When your team was facing the #1 or #2 pitchers of a team esp. on a “good day” you might hope your pitcher could keep you in the game. I mean, nobody in the NL was complaining about striking out too much against Gooden or Cone. Making contact, and perhaps playing “small ball” with walks, bunts or SB’s. Dwight Gooden went 24-4 in 2005 and both me and my dad were disappointed they came that close to catching the Cardinals. And in 1986 the Astros may have been a bit more of a match against the Mets, yet no way the Red Sox. I think the parachute guy made the difference.
ETA: I don’t think putting Bill Buckner into a game the Red Sox were almost guaranteed to win was a game changer. He was (with the Cubs) and was still a good first baseman, I reckon the Mets took advantage of facing not quite the correct (from the Sox perspective) pitchers.
Yet few are in the lofty ranks of strikeout leaders so I can understand those who yearn for putting the ball into play, “hitting it where they ain’t” and it does not have to go over the wall. Sure, yay a homer for our baseball squad, yet this isn’t the home run derby before the A.S. game. I can’t say much more till I hear Howie Rose (Mets) call a game, which I’ve not seen other than highlights in a few years.
[QUOTE=“Coriolanus, post:121, topic:1018654”]
ETA: I don’t think putting Bill Buckner into a game the Red Sox were almost guaranteed to win was a game changer. He was (with the Cubs) and was still a good first baseman, I reckon the Mets took advantage of facing not quite the correct (from the Sox perspective) pitchers.[/QUOTE]
If you mean Game 6 in 1986, Buckner STARTED that game, and I don’t think you can say the Red Sox were seen as guaranteed to win the game when it started.
Ahh okay. I was thinking, as he was retiring (I think) he was put in just to be on the field for what was to be the victory win for the Red Sox, yet the controversy was leaving him in rather than putting the youngest, freshest 1B in instead of him and I can understand McNamara leaving a veteran player in the game. I don’t recall there being any controversy over leaving him in before Mitchell, Carter and I think Knight had made it a possibility (I know in some documentary Keith Hernandez (who struck out to make it 2 outs?) went to the Manager’s office to watch it on TV). Then the second guessing began. Thanks for the correction.
ETA: And I do favor the theory that Mookie may have been safe were there no error. I can’t remember if the 2B or pitcher was covering first (also now I recall Buckner had some leg injury) but of course that’s moot on the game-winning error that allowed Knight I believe to score from first.
ETA2: And it was only the go-ahead run as this may still be the only (at least 7 game) World Series neither team won a game at home.
Well it’s hard to have controversy in a matter of a few minutes, after all. Buckner had a brutal Series overall - he not only made that error but went 6 for 32 with no extra base hits - but you don’t really notice that when your team is winning. When you’re up three games to two and one out away from winning that’s not on anyone’s mind.
Back to the thread topic, in looking up Buckner’s performance, I noted the 1986 Red Sox had THREE pitchers who threw at least ten complete games - Bruce Hurst threw 11, and Roger Clemens and Oil Can Boyd each had ten. You ain’t gonna see that again.
Obviously, not true, as the Red Sox won game 5 and the Mets won Games 6 and 7.
The only World Series with no home team wins was 2019, when the Nationals beat Houston (that may be the only time it’s ever happened in any North American pro sport; I am fairly sure it’s never happened in an NBA or Stanley Cup finals, but I’m not 100 percent sure.)
It isn’t possible for a Series that goes less than 7 to have no home team wins.
Schiraldi was coming over to cover the bag; people claim he wouldn’t have beaten Mookie or that Buckner could not have gotten to the base. I don’t buy it. Mookie was fast, but if you watch the play, the ball got to Buckner more than quickly enough to make the out. Of course Knight doesn’t score even if Buckner gets the ball but just doesn’t get Mookie.
As has famously been pointed out, Buckner was oddly strict about not making the putout at first on such plays; he was extremely insistent pitchers always come over to take the base. He’d stand there six feet from the base yelling at the pitcher on routine plays.
Yes, brain-freeze or something. I do remember the parachute-guy was game 6, after some lame balloon thing “Go sox” had landed on the field at Fenway during that series.
So yes to both of you, and Ray Knight jumping into home plate for the winning run. Also I mentioned how Hernandez went into the Manager’s office (Dunno if away-managers have much of an office and I was definitely thinking Johnson’s office) when he struck out in the 10th.
