Master Index of Archived Threads


What Would Gil Have Done?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 19 2013 04:34 PM

Swan Swan H wrote: Turner not activated, the bench consists of Brown, Recker, Lagares and Satin. All righties - a pox on the evil Bastardo. You deserve a gold star just for being able to identify the Mets bench. When I was a kid, a bench was typically seven, sometimes eight players -- as many subs as starters. Swan Swan H wrote: Very true. It was easy to platoon at a couple of positions when you have practically another full squad to call on, and probably more necessary to keep guys fresh. It's actually much easier these days to name a team's bench. The tougher assignment is keeping the entire bullpen straight. These posts in tonight's IGT thread got me to wondering how Gil Hodges would have managed the champion 1969 Mets if pitch counts were in vogue in 1969 and strictly enforced, thus requiring a team to carry more pitchers than were actually needed back then. The 1969 Mets, playing in today's environment, would be assisted by the fact that a greater percentage of teams now qualifiy for the expanded wild card playoffs. Thus, today, a team that on paper, could be reasonably expected to win about 85 games is a contender. Not so in 1969, when you probably needed to field a team that could be expected to win 90+ games to contend, maybe closer to 95 wins in a tough division. Today's pitch counts - necessitating a smaller bench - would have probably hampered the 1969 's WS champion Mets to a greater degree than their rivals because of the extent to which Hodges platooned his players. The 1969 Cubs, on the other hand, might've been the greatest beneficiaries of today's pitch count system because their starting eight were essentially the same starting eight all season long: the 1969 Cubs were a team built around stars and excellent every day players, much more so than the '69 Mets, who overcame that particular Cubs advantage with a deeper bench and deeper front-line pitching. Here are the '69 Mets who received the most playing time, in descending order, according to PA's: 1. Agee-635 2. Jones-558 3. Harrelson-457 4. Garrett-454 5. Grote-406 6. Boswell-405 7. Kranepool-396 8. Swoboda-375 9. Shamsky-349 10. Weis-269 11. Gaspar-250 12. Clendenon-226 13. Pfeil-223 14. Martin-192 15. Charles-189 16. Otis-102 17. Dyer-79 18. Collins-43 19. Gosger-16 20. Heise-13 Clendenon was acquired at the trading deadline (6/15/69) so prorating his PA's by team games, he'd appear higher up on the list. J.C. Martin, the 14th most used Met in '69 would nevertheless be a mandatory roster inclusion even with a tiny modern bench, as he was the 2d string catcher. It appears that one player from each of these two groups --Charles/Weis and Gaspar/Pfeil -- would've had to have been jettisoned due to roster size restrictions. This would give Hodges a five man bench, assuming Otis through Heise are merely sporadic callups used to replace injured or military dutied Mets, which is pretty much how Otis through Heise were actually used in '69.

Swan Swan H Jul 19 2013 04:57 PM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

Great premise. I could look up how often Gil started lefties vs. lefties, but I want to do this by memory and feel. My guess would be these 13: C: Grote, Martin 1B: Kranepool, Clendenon (Ed ALWAYS gets first billing here on the Pool) 2B: Boswell, Weis SS: Harrelson 3B: Charles, Garrett LF: Jones CF: Agee RF: Shamsky, Swoboda This removes Dyer and Gaspar from the actual 1969 post-season roster. Garrett and Weis could play 2B and SS, so there were plenty of ways to go there. Gil loved to use Gaspar on defense in RF, but that may be a luxury he couldn't afford. If Gaspar made it Weis would have to go, and that kills the platoon advantage at 2B. I remember vaguely that the final post-season spot came down to Pfeil and Jack DiLauro. By 1973 Garrett was pretty much an everyday player, but I don't think Gil would have given him a lot of starts against lefties at that stage in his career. Fortunately for the Mets, the 1969 Cubs center field situation was pretty fluid, delivering Don Young to misplay two fly balls in that afternoon game where Kranepool singled in the winning run. The rest of their lineup was pretty iconic in their franchise history.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 19 2013 05:10 PM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

Interesting that you more or less kept the entire infield intact, cutting loose both Gaspar and Pfeil. It makes sense -- Pfeil was a luxury, especially with a five man bench. By the way, this exercise isn't limited to the playoffs. The pitch count enforcement would've likely hit the '69 Mets the hardest during the regular season by undermining their strongest asset -- starting pitching. Seaver, Koosman and Gentry would've probably pitched, collectively, 100 fewer innings. I'd bet that a good chunk of those innings would've gone to Dilauro.

Swan Swan H Jul 19 2013 05:19 PM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

Pfeil mostly played 3B, if I remember, with Harrelson missing time for military callups and Weis and Garrett playing short. Seaver, Koosman, Cardwell, Gentry and McAndrew got most of the starts, but it seemed like they had a ton of doubleheaders back then and it played havoc on the rotation. DiLauro and Ryan were the 6 and 7, but not necessarily in that order. Those seven, McGraw, Koonce and Taylor were the post-season pitchers. I really can't remember any other pitchers who threw many innings in '69. Frisella, maybe?

