The attitude we could use in politics and not just baseball

From new L.A. Angels manager and self-professed baseball generational lifer:

“In the game of baseball, what it is about is adjusting and readjusting,” he said. “As long as you make adjustments and you readjust to things after you’ve made that adjustment, you’re going to be fine in baseball. I’ve adjusted and readjusted to a few generations. I’ve adjusted and readjusted to a bunch of changes in the game. It hasn’t done anything to my style of teaching, or my style of the game.

“I see the difference in the game. And I see where it comes in application. And while I’m the manager now, when this new style of baseball can be applied, I’m not going to miss it. I’ve been through it. What I’m trying to do is get the guys that have to go between those lines to understand that we just want to be prepared for every part of the game of baseball. Every part.”

Before he was hired by the Angels, Ron Washington was a Braves coach for seven seasons. He’d previously coached with the A’s and managed the Rangers. (John Bazemore / Associated Press)
I then reminded him of a story he once told me about a disagreement he had with the Braves’ analytics department, over infield positioning. He concluded that debate by telling one of the members of that department: “I want you to teach me what you know. But then I want you to let me teach you what I know.” That’s an expression that has been stuck in my head ever since.

Is there any better way a baseball lifer could reach a meeting of the minds with a new-age baseball thinker than that? Let’s learn from each other. That’s the message Washington wanted to convey, then and now — and it feels like it ought to solve everything.

“It’s not hard, if you’re willing to adjust and readjust,” he said. “It’s not hard at all. … What happens is, you make every person feel invested. And in this business, that’s all you want to do, is be invested in what’s going on. Now it may not work your way. But at least I had an opinion. You see what I’m saying?

“And that’s all you want,” he said. “And all I want from them is to recognize the wisdom and knowledge down here — just like you want us to recognize the wisdom and the knowledge up there. Let’s talk about it. That’s all I want to do.”

-- Starkville podcast

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

JSul3 · 70-79

Had Ron Washington made a change in right field, for a better defensive player, in game 6, the Rangers would have won the WS against the Cardinals.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@JSul3

Who needs a bleeping pitch clock! That game was 4 1/2 hours long - and even though the Redbirds won - it was still one of the most exciting World Series games I've seen in my lifetime (with the exception of our four wins in 2016, of course).

JSul3 · 70-79

@beckyromero I am old enough to recall games that lasted well under 3 hours long.
What changed? Players like Mike Hargrove, began an absurd routine between every pitch: step out, adjust helmet, adjust belt, adjust batting glove, wipe face, take a practice swing or two, etc. Then, 'pitching specialists' where managers began changing pitchers at will...many times from batter to batter...lengthy, multiple trips to the mound, etc. Totally absurd. The adjustment of the strike zone. The 'high strike' at the letters is rarely if ever called....in fact, many times, nothing above the belt is called a strike. I have not looked at a rule book, but I know at one time, the strike zone was from the arm pits to the knees. If it is still that way, then enforce it!

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@JSul3 Exactly. I like the results the pitch clock has gotten, but it shouldn't have been necessary. The basic rule on time taken by pitcher or hitter with a penalty of ball/strike call has been in the books forever, but the umps stopped enforcing it. Ditto on strike zones. They fell into the "3 true outcomes" brainwash of turning the game into a home run derby, sitting around for the grooved gopher ball. It's not about the length of the game, but the pace of the game. That said, you increase the pace (and thus the action, the athleticism, the enjoyment) the overall time is shortened as well.

I, too, remember the days where the 2 1/2 hour game was the norm, and under 2 hours not a freak show--right up until the 1980's. Holtzman, Catfish, Vida used to say if the game went over 2 hours they should be paid overtime.

JSul3 · 70-79

@dancingtongue I go back to the Ford, Koufax, Marichal, Gibson days.

Gibson became so dominant that the height of the mound was reduced.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@JSul3

The number of pitching changes in a game probably has to do with adding more time than the number of pick-off throws.

And the strike outs? All these new ballparks with less distance to the power alleys and deep center make swinging for the fences more inticing.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@JSul3 Likewise

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@beckyromero Cruz's misplace was Wash's McNamara moment. Glaring failure to make defensive replacement in the final inning of what should have been the final out of the World Series. Wash's error was not quite as bad as Cruz was more of an adequate fielder than Buckner, was not injured as Buckner, and had contributed offensively to the Rangers being where they were unlike Buckner. Otoh, Cruz was not positioned correctly in rightfield. Whether this was a coaching mistake or Cruz ignoring the coaching staff has never been clear as far as I know.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@dancingtongue

Hey! Our Buckner (speaking as a [u]Cubs[/u] fan to defend one of our players before I was born - but NONETHELESS a Cubs alumni) was not a bad fielder at all!

