Master Index of Archived Threads


What I loved about the Davey Johnson Mets

Bret Sabermetric Jan 26 2006 05:19 PM

1) the way Davey would play kids, or give other team's castoffs a chance. I love the fact they promoted Dykstra when they had Mookie, and let him push the popular and adequate Mookie into LF. I love the way Davey found a job (or half a job) for Backman, whom he had managed at Tidewater. I'm still blown away by the fact that he put Gooden in the rotation at age 19. Even if that hadn't worked, he just found all these kids--Darling, Fernandez, McDowell, have them loads of work, and they responded. DJ said "Mitchell doesn't look like a shortstop? Fuck that. He hits and I'll find him at-bats if I have to do by inventing a position for him to play." I loved the guts Davey would show every week, if not every game. 2) Your go.

soupcan Jan 26 2006 05:39 PM

- Cause he just 'let the kids play' with hands-off style managing and 'what me worry?' attitude. - Thought it was pretty cool that the guy who made the last out of the '69 Series was the manager that brought a champeenship back to Shea. - His nasty, tough-guy scar on his neck from getting spiked when he was a player. - Just ballsy as hell. Next...

KC Jan 26 2006 05:58 PM

I loved the way I felt because the Mets owned New York again. It's funny, but really Davey's teams kinda underachieved by only winning one title and the collection of misfits that we all love (and loved) should have done more but some people pine for the good old days because they're unhappy with the current state of the Mets. That's funny ... oh, I said that. I hate Billy Joel, but the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad it seems.

G-Fafif Jan 26 2006 06:02 PM

Because he told Frank Cashen to take the bill from United Airlines and stick it in his bowtie.

G-Fafif Jan 26 2006 06:03 PM

And told his players to skip the practice in Fenway before Game Three.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 26 2006 06:04 PM

I loved the fact that they were scrappy. They always played hard.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 26 2006 06:49 PM

What makes Gooden starting the 1984 season in the rotation even more surprising was that the Mets were still smarting from what happened to Tim Leary a few years before. It took guts to give that job to a 19-year-old. I remember at the time hoping that they would, and being pleasantly surprised that they did.

KC Jan 26 2006 07:04 PM

I don't remember a guttiness factor. While I wasn't as tuned in as today with the resources we have at our disposal, I remember most accounts as Doc was a can't miss and Davey was probably licking his chops instead of pressing his lips with guttiness.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 26 2006 07:05 PM

There were two types of games in 1986 - the games they would win with dominance, and the games they would win by coming from behind. They had spunk, I tell ya!

KC Jan 26 2006 07:14 PM

My softball friends and I still joke about '86 and how we'd go our friends porch for a few victory beers and we'd put the Mets game on and they were down by two in the 7th and we'd laugh and say, "got 'em right where we want 'em".

MFS62 Jan 26 2006 07:42 PM

I loved the way he was not only the first ML manager I read about who knew how to use a computer*, but he used it to maintain statistics that helped him make some managerial decisions. *= IIRC he had a Masters Degree in Mathematics. Later

DocTee Jan 26 2006 07:44 PM

I always thought Tony "the genius' LaRussa ushered that in...

seawolf17 Jan 26 2006 07:58 PM

I loved the brawls. Ray Knight, Straw, Doc, Cooter's... so many great brawls. We were at Shea on [url=http://www.ultimatemets.com/gamedetail.php?gameno=3929]July 11, 1986[/url], when Gary hit a three-run homer in the first and a grand slam in the second; David Palmer hit Straw with the next pitch, the dugouts cleared, and the place went bonkers. I thought I remembered a bunch of people getting thrown out of the game, but I guess that was just my ten-year-old mind, because UMDB shows only Palmer leaving after that (and maybe Mex, who was one of the major antagonists).

