WHY THE HECK???????? - Page 2

The Professor · 06-05-2002, 05:45 AM

Good players make a good manager...at least, a great deal of the time, they do.

Mauch was an inexperienced manager in '64 with a ballclub that was to some extent playing way above itself. Nevertheless, he deserves the blame for the meltdown.

Until he took over the Angels in the early 80s, Mauch managed rebuilding squads and also-rans. The Expos and Twins?? That may explain the sub-.500 record. Mauch is best compared to Tony LaRussa - they both were/are big "numbers & percentages" types. The #'s don't always pan out...and the manager gets the (perhaps deservedly) blame. Who knew? I disagree with the decision to pull Mike Witt in the '86 ALCS key game. BUT...Gary Lucas was the percentage choice (if you, like Mauch or LaRussa or a number of other fairly successful managers do, play the %). Lucas hadn't hit a batter all year...he promptly hit a batter. Then there is Donnie Moore, too sore to throw an effective splitter(his 'must' have pitch) and the rest is history. Nevermind that the Angels weren't dead after that game...they just came out flat. Same in '82...Mauch didn't pitch and he didn't hit.

...anyway, I can see why Mauch has the reputation he does, but while I'm not a "Mauch partisan" I wouldn't feel bad about letting Mauch manage any ballclub I owned.

Cox has a lot of pennants...but I don't see him with too many WS rings and, talk about a guy who makes some odd decisions (and with the talent in Atlanta, he'd better win anyway...)

Weaver had an All-World pitching staff and some great players in Baltimore. He didn't have those players in '85-'86...and he was a loser. (Now, don't get me wrong...I love Earl Weaver and have the utmost respect for him)

So...in '64, yeah, Mauch deserves all the blame. In '82 and '86 the decisions were curious (plain bad) but the Angels still could have won either series. Great teams make great managers...in most cases...and neither the Expos or the Twins throughout most of the 1970s were great teams.

biggamejrs · 06-05-2002, 06:03 AM

Speaking of Bobby Cox. I am a huge Braves fan. I listen to or watch each game. But while I don't think Cox is horrible, I do think a better manager would have won us more World Series in the 90's. For example, earlier this season, Smoltzie had pitched in 3 of 4 games, one for 2 innings and another was a 30 pitch inning. Cox said in the pre-game show, "I will not use Smoltzie". Well he did and Smoltz blew his 2nd save. He was simply tired. I also think Millwoods problems stem from the way Cox used him. Never giving him solid rest in his first 2 years. Some times 3 days , other times 4, other times 5. I now think Millwood should be put in the pen. He always loses it in the 4th. But we have no other options for a starter.
James

bkurtz · 06-05-2002, 06:20 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Malleus Dei:
You guys really enjoying the personal insults? Coming from the sources that they are they are really meaningless and they aren't even having any effect besides making me even more contemptuous of a couple of you than I already was.<hr /></blockquote>funny coming from someone who has made personal insults his mark on this board over the years. quit the paranoia, lighten up and behave like a good boy (or girl).

Malleus Dei · 06-05-2002, 06:31 AM

Hmm, some valid baseball points there.

Bobby Cox isn't great - just good. But when you say that his record is due to his players remember that he handpicked a lot of those players himself or at least had some say in them.

Hmm, so Mauch's role was comparable to Tony LaRussa's? Well, maybe. But LaRussa is the much better manager, .526 in his career as of last season with two pennants and a World Series to his credit. If their situations are similar that still makes Mauch a...well, a Mauchery of a good manager.

Excusing Mauch on the grounds that he didn't have the players isn't fair either: a lot of his players were the players that he wanted. And if you want to argue that he inherited some bad teams and some bad players over the years, well so did Billy Martin - but look at what Martin did with them.

And yes, Earl Weaver had some great pitching - and part of that was due to Earl, and IMO even more of it was due to the work of a great pitching coach.

All of that being said, I still can't see any standard by which Mauch appears to be a good manager, his partisans notwithstandng.

Malleus Dei · 06-05-2002, 06:35 AM

bkurtz: grow up.

I made my "mark" here alpha and beta testing and making addons for OOTP. You, on the other hand, have indeed made yours with childish insults. Did you ever contribute anything to OOTP? Gee, I missed it.