[quote](Cruz) had contributed offensively to the Rangers being where they were unlike Buckner[/quote]

LOL! WTF are you talking about?! You'd better re-watch game 5 of the ALCS that year and see who started the 9th inning rally for the Red Sox.

Not only that, but Buckner had 39 doubles, 18 homeruns and 102 RBIs for the pennant-winning Red Sox.

Not "contributed offensively" my ass!

If Stapleton had been Boston's starting first baseman all year instead of Buckner, they'd have finished no higher than third and quite possibly SIXTH in the A.L. East.

And as bad as Stapleton was, Todd Benzinger at AAA wasn't ready to call up, so please don't come back with they could have "called someone up." Stapleton pre-dated McNamara in Boston and he was making $300,000/year. So McNamara was stuck with him. If you want to blame the GM for not getting his manager someone better, then that's different.

Stapleton managed to achieve a -0.9 WAR in a mere 42 plate appearances. Translate that out to Buckner's 681 plate appearances and that's a horrible -15! Cleveland was in 5th that year, 11.5 games behind Boston. (Buckner was a -0.3 WAR for the year).

While Buckner's range was slowed by injuries, it was not a factor at all. He was historically a good glove man!

Buckner was a -3 total zone fielding runs above average over 1200 innings played. His would-be replacement, Dave Stapleton, was -13 !!! So that's hardly a reason to pull Buckner.

Moreover, Stapleton couldn't hit his weight! (Not kidding; he weighed 178 and he hit .128 that year!). The Mets had the heart of their lineup up coming up. They were a 108 win team that produced a lot of comeback wins (look what they did against Houston in the NLCS). Why take a weapon out of your hands that you may need later if the Mets tie the game? It was a freak play. The ball simply went thru his legs while he was clearly in position to make the play. He probably wouldn't have beat light-speed Mookie Wilson to the bag anyway. Not to mention the Red Sox would have probably still found a way to lose.

Unlike Buckner, statistics show Cruz [u]WAS[/u] way below average fielder for his position that year.

Cruz was a -7. His replacement in RF in the 11th inning of that game, Dan Murphy, was +14.

First, remember they are playing in Busch Stadium. There is no DH in this game.

Josh Hamilton was the starting left field and Nelson Cruz started the game in right.

Craig Gentry, the starting centerfielder (who had only 133 at bats that season) was pulled from the game since Murphy had successfully pinch-hit for him with a walk. Gentry, a right-handed batter, had started the game against lefty Jaime Garcia. He had singled and would score the Rangers second run of the game in the 2nd inning. (Endy Chávez had started the most games in CF that year, but he batted left.)

Murphy's single in the 7th led to the Rangers third run of the inning and a 7-4 lead.

So, the decisions by Wash regarding Gentry and his replacement (Murphy) had led directly to two Ranger runs already.

Chávez batted for pitcher Mike Adams in the bottom of the 9th and flied out to end the inning.

Cruz was playing Freeze deep in the 9th to try to prevent a double from tying the score (runners were on first and second). I re-visited the replay today it looks certainly looks like he simply misplayed the flight of the ball. Cruz had plenty of time to catch it. He [u]should[/u] have caught it. Did he lose it in the lights? Was wind a factor? Was he worried about the wall? Maybe there is some post-game interview that explains it.

Cruz had left the game after hitting in the top of the 11th after he suffered a strained right groin with a fly out. But Murphy, who took over in RF for Cruz, really wasn't really a bench or defensive-replacement type of player. He was an everyday player already in the game (having batting in the 5th). He hadn't started so the Rangers could gain the platoon advantage, something they did indeed take advantage of. Murphy then look over left field, with Josh Hamilton moving to CF.

Chávez, with all three OF positions (though principally a centerfielder), was a -2 defensively. Better than Cruz. But to leave him in the game would mean moving the pitcher's spot to another part of the order. Who would YOU take out of the game to leave Chávez in?

Your lineup at the moment is now:
Kinsler, 2b
Andrus, ss
Hamilton, cf?
All due up in the 10th inning, if there is one.