Edgy MD Jul 20 2013 07:17 AM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

The irony is, Gil (or more accurately, Walker) was an early proponent of pitch counts. I think what he would have done is what he did --- and what the Mets of today should do --- and that's retain relievers who can throw several innings in an appearance. It's less taxing, from my perspective, to throw 90 innings in 40 appearances than to throw 70 innings in 60 appearances (or 80!). And it keeps the manager and organization from having to dig deeper and deeper for lesser and lesser pitchers.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 20 2013 10:29 AM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

Gil had two pitchers on his staff who would've been perfectly suited for long relief: Nolan Ryan, who had not yet transitioned to pure starting pitcher and essentially was their long RH reliever in '69, and Tug McGraw, who had not yet fully transitioned to pure reliever, and even spot started a few games in '69. But your post opens up another can of worms. The relief pitchers union that would one day successfully brainwash almost all of baseball and decree that the best relief pitchers must only pitch the 9th inning because the accumulation of their saves takes precedence over the goals of the team had not yet been born. That union couldn't exist in 1969 because Gil's players (like all the other players) were still slaves with no leverage, bound to the owners' interpretation of the reserve clause. So maybe this premise should be rephrased to ask what would Gil have done if the 1969 NL had to play their season under today's conditions.

Zvon Jul 20 2013 12:39 PM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

Vaaaaaary Interesting. I would think under todays conditions, taking into consideration Gils managing style and the '69 teams personal, things play out differently.

Edgy MD Jul 20 2013 01:56 PM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Gil had two pitchers on his staff who would've been perfectly suited for long relief: Nolan Ryan, who had not yet transitioned to pure starting pitcher and essentially was their long RH reliever in '69, and Tug McGraw, who had not yet fully transitioned to pure reliever, and even spot started a few games in '69. Cal Koonce and Jack DiLauro were also regularly turning out multi-inning appearances. batmagadanleadoff wrote: But your post opens up another can of worms. The relief pitchers union that would one day successfully brainwash almost all of baseball and decree that the best relief pitchers must only pitch the 9th inning because the accumulation of their saves takes precedence over the goals of the team had not yet been born. Well, if it's pointless to be countercultural, then it's pointless, but we're asking what a strong leader would do, the assumption seems to be that he would have the courage to zag when others are zigging. Beyond that, though, if you want an apple that isn't spoiled, then go straight to the tree. Start with a crew of young, pre-arbitrational bullpenenners, guys who've started much of their minor league careers, and so aren't yet conditioned to live for a single inning, and guys know how lucky they are to have any big-league assignment, and so are unlikely to complain (especially about usage that spares them). In a pen of five/six/seven/eight guys, if one guy balks, complaining that as closer, he's only going to give you one inning/save situation work, well, you have a bunch of other guys who'd be happy to be the featured guy on the same terms as McGraw. Bill James suggests that a guy with Mariano Rivera's career, or Trevor Hoffman's, if used less frequently for longer stints, brought into tie games as well as narrow leads, as early as the eighth or even the seventh (clutches pearls) would maybe only save 20-30 games instead of 45, but might win 20 as well.* The first time somebody pulls off that trick, everybody in the league will want to do it. *And if Jesse Orosco could win 13 (three more than any starter on the teaam) in 1983 and Roger McDowell 14 in 1986, with a role sort of but not quite like the Bill James model, I don't see why this couldn't be true.

seawolf17 Jul 21 2013 07:18 AM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

Ryan started 10 games in '69. You wonder, if he was pressed into service just a little more, and struck out just a few more guys...

seawolf17 Jul 21 2013 07:21 AM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

The thing about roster/bullpen/bench that will always stay with me from my baseball interactions as a kid is that Micro League Baseball on the C64 had exactly ten pitching slots. The 1927 Yankees used nine pitchers for all but one of their innings that season, which meant Walter Beall, with only one IP all season, from one game in May, made the roster.

RealityChuck Jul 21 2013 09:49 AM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

seawolf17 wrote: Ryan started 10 games in '69. You wonder, if he was pressed into service just a little more, and struck out just a few more guys... What he did in 1969 was irrelevant. It's what he did in 1971 that got him traded.

Ashie62 Jul 21 2013 11:33 AM Re: What Would Gil Have Done?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Gil had two pitchers on his staff who would've been perfectly suited for long relief: Nolan Ryan, who had not yet transitioned to pure starting pitcher and essentially was their long RH reliever in '69, and Tug McGraw, who had not yet fully transitioned to pure reliever, and even spot started a few games in '69. But your post opens up another can of worms. The relief pitchers union that would one day successfully brainwash almost all of baseball and decree that the best relief pitchers must only pitch the 9th inning because the accumulation of their saves takes precedence over the goals of the team had not yet been born. That union couldn't exist in 1969 because Gil's players (like all the other players) were still slaves with no leverage, bound to the owners' interpretation of the reserve clause. So maybe this premise should be rephrased to ask what would Gil have done if the 1969 NL had to play their season under today's conditions. Sadly, he likely would have gone by rote as most do today..