roger_that

Hmmm, with a little more advance notice, I coulda seen this one live. I'm about 40 minutes from Port Lucie now. Port Lucie is practically on top of Jupiter, too--basically a home game for both sides. I think they're closer together than Citi and Yankee fields.

Caught an error in the Bud Harrelson chapter!!! On the groundball that resulted in the infamous Pete Rose-Harrelson fracas, the Mets' first baseman is identified as "Eddie Milner," a later outfielder for the Reds, I believe, who never was a Met, instead of "John Milner," who was. Later "Koosman" is spelled with a 'z'--sloppy proofreading job, I'd say. But it's a good chapter, up to date on Bud's Alzheimer's diagnosis. It refers to Art Shamsky's terrific memoir, AFTER THE MIRACLE, so maybe this was written fast and proofed faster? edit: typo

One of the oddities about the Cardwell chapter that I became aware of recently was that Cardwell's breakout season, 1961, which is described accurately and in great detail He won a career- high 15 games for the 1961 Cubs and "finished over .500 for the first time despite the Cubs winning just 64 times and finishing seventh for the second straight year. Cardwell led the Cubs in ERA (3.82), complete games (13), and strikeouts (156). His 38 starts were the most in the National League that year neglects to mention that Cardwell arguably might have deserved the NL's Cy Young Award that year, if the NL had had one (there was just one for MLB), at least measured by WAR. Yes, Cardwell had the NL's best WAR for a pitcher in 1961 (appropriately, 6.1 WAR) but he got no notice not only because there was no WAR back then but because he pitched for a bad team in Wrigley Field, giving him a so-so W-L record (15-14) and a none-too-fancy ERA. He was, in other words, performing at a stellar level in 1961, but he never made the All-Star team in that or any other year. I came across this information in an article about an even weirder fact, that the AL WAR crown in 1961 was (retrospectively, of course) won by Jack (who?) Kralick, another Cardwell-level type of pitcher, mainly as I recall with the Twins and Indians, pitching in the rotation most years but with substantial relief work, but never thought of as a star pitcher. The actual CYA went to Whitey Ford, a far better pitcher than either Cardwell or Kralick, but maybe not in 1961.

The Jack DiLauro chapter gave me the documentation I wanted that he was, in fact, on the Series roster. It also provided a quote on Gil Hodges that more or less supports what I'd been speculating about his managerial style, particularly his communication with young players: "I wasn't very comfortable with Gil Hodges there. He just never talked to me. I don't think he talked to anybody other than his coaches. I don't think there was a single player on that team who had a one- to- one with Gil. I hung out with the other rinky- dinks on the team, [Rod] Gaspar, Bobby Pfeil after he came up from Tidewater, a couple of the scrubs. I got close to Nolan Ryan. He was very unhappy there. He never got along with Hodges. He was not used properly. Anybody could see the greatness in him. Somehow or other he was never used in turn, something would come up, a rainout, an injury, anything to disrupt his schedule. They never explained anything to him. Nolan never talked negatively about anybody, but you could see he was unhappy."

Not trying to bust anyone's chops here, especially not if anyone here actually wrote the chapters I'm going to remark upon (Edgy has taken responsibility for the chapters on Charles and Clendenon, both of which I enjoyed) but as I read it, I might come up with a few questions and comments as a way of remembering some fine points about the 1969 Mets. There's a quote from Hodges to Don Cardwell before the World Series that struck me as odd: ‘Cardy, don't feel hurt because you did a great job all year for us and got us into the playoffs and this Series, but here's what we're gonna do. Rube [Walker] and I agreed that we're gonna start Seaver, Koosman, and Gentry in the three games, and then we're gonna come back with them. But you're our seventh game pitcher if it goes seven games.” Does this seem a strange promise to make? I mean, Seaver, his 25-game winner, could have (and nearly did) pitch excellent winning games in #1 and #4, and for all Hodges knew, he could have thrown an 80-pitch shutout in game 4 and then, in regular rest for game 7, but Hodges is committing to starting Don Freaking Cardwell? Why offer Cardwell a game 7 start at all unless you're sure there's not going to be a game seven? Seems kinda nuts, as told.

Does anyone have this book? https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3376833-the-miracle-has-landedThe Miracle Has Landed: The Amazin' Story of How the 1969 Mets Shocked the World by Matthew Silverman (Goodreads Author) (Editor) Now I do. Quite a good book, so far, with several stories I hadn't seen before, covering some players I haven't thought about in a long time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I stopped buying Mets books around the last time I moved, and pared down my baseball library, but this was available electronically (for free, as a sabr member, which was basically worth the annual dues alone--it's really a great bargain) and doesn't take up any shelf space, which is good because I don't have any. The chapters seem especially well-researched and carefully written, unlike some other Mets books I own.