Moreland, 1b (Young is already out of the game)
soon to be Hall of Famer, Beltre, 3b
Cruz, rf
Napoli, c
Gentry, cf
Chávez, ph

If there is a 10th, to score any runs at all, at least Moreland's spot in the order will come up, probably Beltre's as well. The 6th spot in the inning would be that of Cruz.

So are you going to pull a double-switch, put Chávez in right and the pitcher's spot in the 6th position and hope you win the game before the pitcher's spot comes up?

Maybe you don't hit for Adams. And let the pitcher bat for himself in the bottom of the 9th with a 7-5 lead.

LOL!

Keep in mind that Adams had given up two singles to the first two batters he faced in the bottom of the 8th before getting Rafael Furcal to ground out.

In 48 regular season games, Adams got as many as four outs in a game ONE TIME. Let that sink in: ONE TIME. So do you really want to pin your hopes on winning the World Series with this guy on the mound? Doing that is FAR MORE RISKY than the obscenely low probability that Nelson Cruz is going to misplay a fly ball into a triple with two runners on base already one base against your top reliever and thereby resulting in a tied game.

Your ace reliever with 32 saves, Neftali Feliz, is in the bullpen and ready. So the right play is to indeed pinch hit for the guy you are going to remove from the mound anyway.

Chávez flied out and he's done for the night. Feliz comes in and will bat in the same 9th spot.

In the bottom of the inning, Feliz strikes out Ryan Theriot but then Albert Pujols doubles. Lance Berkman, a 31-homerun guy who could tie the game on one swing, walks. Then Feliz strike out pinch-hitter Allen Craig and gets two strikes on David Freese before Freese ties the game with the triple to right.

So maybe you still say, well pinch hit for Adams with someone else! Then Chávez can come into the game in the bottom of the 9th and hit in Cruz' spot.

Pinch hit with who exactly? Mitch Moreland is already in the game, having replaced Michael Young at first for defensive purposes (Young already having made two errors in the game that had resulted in two Cardinal runs, one each in separate innings). Young had never played first base in the majors before 2011. He had principally been a shortstop. But he was in there so that the younger (and better shortstop, too) Elvis Andrus could play, Andrus having starting 140+ a season at short since 2009.

Since you would have removed Buckner, don't you also remove Young? If you do then, sorry, you can't have Moreland as a pinch-hitter for Adams since he'll already be in the game.

So you may scream, "I would have started Moreland! Then I can have Young as my pinch-hitter!"

But why is Young starting the game anyway? Because he hits right and a lefty is on the mound to start the game. Young went 2 for 4 with an RBI in the game before coming out in the 7th. Moreland, who batted from the left side, hit .234 and slugged .279 versus lefties in 2011, with a mere 3 extra base hits in 111 at bats.

So maybe you finally concede that Wash's starting lineup is the correct one. You start Young at first and replace him with Moreland when the platoon situation disappears and you have a 7-4 lead entering the bottom of the 7th.

The moral of this post is that you can't pick on one decision by a manager unless you understand the events that led up to that decision - and then you must justify how you would have managed ALL the decisions of that game leading up to that to garner a different result.

JSul3 · 70-79

@beckyromero Nice analysis. Sometimes the human factor results in bad things....or the baseball gods intervene.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@beckyromero @JSul3 My reference was totally to Buckner's performance in the World Series and due to the injury is playing through. Sorry if I struck a few sore points there. Now my Buckner connection(s) were actually sitting in the ballpark watching his FIRST World Series blunder for the Dodgers, testing the arms of Reggie Jackson and Dick Green, trying to leg out a triple and killing a potential late inning rally for the Dodgers. He never played for my team, but his mother worked for the same firm I did.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@dancingtongue "(Cruz) had contributed offensively to the Rangers being where they were unlike Buckner."

What does that mean exactly?

I'd take that to mean you believe that Buckner's offensive contributions to the Red Sox were negligible to getting to the post-season and World Series, whereas Cruz's offensive contributions were.

The LDS didn't exist in 1986. In the LDS in 2011, Cruz hit .067, that being a single in 15 at bats (along with 4 strikeouts).

In the ALCS, Cruz was on fire, hitting .365 with 6 HR's and 11 RBIs. Buckner, meanwhile, hit .214, but with 3 runs scored and 3 RBIs in the 7 game series. His bat struggled in the World Series, hitting .188. Cruz, although he hit 2 homeruns in the World Series, was only 5 for 25 himself though.