KC Jan 26 2006 08:20 PM

Gooden was a no-brainer in my mind, and didn't require any special managerial magic or an IBM AT with a 20 MB hard drive so I went back and looked for a spring training article in the NYT Wayback Machine. Found one from 03/14/1984 by respected columnist, Joseph Durso. Some quotes ... “DG pitched thre more strong innings today on the road to what looks like a full-time job on the Mets at the age of 19” Re: what was a B spring training game “But the Cardinals played it with almost all their regular players (he names them and Allen comments that he can pitch in the big leagues right now) and then scout for the Expos says, “I'll take him right now”. Re: his jump from A to AAA: “”In his first six games,” Perlozzo said, “he won three and lost three. Then he won 15 straight. He overpowered the league. He has big league stuff, and he could make it if there's a big league opportunity for him this season”.” “Johnson was asked if Gooden was close to winning a job than he was a month ago, when spring training began. He hesitated a moment, and said, “No.” Then he laughed at his own little mystery, and said, “but that doesn't mean that he wasn't close a month ago.”” Not exactly a man with an iron stomach for going out on a limb and taking a chance on the kid who helped Tidewater win the minor league playoffs under his watch from the bench. The other funny thing I found in the column was the close referring to the fact that the Mets were looking for new talent to help erase public reaction to the mistake that allowed the White Sox to claim Seaver off the FA compensation pool. Imagine that, our beloved mid 80's Mets posturing to sway public opinion of the team ... I thought only Freddie Mon- bags or whatever the buzz word of the day is would stoop to such lows. (I slapped this together, the punctuation is brutal but it gets the jist across of where I'm going)

KC Jan 26 2006 09:35 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 26 2006 09:56 PM

>>>Bret S: Even if that hadn't worked, he just found all these kids--Darling, Fernandez, McDowell, have them loads of work, and they responded.<<< First off, he didn't find them. Secondly, what kind of managerial magic are you talking about in getting quality players to "respond"? I wish I could get a job where they gave me a talented (even it's potential) staff and say go make it work and here's a bunch of money for trying.

KC Jan 26 2006 09:43 PM

>>>Bret S: DJ said "Mitchell doesn't look like a shortstop? Fuck that. He hits and I'll find him at-bats if I have to do by inventing a position for him to play."<<< Or, Mitchell said," find me a place in the lineup or I'll cut your cats head off." Or something like that. Ol' Gutsy Davey ... if only he were at the helm today things would be different.

TheOldMole Jan 26 2006 10:27 PM

I was gonna go with G-Fafif's, so I'll ditto his. And, what the heck, everyone else's.

TheOldMole Jan 26 2006 10:29 PM

Nothing's a no-brainer. Gooden wasn't even on the depth chart at the start of that spring training, and it would have been easy to say "more seasoning.:" That;s always the safe route.

KC Jan 26 2006 10:35 PM

Not on which depth chart. Do you have one handy?

Johnny Dickshot Jan 26 2006 10:44 PM

I recall I learned there was a guy called Dwight Gooden and he was supposed to be really good in September '83 when he was called up to Tidewater in the AAA playoffs. That woulda been before Johnson was named manager, although I seem also to recall knowing he'd have a shot at the 84 manager job some time before he actually had it too. Johnson and Gooden are closely realted in that way in my mind. Oh, yeah. I liked Johnson mainly because that 84 team really redeemed what seemed to me to be a long unhappy childhood, Met wise. In 1973 I was 7 and really rooted hard for the first time. It wasn't till I was 17 that they came that close again.

Spacemans Bong Jan 27 2006 03:12 AM

MFS62 wrote: I loved the way he was not only the first ML manager I read about who knew how to use a computer*, but he used it to maintain statistics that helped him make some managerial decisions. *= IIRC he had a Masters Degree in Mathematics. Later He knew how to use a computer before 99% of the population - he was building computers in his home in the early 70s, IIRC. And starting Gooden in 84 was ballsy. The Pearlman book really lays into how Johnson had to fight some to put Gooden in the rotation. I don't care how dominant he was in the minors, GMs are always going to be looking for reasons for 19 year olds to stay in the minors because 19 year old MLBers are so rare.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 05:44 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 27 2006 05:52 AM