Iowa has weird town names, or at least memorable ones. In addition to having "Lost Nation" seared into my brain, the hometown of Jack Hamilton, Morning Sun, is similarly seared, mainly because it was Bob Murphy's practice to mention them every time these two men pitched. Murph liked mentioning hometowns: I must be among the few who associate the name "Waco, Texas" not with David Koresh immediately but rather with "Little Alvin Jackson of Waco Texas," which I thought was his full name. It was practically Homeric, the epithets Murph employed, without much rhyme or reason. He would give players' middle names for no reason at all ("David Arthur Kingman in the on-deck circle...") and I took his epithets as normal, though no other Met announcer used them. Eventually, I saw them as tiresome and old-fashioned and pretty irrelevant, but when I was young I liked to do fulsome over-the-top imitations of Murphy calling games. "The bi-ig righthander from Morning Sun, Iowa, steps on the rubber and takes the signal, and we're underway...." A huge change in pitching staff management that applied to both Hamilton and McAndrew was the dual starter/reliever roles both of them filled (and Ryan, too, with the Mets). For the past few decades you're either one or the other, but these two guys switched roles like you switch TV channels. Whenever you thought they were starters, they'd spend a month in the bullpen, and vice versa.

How long will I continue looking at the #9 slot to see who's pitching?

Frayed Knot wrote: =roger_that post_id=97853 time=1656675695 user_id=128] Wait--is that Jim McA himself? On the left I presume? Please tell me you don't think the guy on the left looks like he's nearly 80 y/o

=whippoorwill post_id=97863 time=1656684578 user_id=79] I saw that. 13 more years. He and I will be well into our 70s

That seems like a fair and judicious reading of the overall situation to me. You've obviously devoted a thought of serious thinking to this subject. Sorry I took your "the guy who succeeded Murphy" line as implying you didn't remember who that was--plainly, you know this stuff pretty thoroughly. I did a bit of delving into McA's career stats to see if I could figure out how he earned his "pitch good, get shitty W-L record" rep and it turns out it ain't hard to find: his first start was against Bob Gibson, 1 ER, 6 IP, and a 2-0 loss, next outing a 2-0 loss to the Dodgers, next a seven-inning 1-0 loss to the Giants, and fourth another 1-0 loss to the Astros. So that's an 0-4 W-L record and a 1.82 ERA. Made an impression on me, which the rest of his hard-luck career did not dispel.

Frayed Knot wrote: Is he the one they called ‘Moms' or something like that? Yeah, he was a real, soft-spoken, modest sort of guy and they teased him about that. I thought he got jobbed by the tyranny of W-L records--he lost a bunch of games that the Mets didn't score for him and he never really got a shot a full-time starting job, I think, in large part because of that. We heard that Jim was a the type to hang around the Post Office and catch up on the gossip kind of guy when back in his home town. But he wasn't there when we dropped by Instagram WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM Wait--is that Jim McA himself? On the left I presume? Or two randos photobombing McA's hometown PO? Is there a story here? Do tell.

Edgy MD wrote: For what it's worth, the online versions of my SABR bios on Ed Charles and Donn Clendennon are very badly edited — or simply not edited at all. Embarrassingly so. The versions in the book are mostly tight, fact-checked, and well formatted, but I've never successfully gotten them swapped into place for the online versions. I don't know if the editor turned in the early versions to SABR based on a tight deadline or by accident, but maybe the same thing happened to the author of the Otis bio, Bill Lamberty. Yeah, they're pretty messed up. A few years ago, I wondered why they hadn't fixed a pretty fixable generic problem--that of rendering pitchers' innings in 1/3 or 2/3rds form. In other words, you read things like "Job Loew pitched 173? innings in 1932" the question mark being a placeholder for a partial inning. The answer I got from the chief executive in charge of editing sabr bios was "Stop asking us questions, we're doing just fine here, no thanks to you" roughly translated. When I suggested that it would be simpler, and less confusing, if they'd just dropped the question mark and round off the number of innings, I got a less polite response, so I gave up on offering suggestions. It's still going on, btw. I don't know how many innings is ? innings.