Now if you want to talk baseball, then talk baseball. If you want to insult someone, hit USENET or go find a mirror.

Now go away and let us talk baseball.

SoxWin · 06-05-2002, 08:05 AM

Seriously Bkurtz, I'm not the hugest fan of how Mal acts at times but this time you're way off base. NO personal insults were thrown until you and Bob Didier starting in on him. You may like Mauch, Mal may not, let's keep the discussions civilized and adult. Try the intelligent way and disagree with what his post said, not just posting dumb snide remarks.

If you have a problem with Mal or anyone else, I recommend you keep that problem within the specific problem thread. Alternatley you could insult the person through pm or email if you really feel that petty.

My $0.02, $0.05 CDN

Cheers

Rich

wireman · 06-05-2002, 08:27 AM

Sox Win,

You spoke for me. Let's douse the flames.

-- Louie

Malleus Dei · 06-05-2002, 08:43 AM

And let's talk baseball instead!

Bill Peterson's take on Mauch was that Mauch was "a good manager of poor clubs and a poor manager of good clubs."

That would get you a sub-.500 career record all right.

Malleus Dei · 06-05-2002, 08:52 AM

Oh, and here's Gene Mauch as a fun guy who can sure spot talent (from an article on choking by Mickey Herskowitz in the Houston Chronicle):

"The Phillies lost in the bottom of the ninth on an RBI single by a kid recently called up from the minors, Joe Morgan.

Inside the visitors' clubhouse, Mauch was enraged by the sight of his players casually stuffing their faces at the buffet table. Without a word, Mauch approached the table and cleared it with one long sweep of his arm. Watermelon slices, barbecued chicken and spare ribs went flying. The suits in two nearby lockers were splattered with barbecue sauce.

'Boy,' mumbled Covington, a lighthearted outfielder who had not yet eaten, 'the food sure goes fast around here.'

Mauch stood in the middle of the room, his face reddening, and screamed at his startled players: 'Have you no shame? You got beat by a guy who looks like a Little Leaguer!'

Although he would never again inspire a food fight, Morgan never lost his boyish looks in a Hall of Fame career."

HolyCow98 · 06-09-2002, 08:12 PM

I have always believed players are the ones who are going to win the games.

I judge a manager on mostly two points. Putting his players in the best postition to win and being able to motivate and keep the players focused to get the most out of the talent on hand.

I mean if a team doesn't have alot of talent, the greatest manager in the world will not be able to overcome it.

My spin on Bobby Cox is this, I do not think he is a great manager, a good one, but not great. I think he has the right style, being a player's manager, to keep the Braves focused and keeping them competitive every year over the last ten plus years. I think that maybe some other managers might have won more World Series than Bobby but I also think they not many would have been able to keep the team on track and in the postseason ten straight years.

Malleus Dei · 06-10-2002, 08:28 AM

"I have always believed players are the ones who are going to win the games."

Good thing you never said that around Earl Weaver or Billy Martin.

Badly managed players have far less chance of winning than well-managed players of the same talent level do.

bob didier · 06-10-2002, 12:13 PM

i wasn't really insulting him, just telling
the truth...

bob didier · 06-10-2002, 12:34 PM

all i'm saying is that Mauch was thought of
as a great tactician...one of the best managers by his peers, of which MD isn't...

Richie Allen, "Crash: The Life and Times of Dick Allen", sums up my feelings.

?The problem with Gene Mauch as a field general in 1964?and it haunted him to his retirement?was that he held the game too tightly in his hand. Mauch was a brilliant strategist. I learned more about baseball as a chess game under Gene Mauch than I did under anybody else in baseball. The man?s a master of the little game ?when to bunt, how to steal a sign, what base to throw to, all the ways to outthink your opponent."

MD give you credit, read MH all my life...at least you picked a decent writer...

bye

Jason Moyer · 06-10-2002, 01:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cjlawl:
Malleus Dei , Thank you for bringing up my fav. team sorry past

and this year does not look much better. I am just a suffering phil fan.<hr /></blockquote>The Phillies will never be a good team with Ed Wade as the GM.