I did not know that. I just seem to recall he was fairly far behind first (maybe he wasn’t yet he had some leg injury) and Mookie was very fast. Had I recently (like today) watched the play I’d never have thought it was anywhere but Shea and I don’t think Knight would have jumped onto the plate and into several of his teammates arms if it were only a go-ahead in a visitor’s park.
I also definitely recall the next day Gary Carter standing in the outfield on morning news TV with his palms getting splashed with rain so game 7 was postponed. (and via wiki just now): Oil Can Boyd was scheduled to start, yet when he was told he was not as Hurst who had only given up 2 to the Mets got the game 7 start Boyd supposedly got so drunk the pitching coach locked him in the room for the game. Wow.
So I don’t know what I was on about. Certainly not the 2019 Nationals. And I can’t even claim any the Islanders did so as none of their 4 wins-in-a-row even went 7 games, only the 2nd cup was won at the Nassau Coliseum, and the last 2 were 4-0 sweeps won (ending) on the road.
And I can add that while I don’t quite remember the odds against either team, it would have been crushing in New York had the Mets not beaten the Astros or Red Sox whom they certainly were favored to beat.
I do know the not-yet-Miracle Mets of 1969 were 100-1 to win the World Series on opening day and would have still been heavy underdogs before the World Series against the Orioles began.
Wow, time can mess with even memorable stuff from even when you’re 19.
I do recall there being some questions about why Roger Clemens who was rolling along (in perhaps one of his best seasons, steroids or not) left game 6. Clemens says he wanted to stay in yet McNamara said that Clemens “begged out”
Hernandez flight out not struck out, yet now there’s two outs.
I know Schiraldi was responsible for Mitchell and Ray Knight and thus this would be his 2nd loss in the series
So McNamara brings in Bob Stanley, a righty who looks kind of chunky and slow. Mookie is a switch hitter yet this puts him on the left side of home plate and thus that much closer to first.
A wild-pitch tied it up as Mitchell scored from 3rd and advances Knight to 2nd.
When Mookie makes contact and the ball is passing Buckner the only angle I can see shows Mookie about to round first and does not show even the shadow or later arrival on Stanley on the scene. And no way - were he so inclined - could Buckner have beaten Mookie to first with the ball. Of course that wouldn’t win the game had he cleanly fielded it, yet the Red Sox would have had a chance to get to the 11th.
Also, in an eerie coincidence, the Mets went to Fenway fo an exhibition game on September 4th. In that game - forget who hit it - but the ball goes right through Buckner’s legs. It’s too bad as he was a good player - perhaps borderline HOFer. Yet after Game 6 no way.
None of the above except the extremely lame AB’s of the Red Sox pitchers or size of the bases, quality of the video and no superimposed strike zone box has really changed in the past 50 years so this has been a side-trip / hijack.
Where were we - the need for more ads on players uniforms to pay the bills, esp. as all that will be on the merchandise / jerseys and such you can buy? Disallowing 90+ MPH fast balls for better hitter contact? Regulating the arc and movement of too-tricky-to-hit off-speed pitches?
Buckner wasn’t retiring. He played another four seasons after that World Series. And, in 1986, he was the Sox’s everyday first baseman, having played 138 games at first during the regular season.
Your 39-year-old memories are playing tricks on you.
Well, I didn’t really follow the AL except take great pleasure that the Yankees sucked in much of the 80’s.
That is something that would have changed. Either better surgery techniques (he had been plagued by Achilles heel injuries in the mid 70’s) so perhaps could have had a better time with the Cubs. And by 1986 his legs would, in 21st century terms, be considered “shot” and unless they could do surgery, he’d likely not have played much or at all in 1986 though 138 games is quite respectable.
And who gets to determine if he’s going to cover first or demand the pitcher do it these days? So many times I recall Hernandez holding the ball at arms length pointing in the direction of 1st as he charged it, to signal, essentially, “He’s got it.”
And McNamara said Buckner “refused to come out of the game”. Maybe Casey Stengel would have said, “You got spunk, kid and are tough. Get out there!” while today the computer would say, “Defensive replacement called for.” Especially if this were not his last game of his career (or was scheduled for off-season surgery and who knows when).