Today is Ron Swoboda's birthday, by the way, an interesting date because if he had been born a few hours later, he would be listed in bbref as a whole year younger.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Otis was a guy who for whatever reason, got on Gils bad side and was fumbled away. I wanna pin the Ryan trade on the GM who succeeded Johhny Murphy, but i don't know how much he vs. Gil was actually responsible. One thing I've detected at times in Mets history was, a lack of "bench strength" when front office people get whacked, or die That was Bob Scheffing. But sabr's bio on Amos Otis screws up a lot of details https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/amos-otis/https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/amos-otis/, including mixing Murphy up with broadcaster Bob Murphy. The nut quote, though, has Gil Hodges meeting Otis at the 1970 All-Star and saying "Good Luck" to him, which Otis noted was about as many words as Hodges had said to him in his two seasons with the Mets. Scheffing was a newbie, thrust into the GM spot when Johnny Murphy died, and I think it's safe to read between the lines and make Hodges the moving force behind the Otis deal. Otis certainly pinned the blame on Hodges, and I think he was correct. As I say, Hodges was very decisive, and as sabr says, he was a man of few words who didn't explain things to his players as much as he made decisions and let the players adjust to his choices, which Otis and Ryan found difficult. This is the downside to Gil's leadership style--the players who get the playing time say "He leaves us alone and lets us do our job" but the ones who don't get pissed off and bitter.

"his legendary strength that he almost never had to display it" That, too. But more. I started writing an article about authoritarian-style managers, which was probably close to 100% of managers (I'd guess at least 80% pre-1960) and the rise of more sensitive types, which is the majority today. No manager today would ever rip his players publicly, get into fistfights with them, abuse and denigrate them in the clubhouse, and so on. Anyone who tried would make headlines, and probably get fired PDQ but the reason I say Gil might have been able, had he lived, to manage into the modern era is that screaming, punching, badmouthing people wasn't his personal style but he still projected strength. Not that he was perfect for his time or for ours. He was extremely decisive, as managers go, not doing a lot of experimenting, waffling, second-guessing himself--he made a decision, and he stuck with it, sometimes when it wasn't working out so well. One decision, that I think was very bad for the franchise, was that I think he soured on Nolan Ryan, held him back when he was a Met, and gave the green light when management was looking to trade him. I see Hodges' hand behind a lot of the deals they did for American Leaguers whom he'd gotten to see in his years managing the Senators. This worked out well sometimes--obviously, Gil pushed hard to get Tommie Agee-- but it also, I think, got us Fregosi and Joe Foy and other moves that worked out poorly. His opinion of Ryan was strange, partly because he had witnessed, as a player, upclose and personal, the very slow development of Sandy Koufax who suffered from most of Ryan's problems, so you'd think he would have been Ryan's biggest fan, but no.

In re 1969, this is a good summer to reflect on Gil Hodges' managerial skills. I don't know if any other Met manager--not Davey Johnson, not Bobby V., not Terry Collins-- was spoken of with the respect from his players that Hodges had and has from his. His early death, of course, sanctifies his life, but I think it's more than that. He had a very strange place in Mets history, partly because he managed the miracle of 1969, but there's more. He was one of the last "authoritarian" managers, but unlike Billy Martin, Earl Weaver, Leo Durocher, he wasn't a loudmouthed, bad-tempered dickhead either to his players or to the press, but rather a soft-spoken authority figure of a type that is rare in leadership generally. It's hard to say whether Gil could have been successful if he'd managed into the 1980s and beyond (he would have turned only 60 in the mid-1980s, hard as it is to imagine him managing the Mets through the Berra-Frazier-Torre-Bamberger years) when the players became so much more outspoken about their rights, their salaries, and their opinions, but I like to think he would have figured out a way to adapt to the free agency MLB while giving up little of his stern managerial style. His is the first HoF induction that I've ever been been tempted to attend in person.

I just heard from Mr. Ostrosser, who really appreciated the copy I emailed him of his Dairylea baseball card from 1974, which he had never seen. He was tickled to get it. Naturally, I took all the credit for digging it up, and told him that I stumped an entire Met-fan forum in a quiz about his identity. No, of course, I didn't. I told him that the card had been shown to me by one of the posters here, and that his name was recognized by at least one other poster on this site, which pleased him even further. Further research revealed that he (and his dad) worked for a company that did business, or became a subsidiary of, or had some other Byzantine connection to my granddad's company, but Mr. Ostrosser said he'd do a little research into the company's history to try and nail down his exact connection to me and my family.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't believe bullpen arms are what's needed. All the relievers in the world won't win you a game if you don't score. What do you think the Mets need? (Or would you just stand pat)? Me, I'm worried that Drew Smith is on pace to blow past his career innings high by August and after him and Ottavino there's a whole lot of “eh” in the bullpen. Getting shut out by Justin Verlander is not some great shame, and the Mets are, even despite the paucity of runs scored this week, third in the league in scoring runs. So while I agree that they also need to add a hitter, it is not the top priority. In the past 72 hours, I have heard that the Mets #1 need is relief pitching, starting pitching, and hitting.