Last year Scott Rolen was the best third baseman in baseball. Instead of Ed doing the smart thing and negotiating with him, he criticizes him and says that they don't really need him. Within 24 hours at least 10 other GM's look up and say "uh, if you don't want him we'll take him."

Additionally, he has yet to sign a free agent or make a trade that has helped the team at all. This is of course in addition to keeping guys like Byrd, Utley, Estrada, and Myers in AAA past their "use by" date. He's lucky he has the best minor league coordinator in baseball or they'd be a 60-100 team every year.

Of course, the best Ed Wade move is using a 1st round draft pick on a left handed pitcher who broke his arm 2 years ago in the same place Dave Dravecky did. Why even participate in the amateur draft?

What ever happened to Lee Thomas anyway? I remember those days of pulling off really low-key trades to get under-appreciated good players like Kruk, Greene, and Mulholland. He signs Lenny Dykstra who immediately puts up MVP-like production for the 2 years he's healthy. If those teams hadn't succumbed to freak injuries, I have no doubt they would have won at least 3-4 pennants from 1990-1995.

Edit: Actually he did make one good trade, Mabry for Giambi. If he'd find a manager who knew how to win they'd have a shot at finishing .500 this year, at least. Larry Bowa was a great player but it takes the guy a year and a half to figure out that Doug Glanville isn't a good hitter.

Jason

[ 06-10-2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Jason Moyer ]

Jason Moyer · 06-10-2002, 01:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bob didier:
?The problem with Gene Mauch as a field general in 1964?and it haunted him to his retirement?was that he held the game too tightly in his hand. Mauch was a brilliant strategist. I learned more about baseball as a chess game under Gene Mauch than I did under anybody else in baseball. The man?s a master of the little game ?when to bunt, how to steal a sign, what base to throw to, all the ways to outthink your opponent."<hr /></blockquote>Because he bunted anytime he had a guy on first and less than one out, he's a baseball genius? Geeze, since my teams in any baseball game I play lead the league in sac hits every year, maybe I should apply for a managing job.

The thing with Mauch that shows he wasn't a great manager, is that he was still trying to play little ball in the late 70's and 80's. It's no secret that in periods of pitching dominance, like the deadball era or 1962-1968 (when Mauch had most of his success, coincidentally) that one-run strategies are king, but by the time he retired he was being massacred by guys who played Earl Weaver style station-to-station ball. As a manager he was one-dimensional and unable to adjust. If he had managed in the 30's, 50's, or 90's I doubt he would've had a job for more than half a year.

Jason

Malleus Dei · 06-10-2002, 02:53 PM

What Jason said.

To Mauch, the sacrifice was manadatory. Even when it wasn't appropriate.

He was a well-thought of guy who was in over his head and who couldn't win a pennant.

CBL-Commish · 06-12-2002, 02:08 AM

I'm not going to defend Gene Mauch, but most of this argument about who was and wasn't a great manager assumes some high degree of correlation between managers' skills and managers' winning percentage. I don't think it's that easy. It's like saying a pitcher's winning percentage equates to how well he pitched. Well, sometimes it does, but often the best pitcher in the league ends up with something like a 15-13 or 11-14 record because of run support and bullpen quality. Managers' winning percentage correlates to skill even less than pitcher's winning percentage.

Casey Stengel's winning percentage with the Boston Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers, and NY Mets was sub-.500 12 out of 13 years, often sub-sub-sub-.500. Someone already mentioned Earl's record with the '85-86 O's. Check out Joe Torre's record with the Mets.

Just because Mauch had a bad winning percentage doesn't automatically mean he was a bad manager. Doesn't mean he was good either...

Malleus Dei · 06-12-2002, 03:19 AM

It wasn't just Mauch's bad winning percentage, but his inability to win a pennant over a twenty-year careeer, his choking (twice), and his inability to learn. A good - or even a competent - manager, in Mauch's historical positions, would have won at keast two pennants; Mauch didn't win any. And he never, ever learned.

Saying "he didn't have the horses" doesn't work. Compare his record with that of Billy Martin, who inherited some bad teams and didn't have them either.

Jason has it right; in the 90's Mauch would have been fired after one season and never seen again.