Related to Shea (and changes in baseball), in the 80’s till some later time when they figured out they could put some really expensive seats there, they had a vast amount of foul territory. That was because of its former (by then) baseball-football-concerts role. And after watching that wild pitch that brought Mitchell home and advanced Knight, there did seem to be a lot of behind the plate room too.
It’s called the “safety bag,” and it’s an excellent idea. My understanding is that it’s used at many lower levels these days, as well as in women’s softball. It reduces the chances of collisions between a runner coming from home plate, and the first baseman (or other fielder) covering first base.
As shown in the picture below, the orange portion of the base (I think that college baseball may use a green bag) is there for the runner to step on, while running from home plate, and (AIUI), only the white portion is allowable for fielders to use while tagging the base. And, as you note, once the batter has safely reached base, only the white portion is considered to be “on base” for purposes of being tagged out or picked off.
When MLB made the bases a bit bigger prior to last season, I believe that they were also considering implementing the safety bag, but I guess that it was too big of a change, at least for now.
That seems a bit large yet might have been a good use for the three extra inches in MLB. MLB still has what ISTR was the “runners lane” for the last 40 feet or so on the first base side to the base? (which perhaps in College Ball is implied by this color change)
I mentioned up-thread how the “neighborhood play” is virtually extinct on double-plays now with instant replay as it’s all to easy to determine if the SS/2B’s foot actually touched 2nd before throwing to first and managers challenge occurs, and the runner to 2nd is safe (along with other force plays from the catcher and home plate, etc…). I had thought part of the reason that had been “allowed” wasn’t so much blind or lazy umpires, but to protect the fielder from collisions? I don’t know if something along these lines might be useful?
Clemens had throws 134 pitches already, which even back then was visibly a lot, and the Mets had hit him hard in the fifth and got two hits in the sixth. Pulling him made perfect sense.
On another note, I have been in favour of MLB adopting the safety bag for a long time.
The neighborhood call, which was always wildly problematic, is now specifically a thing umpires are ordered to not call, because the rules on collisions have been made stricter.
I think it’s obvious that “Close enough” calls are a terrible idea, and making it so runners aren’t allowed to literally football-hit infielders is just good baseball; some of the collisions you see in the 70s were fucking ridiculous.
By the same token though, it pisses me off no end when a runner is clearly safe at a bag by 10 feet but lifts his pinky a millimeter off the bag and is called out because the fielder happens to still have his glove on him.
Ha! The hidden ball trick, say a base runner on first (1B calls time and goes to chat with the pitcher and by sleight-of-hand balls the glove) and the pitcher even gets his signs and the first baseman (any base) tags the runner (presumably leading) out is still legal.
I can kinda see what you mean, yet quite often even on “safe plays” the 2nd or 3rd baseman will sweep the base with his glove again. Usually futile - yet this is professional baseball.
ETA: Base stealers will usually use their “free hand” to call time if they’re concerned with how they look, etc. Till then, they are fair game if they are “off the base”
The situation I’m thinking of is a runner slides into the base on a close play, they’re still on the ground/half tangled on the base and the fielder is holding the ball on the runner’s back while the runner tries to get to his feet without losing contact.
Wow, literally holding the glove on him all that time? The runner can always call “time” and I assume if he’s made it clear, the umpire calls it out loud and raises his arms. And the runner should make sure of the umpire’s acknowledgement.
Yet, nonetheless, if a base-runner is “off the base” and time has not been called and he’s tagged, he is quite out.
ETA: Back to the hidden ball trick, that runner best be sure whatever fielder has indeed returned the ball to the pitcher (when time is back “on” and play commences)
I still haven’t seen a gave live over here in the UK (n a few years) yet. When the Mets return home that’ll be much more likely.
I only just noticed the circled 4 on the players uniforms. Son of a Brooklyn Dodger fan and never a Yankee fan, to me “#4” means Lou Gehrig (as #3 is the Babe) as even any Dodger fan would acknowledge (they weren’t on the teams that kept on beating my Dad’s Dodgers anyway).
So “4” is a tribute to #42 who very much was on the Brooklyn club my dad grew up with and was a part of the one Brooklyn Dodger win in 1955 over the despised Yankees.
I know they grandfathered out #42 and retired it around the league. There can’t be any current #42’s right?
I could not quite figure out what the “4” means yet if it means a tribute to Jackie Robinson and every player is wearing it, I approve. As I ain’t buying whatever they’re selling on the sleeves.