What! Squirrel batting 8th! Outrageous!! (Very glad to see him back at all.)

Even if he's wrong sometimes (how would we ever know?) he's always funny.

=whippoorwill post_id=97612 time=1656430831 user_id=79] Is he the one they called ‘Moms' or something like that?

Does anyone have anything resembling evidence of DiLauro's place on the 1969 World Series roster? Memories are pretty unreliable, mine as well as everyone's else, so what I'm looking for is documentation. Knew I'd seen this somewhere, but I found the citation. https://www.cantonrep.com/story/news/2022/01/28/jack-dilauro-akron-autograph-requests-mail-amazin-miracle-new-york-mets-1969-world-series-mlb/6570864001/https://www.cantonrep.com/story/news/2022/01/28/jack-dilauro-akron-autograph-requests-mail-amazin-miracle-new-york-mets-1969-world-series-mlb/6570864001/ Thank you. Close enough for me to feel confident that I'll pass my own test for mental acuity, though it is kind of amazin' that solid official evidence is so hard to come by, isn't it? As to Jones' and Agee's hometown, there's some interesting history there--the last slave ship from Africa landed there, or near there, and there's an entire Africa-town community there that Jones, I believe, contributes to. I'll see if I can find the story on my hard drive somewhere.

Does anyone have anything resembling evidence of DiLauro's place on the 1969 World Series roster? Memories are pretty unreliable, mine as well as everyone's else, so what I'm looking for is documentation.

OK, this is it, the 1969th thread on the CPF Baseball Forum, which I declare devoted to discussing the 1969 Mets. I'm posting this now to keep anyone else from slipping a new thread into this slot. More later. On Edit: Actually no rush to sign off, since I can edit this, the glorious initial post in the 1969th thread, for at least a while (not sure of the edit window, if any) but I just wanted to note that this squad has gone beyond myth into ur-myth for me, and its events have taken on a significance in my life that exceeds fanship and sports. For example, I have instructed my kids that my mental acuity is to be appraised, and found wanting, on the first day I am unable to recite the names of all 25 1969 Mets within two minutes' time. And I immediately faced a problem there, because I discovered that, in fact, I couldn't actually perform that feat of mental legerdemain. I could recite the names of 27 or 30 Mets who played in 1969, no problem, but nailing down the identity of the 25th man on the World Series roster was a sticky point that I was unable to resolve easily. What I did remember was that Bobby Pfeil, their third-string third baseman, was left off the Series roster in order to get it down to 25, and I remembered this as a sign of Gil Hodges' managerial style since, feeling that Pfeil had been a part of his team all season long, he allowed Pfeil to suit up, despite being ineligible to play in the Series. What I can't quite remember-- and baseball-reference is very little help here because it lists only those who actually played in the Series, not the eligible players who didn't get into a game-- is who was and who wasn't on the Series squad. Which could be a problem, as my kids may be eager to have me put into an old age home. The pitching staff is of course memorable, not only for its big 1-3 (Seaver, Koosman, Gentry) but also its little 4-6 (Ryan,Cardwell, McAndrew), all very capable starters, and its middle reliever, Koonce, and its closers or firemen or whatever relief aces were called back then (I'm guessing "relief aces"), Taylor and McGraw--that's nine. And Jack DiLauro makes 10, which sounds right. But may not be. We'll return to the pitching staff. Catchers were Grote and Dyer and Martin, so that's 13, and the infield was Kranepool and Clendenon, Boswell and Weis, Harrelson, and Charles and Garrett, bringing us up to 20. So five outfielders, Jones and Agee, and then in RF we have Shamsky, Swoboda, and Gaspar. So that's twenty-five, and I believe that's right. Because the Mets used only six pitchers in the series, though, I'm not completely sold on Jack DiLauro, and I can't quite nail down his place on the Series squad. Since I've made this the test of my mental acuity, I'd like to be completely confident that DiLauro was in fact the final piece of the puzzle, and merely being in uniform for the Series doesn't quite cut it (Pfeil). Can anyone confirm DiLauro's eligibility for me and help me stave off being put into assisted living before I'm willing to concede the point? Could Amos Otis have been eligible? Or Jim Gosger? Pretty sure it's DiLauro, but I want to be more than pretty sure.