Jermanfu · 06-13-2002, 05:11 PM

Speaking of meltdowns (just because I find the topic interesting) here are a few names for you:
Bill Buckner, Donnie Moore (both in the same season Ironically) then there's Mitch Williams. Joe Carter knows about that one. And one more recently, Byung-Hyun Kim, althoug he was let off the hook by Luis Gonazales and teammates. This is a cool topic. How about some other baseball meltdowns? What are some of your favorites?

The Professor · 06-13-2002, 05:34 PM

1996 NLCS - The Cardinals blowing a huge series lead in epic fashion....

1949 Boston Red Sox, needed to win only 1 of the final two games against the Yankees and couldn't win either one.

Not really a meltdown but a return to reality - the 1993 (I think, can't exactly recall) Tigers. I remember they shot out in front of the AL East behind the big lumber of Fielder, Tettleton, Deer and Tony Phillips...and stayed close to the top up to the All-Star break before falling back out of contention. I think they were the last Sparky Anderson/Detroit team to even closely resemble a contender.

1985 Cardinals - Let the Royals get a new life, in St.Louis no less...then after the Game 6 Denkinger call, proceeded to implode in Game 7.

....to name just a few that spring to mind.

06-05-2002, 05:45 AM	#21
The Professor Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: East of East Posts: 3,020	Good players make a good manager...at least, a great deal of the time, they do. Mauch was an inexperienced manager in '64 with a ballclub that was to some extent playing way above itself. Nevertheless, he deserves the blame for the meltdown. Until he took over the Angels in the early 80s, Mauch managed rebuilding squads and also-rans. The Expos and Twins?? That may explain the sub-.500 record. Mauch is best compared to Tony LaRussa - they both were/are big "numbers & percentages" types. The #'s don't always pan out...and the manager gets the (perhaps deservedly) blame. Who knew? I disagree with the decision to pull Mike Witt in the '86 ALCS key game. BUT...Gary Lucas was the percentage choice (if you, like Mauch or LaRussa or a number of other fairly successful managers do, play the %). Lucas hadn't hit a batter all year...he promptly hit a batter. Then there is Donnie Moore, too sore to throw an effective splitter(his 'must' have pitch) and the rest is history. Nevermind that the Angels weren't dead after that game...they just came out flat. Same in '82...Mauch didn't pitch and he didn't hit. ...anyway, I can see why Mauch has the reputation he does, but while I'm not a "Mauch partisan" I wouldn't feel bad about letting Mauch manage any ballclub I owned. Cox has a lot of pennants...but I don't see him with too many WS rings and, talk about a guy who makes some odd decisions (and with the talent in Atlanta, he'd better win anyway...) Weaver had an All-World pitching staff and some great players in Baltimore. He didn't have those players in '85-'86...and he was a loser. (Now, don't get me wrong...I love Earl Weaver and have the utmost respect for him) So...in '64, yeah, Mauch deserves all the blame. In '82 and '86 the decisions were curious (plain bad) but the Angels still could have won either series. Great teams make great managers...in most cases...and neither the Expos or the Twins throughout most of the 1970s were great teams. __________________ History isn't really about the past - settling old scores. It's about defining the present and who we are."

06-05-2002, 06:03 AM	#22
biggamejrs Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Greenville, USA Posts: 212	Speaking of Bobby Cox. I am a huge Braves fan. I listen to or watch each game. But while I don't think Cox is horrible, I do think a better manager would have won us more World Series in the 90's. For example, earlier this season, Smoltzie had pitched in 3 of 4 games, one for 2 innings and another was a 30 pitch inning. Cox said in the pre-game show, "I will not use Smoltzie". Well he did and Smoltz blew his 2nd save. He was simply tired. I also think Millwoods problems stem from the way Cox used him. Never giving him solid rest in his first 2 years. Some times 3 days , other times 4, other times 5. I now think Millwood should be put in the pen. He always loses it in the 4th. But we have no other options for a starter. James __________________ Go Braves!!

