot even grasp that it exists, which proves my original point. *Look it up.

It's only indefensible if you're living in 2007. Stengel wasn't. You're persisting in the fallacy. Stengel could only see that Kranepool was hitting .257, and that he hit righties better than lefties. Since they weren't keeping track of every bat, he had no firm idea of how much a difference it was. Kranepool's numbers in 1964 (assuming we're talking about Stengel) were remarkably similar to those of Jim Hickman that year. Should the Mets have benched Hickman? Remember, given there were no lefty/righty splits, the numbers would have shown the two to be equivalent. The Kranepool/Mickey Mantle comparison is bogus. If you insisted all players played at Mantle's level, then you could never field a team. I agree that Ed should have spent more time in AAA, but the decision to keep him on the roster had to do with other issues. ] Certainly the Mets never won a thing until they realized that Kranepool would never be an everyday 1B man in the National LeagueYes, that was the key factor. Getting Tom Seaver, Jerry Koosman, Cleon Jones, Ron Taylor, Bud Harrelson, Gary Gentry, Nolan Ryan, Gil Hodges, Art Shamsky, Jerry Grote, and Tug McGraw had nothing to do with it.

="iramets"]Of course the managers who batted him some 787 times against lefthanders weren't doing their best thinking, either. Sure they were. You're falling into the common fallacy of believing that people in the past thought like we do now. Casey Stengel never heard of OPS, so that thinking he'd base personnel decisions upon it is a fallacy. The advantages of platooning were well known, of course, but the exact numbers were rarely considered in the early 60s. People would note that a batter got hits, but did not break it down between righties and lefties (I'd say that Earl Weaver was the first to begin to go into details like that). Kranepool's was getting enough hits to manage at a ML level, and they probably knew he hit righties better, but the exact numbers were not available to him. Also, in 1965-68, who did the team have that would do any better? Greg Goossen?

MFS62 wrote: Why do I get the feeling that the last surviving member of the 1962 Mets will be Don Zimmer? How ironic will that be. But if you were a fan of the '62 Mets, and Brooklyn, too, it would somehow be appropriate.More likely, it'll be the guy this forum's named for.

Is the book edited by Dennis Cook?

Looks like someone at the Times discovered Forgotten New York.

Farmer Ted wrote: Giving bonus points to Cashman because "no job in baseball carries with it as much stress and pressure as that of Yankees GM" just doesn't fly with me. He has a $200+ payroll the last three seasons and choked against the Red Sox and got skunked by the Angels and Tigers. You're right. Cashman didn't have a single clutch hit during those games.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: If my name was Chan Ho Park, and I had enough money, I'd buy naming rights to a stadium.Though, technically, his name is Park Chan Ho.

Great that Peterson and Downs (whose influence is often overlooked) will be back.

Meryl Streep was amazing; I can't think of any actress who could have done a better job. I especially loved the way she underplayed -- quiet words, mildly sarcastic tone -- that was much more effective than the standard nasty woman role. And Anne Hathaway is the most charming actress working today. Add Stanley Tucci, and you know you'll see a fine performance.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Any Met fan younger than 41 years old hasn't seen a home ASG in their lifetime. I used to try and count the years till they'd have one and figured, maybe the mid to late 80s. But Shea just hasn't wanted one. It's weird. It usually goes to new stadiums, and since Shea isn't a classic like Fenway or Wrigley, it gets passed over. Though Yankee Stadium did hold one in '77*, so it seems odd they pick it again. It also will delay Citi Field being chosen; I don't think MLB will want to have it in New York again for several years. *I was on the field with the players, BTW.

Starting pitchers used to pace themselves. Instead of pitching all out every pitch (as they are expected to today), they would take something off their fastball to save their arm. Now, you can't afford that. Batters are more adept at hitting good but not great pitches. In addition, batters are more likely to foul off pitches they don't like. You're supposed to develop patience as a batter, and to foul off good pitches that aren't in your preferred location. Back in the 60s, a pitch count of 100 would probably get you into the 8th inning most of the time. Now, it often doesn't get you into the sixth. So with pitchers throwing harder and throwing more pitches, arm troubles are more likely. There's also better diganosis -- plenty of pitchers had sore arms in the old days, but few had torn rotator cuffs. Not that they didn't get them, but they were just grouped as sore arms. In addition, managers began to realize that it made more sense to bring in a fresh pitcher from the bullpen than hoping your tiring starter could get to the end of the inning. You kind of wonder if there will eventually be three-inning starters, a three-inning reliever, then the rest of the bullpen. If it weren't for roster size limitations, someone probably would have tried it already.

30. Since he was a 30-30 man. More likely, he'll just take a coach's number.

So he doesn't understand that money trumps everything else for free agents? Sure location and city is a factor, but once the Giants' offer was on the table, Zito would have had to be an idiot not to pick it up.

Not a bad little film. A nice satire of the film making process. I should write it up for my web page.

He can't be any older than 19, so I'm sure the scouts are taking that into account. Also, he was a pitcher in high school, so maybe that's a potential fallback. This article indicates that he just likes baseball better. Plus scouts seem to think that he'd be a solid football prospect, but not an outstanding one, which probably means he wouldn't have a chance to start at Florida as QB. And, realistically, he probably had no chance at a pro career as QB. It also looks like he was as interested in Florida's baseball program as its football one (see third quote.) Most likely, he didn't expect to be drafted and went to Florida expecting to play baseball for a few years. When the Mets called, he jumped.

No, but Tate did carry a no-hitter into the seventh inning before losing it (August 4, 1975). Opinion: Tate was just another in a long line of prospects the Mets brought to the majors before they were ready. Fact: The day before the 1969 season started, Newsday published an article predicting the Mets would be World Champs.

BTW, Ruth wasn't ever listed on the ballot after his win.

Edgy DC wrote: Sidenote: Why is there no MVP for 1930?The MVP as we know it was established in 1931. The first awards (1911-14) of this nature was the Chalmers Award, given by a car company with no connection with MLB. After a few years, MLB had Chalmers discontinue the practice. The American League established their award in 1922. They also had a rule that no one could win twice, which is why Babe Ruth won in 1923 and never again. The National League saw the publicity the AL was getting from the award, so started their own in 1924. But, evidently, the publicity didn't sustain itself, so the AL and the NL discontinued it due to lack of interest. In 1931, the BBWAA started its own award, and that's been the MVP ever since. The mashing together of three sets of awards under the category "MVP" creates this confusion. Most record books in the 60s and 70s (and MLB) included only the BBWAA award.

Opinion: English speaking fans will probably have to know that fact in the future. Fact: If one particular voter hadn't split his vote between the two, and had voted solely for him, Jerry Koosman would have shared Rookie of the Year with Johnny Bench.

It'd be a big mistake in the long run (and probably in the short run) to include Pelfrey and Humber on the opening day roster. They both need more time in the minors.