Davey was ballsy. He only started the young guys instead of the vets. Or wait, was it Ray Knight or Howard Johnson that started at third? Oh shoot, maybe he was just lucky to get one more good season out of Knight. Left field then, yeah. He would never wait until George Foster shot himself in the foot a dozen different times by calling Davey a racist and his refusing to take part in team brawls. I mean, Davey would have never started an aging crusty veteran on the downturn of his career, he would have put a younger rising star guy in there like Mitchell And since HoJo wasn't getting the start at third he must have played most of the games at short instead of incumbent Raffy Santana, right? Or maybe, just maybe, Davey played the guys he had, like EVERY OTHER MANAGER, including the one currently running the Mets. I loved those late eighties teams. I hate waxing poetic about the past.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 05:46 AM

Spacemans Bong wrote: He knew how to use a computer before 99% of the population - he was building computers in his home in the early 70s, IIRC. I love dopey, made-up statistics like this. They crack me up. So...Spaceman, what percentage of the population used computers in the early seventies? How many homes had a computer? How many people knew how to use a computer?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 27 2006 06:25 AM

Elster88 wrote: Davey was ballsy. He only started the young guys instead of the vets. Or wait, was it Ray Knight or Howard Johnson that started at third? Oh shoot, maybe he was just lucky to get one more good season out of Knight. Left field then, yeah. He would never wait until George Foster shot himself in the foot a dozen different times by calling Davey a racist and his refusing to take part in team brawls. I mean, Davey would have never started an aging crusty veteran on the downturn of his career, he would have put a younger rising star guy in there like Mitchell And since HoJo wasn't getting the start at third he must have played most of the games at short instead of incumbent Raffy Santana, right? Or maybe, just maybe, Davey played the guys he had, like EVERY OTHER MANAGER, including the one currently running the Mets. I loved those late eighties teams. I hate waxing poetic about the past. This is totally nuts, my friend. I didn't say Davey insisted on playing only the youngest players on the basis of their youth, and disregarded veterans on the basis on their experience, though if you want to argue against those positions you can twist around my words and look very clever doing so. My point was that Davey was open to playing whoever had what looked like talent and ability to him. Most managers would have refused Mitchell a roster spot--"Don't have a position for him," "need seasoning," "Maybe when Geoge Foster retires in about three years," etc. Davey found a way to use him, contrary to everyone else's "common sense." That's uncommon, and the fact you're saying "Of course, he found a spot for Mitchell" just illustrates how brilliant a move it was.Current management would have looked for another veteran to replace Foster after his implosion, instead of partially filling the hole with rookies Dysktra and Mitchell. Whether current management would have even let Foster go is open to debate--they would have said "We're paying him a ton of money, and he's stil hitting HRs now and then, so he's your leftfielder for the duration, Davey--deal." Davey said, "Fuck that--he goes or I go" in effect, and Foster went. IIn fact, I'm mildly surprised that current management hasn't invited George Foster to training camp for 2006--isn't he younger than Julio Franco? I can't believe revisionism has advanced so far as to make Doc G at age 19 a no-brainer. That was the single gutsiest move that I've ever seen a first-time manager make, and KC is all "Whats the big whoop? He was Doc Gooden, it was totally obvious" about it. It was totally genius, is what it was totally, and it took sheer balls to get it done at point before age 22 or so. That you're giving Davey no credit blows me away. No other manager would have stuck Darling or Fernandez in the rotation either llike Davey did--they would have dicked them around, yoyoed them between AAA and the majors, jerked them in and out of the rotation--just look at Aaron Heilman and Jae Seo if you want examples of what other people might have done with their younger starting pitchers. Davey just said, "These guys can pitch," and he pitched them, for which he gets a lot of credit from me.