06-05-2002, 06:20 AM	#23
bkurtz Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 161	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Malleus Dei: <strong>You guys really enjoying the personal insults? Coming from the sources that they are they are really meaningless and they aren't even having any effect besides making me even more contemptuous of a couple of you than I already was.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">funny coming from someone who has made personal insults his mark on this board over the years. quit the paranoia, lighten up and behave like a good boy (or girl).

06-05-2002, 08:05 AM	#26
SoxWin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Blissful ignorance Posts: 3,315	Seriously Bkurtz, I'm not the hugest fan of how Mal acts at times but this time you're way off base. NO personal insults were thrown until you and Bob Didier starting in on him. You may like Mauch, Mal may not, let's keep the discussions civilized and adult. Try the intelligent way and disagree with what his post said, not just posting dumb snide remarks. If you have a problem with Mal or anyone else, I recommend you keep that problem within the specific problem thread. Alternatley you could insult the person through pm or email if you really feel that petty. My $0.02, $0.05 CDN Cheers Rich __________________ It's called partying. When you do a lot of it, you're bound to be places where the police show up. I smoke a lot of pot and drink a lot of beer. I also graduated Suma Cum Laude. ****ing sue me. - Luis Rivera

06-05-2002, 08:27 AM	#27
wireman All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Harrisonburg VA Posts: 765	Sox Win, You spoke for me. Let's douse the flames. -- Louie __________________ "Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't."

06-09-2002, 08:12 PM	#30
HolyCow98 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Douglasville, GA Posts: 2,735	I have always believed players are the ones who are going to win the games. I judge a manager on mostly two points. Putting his players in the best postition to win and being able to motivate and keep the players focused to get the most out of the talent on hand. I mean if a team doesn't have alot of talent, the greatest manager in the world will not be able to overcome it. My spin on Bobby Cox is this, I do not think he is a great manager, a good one, but not great. I think he has the right style, being a player's manager, to keep the Braves focused and keeping them competitive every year over the last ten plus years. I think that maybe some other managers might have won more World Series than Bobby but I also think they not many would have been able to keep the team on track and in the postseason ten straight years. __________________ NPBL Enjoying its 60th season Georgia GM

06-10-2002, 12:13 PM	#32
bob didier Bat Boy Join Date: May 2002 Location: waxahachie Posts: 11	i wasn't really insulting him, just telling the truth...

06-10-2002, 12:34 PM	#33
bob didier Bat Boy Join Date: May 2002 Location: waxahachie Posts: 11	all i'm saying is that Mauch was thought of as a great tactician...one of the best managers by his peers, of which MD isn't... Richie Allen, "Crash: The Life and Times of Dick Allen", sums up my feelings. ?The problem with Gene Mauch as a field general in 1964?and it haunted him to his retirement?was that he held the game too tightly in his hand. Mauch was a brilliant strategist. I learned more about baseball as a chess game under Gene Mauch than I did under anybody else in baseball. The man?s a master of the little game ?when to bunt, how to steal a sign, what base to throw to, all the ways to outthink your opponent." MD give you credit, read MH all my life...at least you picked a decent writer... bye

06-10-2002, 01:17 PM	#34
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,108	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by cjlawl: <strong>Malleus Dei , Thank you for bringing up my fav. team sorry past and this year does not look much better. I am just a suffering phil fan.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The Phillies will never be a good team with Ed Wade as the GM. Last year Scott Rolen was the best third baseman in baseball. Instead of Ed doing the smart thing and negotiating with him, he criticizes him and says that they don't really need him. Within 24 hours at least 10 other GM's look up and say "uh, if you don't want him we'll take him." Additionally, he has yet to sign a free agent or make a trade that has helped the team at all. This is of course in addition to keeping guys like Byrd, Utley, Estrada, and Myers in AAA past their "use by" date. He's lucky he has the best minor league coordinator in baseball or they'd be a 60-100 team every year. Of course, the best Ed Wade move is using a 1st round draft pick on a left handed pitcher who broke his arm 2 years ago in the same place Dave Dravecky did. Why even participate in the amateur draft? What ever happened to Lee Thomas anyway? I remember those days of pulling off really low-key trades to get under-appreciated good players like Kruk, Greene, and Mulholland. He signs Lenny Dykstra who immediately puts up MVP-like production for the 2 years he's healthy. If those teams hadn't succumbed to freak injuries, I have no doubt they would have won at least 3-4 pennants from 1990-1995. Edit: Actually he did make one good trade, Mabry for Giambi. If he'd find a manager who knew how to win they'd have a shot at finishing .500 this year, at least. Larry Bowa was a great player but it takes the guy a year and a half to figure out that Doug Glanville isn't a good hitter. Jason <small>[ 06-10-2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Jason Moyer ]</small> __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