Cruz played only 124 games in the regular season with a WAR of 1.5. But the time he missed made Texas having to rely on less capable players. Buckner's WAR was -0.3, But he played 153 games and had an especially hot bat in September, hitting .315 and slugging .939.

So, I think the record clearly reflects that Buckner's offensive contributions to the Red Sox in 1986 played a great part in "being were they were" (i.e. the World Series).

Sorry that you remember Buckner by his lack-luster performance in the 1974 World Series - in which they as a TEAM four of five games against a dynastic Oakland club. But I wonder if the Dodgers would have been there had they still been playing Manny Mota and Von Joshua in left? Might not it been Cincinnati instead?

We gave up a great Cub to get Buckner. And it seems Rick Monday had a lot to do with the Dodgers getting to a World Series in 1981. And I think it was disgusting how Boston fans treated Buckner because of that error.

The guy had over 2700 hits in his career. And because he was always giving 100% on the field, he suffered the ankle injuries early in his career with the Dodgers that stopped him from getting 3,000 - and a Hall of Fame plaque.

We once won a pennant (and eventually the World Series) because a Giant runner failed to touch second base on what would otherwise have been a game-winning hit by his teammate. The game ended up tied and called because of darkness. Because we and the Giants ended up tied after 153 games, the tie game was replayed - and we won the pennant. The 1926 World Series ended because Babe Ruth tried to steal second base and was tagged out.

Errors, blunders and bad split-second decisions are part of baseball - because no human being is perfect.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@dancingtongue

And maybe the Dodgers keep the lead in game 5 if the stubborn relief pitcher takes a few warm-up tosses while the field is cleaned up instead of grooving in a fast ball for Joe Rudi to pounce on like a lion on an antelope.

[media=https://youtu.be/oenW2YU2JsY]

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@beckyromero True. The Dodgers lost that World Series because of their arrogance. Just as arrogance cost the Reds to that A's team two years prior. Of the three consecutive A's World Series titles, the toughest was against the Mets because they didn't come into it with that total air of superiority and disdain of the Mustache Gang.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@dancingtongue

You just had to mention the Mets. 🤮

JSul3 · 70-79

@dancingtongue No issues for me. Excellent exchanges....a rarity sometimes on SW.

JSul3 · 70-79

@beckyromero "That's how baseball go." Ron Washington.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@beckyromero[quote] "(Cruz) had contributed offensively to the Rangers being where they were unlike Buckner."
[/quote]

As I clarified earlier, I was speaking of his World Series performance, not his full year's contribution.

[quoteAnd I think it was disgusting how Boston fans treated Buckner because of that error.
][/quote]

I agree. My issue was totally with McNamara's decision. Buckner's leg issues were so bad by the time they got to the World Series that McNamara had lifted him for defensive reasons in the latter innings of three of the preceding WS games, but didn't when it counted the most. Not hindsight on my part: I remember screaming at the TV from the beginning of the inning, before the error ever happened, to take him out, to the point that my wife chided me. The Cruz move, I'll admit, I am not as conversant with. Too much else going on in my life at that time with the passing of my wife. Not sure I even watched it at the time.

[quote]You just had to mention the Mets. 🤮[/quote]

Consider how I feel: McNamara (former manager of the A's); Washington (twice 3B/infield coach for the A's); Nelson Cruz (A's prospect, given away); Rick Monday (first draft pick in MLB history, by the A's and an A before being shipped to the Cubs); Joe Rudi (Finley tried to sell him to the Red Sox in a deal nixed by the Commissioner and he went to the Angels as a free agent). . .and the beat goes on.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@JSul3[[/quote]No issues for me. Excellent exchanges....a rarity sometimes on SW.[/quote]

The great thing about baseball. Unlike most other professional sports you can have a civilized debate without a riot breaking out, and it can still be raging a century or more later over the likes of Ruth and Merkle.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

@dancingtongue [quote]Consider how I feel: McNamara (former manager of the A's); Washington (twice 3B/infield coach for the A's); Nelson Cruz (A's prospect, given away); Rick Monday (first draft pick in MLB history, by the A's and an A before being shipped to the Cubs); Joe Rudi (Finley tried to sell him to the Red Sox in a deal nixed by the Commissioner and he went to the Angels as a free agent). . .and the beat goes on.[/quote]

facebook.com/baseballhall/videos/reggie-jackson-on-john-mcnamara/719184722203729/

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@beckyromero It was a remarkable team for the times. He also has repeatedly credited Joe Rudi for inviting him to be a roommate in those segregated minor league days.