seawolf17 Jan 27 2006 06:54 AM

Bret, you're making waaaaaay too many assumptions in there. Why do you say "most managers would have refused Mitchell a roster spot"? He was a utilityman with a lot of pop; I would think that most managers would love to put a guy like that on the team. "Current management would have looked for another veteran to replace Foster?" Then explain their love for Victor Diaz, who got his shot to be an everyday player last year. Or Jose Reyes. Or David Wright. Or Aaron Heilman. "No other manager would have stuck Darling or Fernandez in the rotation?" What did the Marlins do with Dontrelle Willis? Or the Mets with Generation K? Stop making bullshit blanket generalizations just because you have animosity toward current management.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 07:20 AM

] I didn't say Davey insisted on playing only the youngest players on the basis of their youth, and disregarded veterans on the basis on their experience, though if you want to argue against those positions you can twist around my words and look very clever doing so. I didn't say you said this either. I'm not arguing for or against those positions. I'm actually not even sure what you mean by arguing against those positions. All I said was that Davey played the players he was given. ]I can't believe revisionism has advanced so far as to make Doc G at age 19 a no-brainer. That was the single gutsiest move that I've ever seen a first-time manager make, and KC is all "Whats the big whoop? He was Doc Gooden, it was totally obvious" about it. I agree with KC. Everybody wet themselves when they saw Doc pitch. I'm pretty sure most other managers at the time would've put him in the majors. ]totally genius, is what it was totally, and it took sheer balls to get it done at point before age 22 or so. I know they aren't pitchers, but Wright and Reyes were pretty young when they first started playing for the Mets. Of course, the current Mets were forced into that right? Otherwise, they would've never dreamed of putting those two young guys into the majors. It still blows me away that a continuing argument against the Mets is that they ignore the younger players. Then how in the hell did we have a starting lineup that included four position players under the age of 24 last year? Dumb luck I guess. ]That you're giving Davey no credit blows me away. No other manager would have stuck Darling or Fernandez in the rotation either llike Davey did--they would have dicked them around, yoyoed them between AAA and the majors, jerked them in and out of the rotation--just look at Aaron Heilman and Jae Seo if you want examples of what other people might have done with their younger starting pitchers. Davey just said, "These guys can pitch," and he pitched them, for which he gets a lot of credit from me. If you're comparing Seo and Heilman to Doc, Darling, and Sid.....I just don't know how to argue with you. It seems to me, by the above paragraph, that you're saying Davey would've given Seo and Heilman more starts because he did so with the three 1986ers you mentioned. That's a very, very shaky assumption, considering how much better Doc, Darling and Sid were. I'd argue this: Since Heilman and Seo don't have nearly the same amount of talent, there is no guarantee they would've gotten more time under Davey.

KC Jan 27 2006 07:43 AM

I'm not big whoopin' anything. I loved Davey and those 80's teams. My underlying point for getting involved in this is a) they underachieved with the amount of talent they had, and b) I think Bret's picture painting of Davey and the kids is a pining for days gone past sprinlkled with a dash of if only the Mets did business this way instead of that we'd all be happier. Fine. I challenge anyone to come up with pitchers who we can count up on one hand that were 19 years old and had Doc's potential since 1983 and then we'll start talking about whether it's genius, ballsey, or just fortuitous to pitch the kid in the bigs. I mean the way Doc turned out later in life, maybe rushing him to stardom was dumb, but that's another thread subject if someone wants to go there. Here's a quote from the Bill James 1984 Baseball Abstract: "So in some sense, Davey Johnson's job this year shouldn't be all that tough. The Mets organiztion is a pyramid standing on it's head, and all he has to do is put it right side up."

seawolf17 Jan 27 2006 08:01 AM

But Kase, you don't understand. Davey was a genius! Art Howe would have left Doc in Tidewater! Willie Randolph would have traded Sid Fernandez to Milwaukee for Gorman Thomas! Did you see the great Gil Hodges ever give young pitchers a chance? No! He let Tom Seaver rot in the minor leagues, until he finally dumped him on the Reds! He told management, "I don't want this Koosman kid. Get me an aging middle reliever instead!" Gimme a break.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 27 2006 08:02 AM