06-10-2002, 01:31 PM	#35
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,108	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by bob didier: <strong>?The problem with Gene Mauch as a field general in 1964?and it haunted him to his retirement?was that he held the game too tightly in his hand. Mauch was a brilliant strategist. I learned more about baseball as a chess game under Gene Mauch than I did under anybody else in baseball. The man?s a master of the little game ?when to bunt, how to steal a sign, what base to throw to, all the ways to outthink your opponent."</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Because he bunted anytime he had a guy on first and less than one out, he's a baseball genius? Geeze, since my teams in any baseball game I play lead the league in sac hits every year, maybe I should apply for a managing job. The thing with Mauch that shows he wasn't a great manager, is that he was still trying to play little ball in the late 70's and 80's. It's no secret that in periods of pitching dominance, like the deadball era or 1962-1968 (when Mauch had most of his success, coincidentally) that one-run strategies are king, but by the time he retired he was being massacred by guys who played Earl Weaver style station-to-station ball. As a manager he was one-dimensional and unable to adjust. If he had managed in the 30's, 50's, or 90's I doubt he would've had a job for more than half a year. Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

06-12-2002, 02:08 AM	#37
CBL-Commish All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Maryland Posts: 1,999	I'm not going to defend Gene Mauch, but most of this argument about who was and wasn't a great manager assumes some high degree of correlation between managers' skills and managers' winning percentage. I don't think it's that easy. It's like saying a pitcher's winning percentage equates to how well he pitched. Well, sometimes it does, but often the best pitcher in the league ends up with something like a 15-13 or 11-14 record because of run support and bullpen quality. Managers' winning percentage correlates to skill even less than pitcher's winning percentage. Casey Stengel's winning percentage with the Boston Braves, Brooklyn Dodgers, and NY Mets was sub-.500 12 out of 13 years, often sub-sub-sub-.500. Someone already mentioned Earl's record with the '85-86 O's. Check out Joe Torre's record with the Mets. Just because Mauch had a bad winning percentage doesn't automatically mean he was a bad manager. Doesn't mean he was good either... __________________ For the best in O's news: Orioles' Hangout.com

06-13-2002, 05:11 PM	#39
Jermanfu All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Baton Rouge, LA. Posts: 899	Speaking of meltdowns (just because I find the topic interesting) here are a few names for you: Bill Buckner, Donnie Moore (both in the same season Ironically) then there's Mitch Williams. Joe Carter knows about that one. And one more recently, Byung-Hyun Kim, althoug he was let off the hook by Luis Gonazales and teammates. This is a cool topic. How about some other baseball meltdowns? What are some of your favorites? __________________ "I took the two most expensive asprins in history." - Wally Pipp on his decision to sit out a game with a headache which let Lou Gehrig into the lineup for the first time. http://s10.photobucket.com/albums/a121/Jermanfu/

06-13-2002, 05:34 PM	#40
The Professor Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: East of East Posts: 3,020	1996 NLCS - The Cardinals blowing a huge series lead in epic fashion.... 1949 Boston Red Sox, needed to win only 1 of the final two games against the Yankees and couldn't win either one. Not really a meltdown but a return to reality - the 1993 (I think, can't exactly recall) Tigers. I remember they shot out in front of the AL East behind the big lumber of Fielder, Tettleton, Deer and Tony Phillips...and stayed close to the top up to the All-Star break before falling back out of contention. I think they were the last Sparky Anderson/Detroit team to even closely resemble a contender. 1985 Cardinals - Let the Royals get a new life, in St.Louis no less...then after the Game 6 Denkinger call, proceeded to implode in Game 7. ....to name just a few that spring to mind. __________________ History isn't really about the past - settling old scores. It's about defining the present and who we are."