Elster88 wrote: ] I didn't say Davey insisted on playing only the youngest players on the basis of their youth, and disregarded veterans on the basis on their experience, though if you want to argue against those positions you can twist around my words and look very clever doing so. I didn't say you said this either. I'm not arguing for or against those positions. I'm actually not even sure what you mean by arguing against those positions. All I said was that Davey played the players he was given. ]I can't believe revisionism has advanced so far as to make Doc G at age 19 a no-brainer. That was the single gutsiest move that I've ever seen a first-time manager make, and KC is all "Whats the big whoop? He was Doc Gooden, it was totally obvious" about it. I agree with KC. Everybody wet themselves when they saw Doc pitch. I'm pretty sure most other managers at the time would've put him in the majors. ]totally genius, is what it was totally, and it took sheer balls to get it done at point before age 22 or so. I know they aren't pitchers, but Wright and Reyes were pretty young when they first started playing for the Mets. Of course, the current Mets were forced into that right? Otherwise, they would've never dreamed of putting those two young guys into the majors. It still blows me away that a continuing argument against the Mets is that they ignore the younger players. Then how in the hell did we have a starting lineup that included four position players under the age of 24 last year? Dumb luck I guess. ]That you're giving Davey no credit blows me away. No other manager would have stuck Darling or Fernandez in the rotation either llike Davey did--they would have dicked them around, yoyoed them between AAA and the majors, jerked them in and out of the rotation--just look at Aaron Heilman and Jae Seo if you want examples of what other people might have done with their younger starting pitchers. Davey just said, "These guys can pitch," and he pitched them, for which he gets a lot of credit from me. If you're comparing Seo and Heilman to Doc, Darling, and Sid.....I just don't know how to argue with you. It seems to me, by the above paragraph, that you're saying Davey would've given Seo and Heilman more starts because he did so with the three 1986ers you mentioned. That's a very, very shaky assumption, considering how much better Doc, Darling and Sid were. I'd argue this: Since Heilman and Seo don't have nearly the same amount of talent, there is no guarantee they would've gotten more time under Davey. This is the main appeal of revisionist history-- "considering how much better Doc, Darling and Sid were." Davey couldn't know that until he'd pitched them and they'd shown what they had. You know how good they were, Davey only felt they would be good and they proved him right, so now it was a no-brainer to fill his strting rotation with untested kids. Then, not so much. Now if Seo and Heilman turn out to be as good, you can argue (and probably will) that they were good BECAUSE they were brought along slowly, being yoyoed back and forth helped keep the pressure off them, etc. and I can't prove that you're wrong, either. And if they each stink up the joint in 2006, you'll be able to say, "See? If the Mets would have started them as rotation anchors in 2005, the team would have been even worse than it was." But it was figuring out who can pitch and who can't that I'm crediting Davey with, and being unwilling to make that call that I'm castigating the current Mets management for. I think the Mets should roll the dice much more than they do instead of the CYA manuevers they employ that so many of you seem to support, regardless of whether they work, historically. Off the top of my head, I'd say that Reyes had more experience in the high minors (though he had very little) than Gooden, and that Wright also had a better and a longer minor league record than the other young pitchers the Mets employed. I give them credit for promoting Reyes and Wright, but they should be promoting players sooner and more often than they do. Of course, they also need the good young players to promote, but if they had them(and I'd argue that they do) I don't think the manager is nearly the force Davey was in being willing to use them. Davey would have a rotation of Heilman and Seo and Zambrano plus a veteran or two or maybe some kid who'd break the rotation open in Spring Training. he would have asked for Mike Jacobs to be called up last April. He would have found Victor Diaz a hundred more ABs last year. He would have seen what Anderson Hernandez could do in 2005. he would have promoted Reyes and Wright out of spirng training instead of waiting half a season for each of them. I believe he would have made these moves, and a dozen others that I have no idea about, because he was a creative, gutsy, iconoclastic and thoroughly admirable manager of the sort the Mets need but are far too corporate to tolerate these days..

Bret Sabermetric Jan 27 2006 08:14 AM

seawolf17 wrote: Why do you say "most managers would have refused Mitchell a roster spot"? He was a utilityman with a lot of pop; I would think that most managers would love to put a guy like that on the team.. How do you know that? Because Davey played him. ="seawolf 17"] "Current management would have looked for another veteran to replace Foster?" Then explain their love for Victor Diaz, who got his shot to be an everyday player last year. Or Jose Reyes. Or David Wright. Or Aaron Heilman.. Love for Victor Diaz? The kid got totally screwed last year so they could keep Cameron on the roster (and the team got screwed too, in that they would have gotten a shitload more than Xavier F. Nady for him in June, if they'd had any faith in Diaz's ability.) . And Heilman's your poster boy for players they Mets have gone out of their way to promote? That's totally insane. The guy pitched a one-hitter last year and was promptly dropped from the rotation and shitcanned into middle relief. Jae Seo, pitching just fine, was sent to the freaking minors so that Ishii could screw up the rotation for two months. seawolf17 wrote: "No other manager would have stuck Darling or Fernandez in the rotation?" What did the Marlins do with Dontrelle Willis? Or the Mets with Generation K? Stop making bullshit blanket generalizations just because you have animosity toward current management. I'll admit that the Marlins are more perceptive than the Mets, who would have sent Willis to the minors, to middle relief or to Tampa Bay, depending on precisely how they would have misjudged his talents. How long ago was Generation K, exactly? The fact that you have to pull out of your ass an example consisting of grizzled or long-since retired veterans like Wilson and Isringhausen and Pulsipher just proves my point. As for your last statement, I don't think you want to characterize my statements as bullshit unless you want me to start making similar statements your way, which I'd rather not do. And I don't take orders as to how I should or should not post from you.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 27 2006 08:23 AM

="seawolf17"]But Kase, you don't understand. Davey was a genius! Art Howe would have left Doc in Tidewater! Willie Randolph would have traded Sid Fernandez to Milwaukee for Gorman Thomas! Did you see the great Gil Hodges ever give young pitchers a chance? No! He let Tom Seaver rot in the minor leagues, until he finally dumped him on the Reds! He told management, "I don't want this Koosman kid. Get me an aging middle reliever instead!" Gimme a break. Hodges, who was a good manager along the lilnes that I'm praising Davey for, inherited Seaver (the previous year's ROTY) when he took over the job in 1968. I don't think he should get credit for turning Seaver into a rotation starter, and I don't think you should post before turning on your brain.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 27 2006 08:38 AM

Promoting Gooden in 1984 was not a no-brainer. Frank Cashen did not want Gooden to start the season in the big leagues, and throughout spring training there was a lot of speculation about whose will would prevail, Cashen's or Davey's. Cashen was remembering Tim Leary, and didn't want a repeat of that disaster. Just because Davey did get his way, and Gooden thrived, doesn't mean that Doc was a shoo-in for the rotation. He wasn't. Darling had already had some big-league experience; he had started several games in 1983, so he was already "groomed" and ready to go. But Gooden was very much on the bubble for a while there. I can't get my hands on my copies of Bats or Rookie (they're on a shelf at my parents' house) so I don't know what, if anything, those books would say on the matter. My 1985 Sporting News Baseball Guide has nothing about any spring training decisions.

KC Jan 27 2006 08:46 AM

Then I retract "no-brainer" - it's a little strong. I think calling Johnson a genius for playing him is unecessarily strong on the other side of the discussion.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 09:08 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 27 2006 09:40 AM

]Now if Seo and Heilman turn out to be as good, you can argue (and probably will) that they were good BECAUSE they were brought along slowly, being yoyoed back and forth helped keep the pressure off them, etc. and I can't prove that you're wrong, either. And if they each stink up the joint in 2006, you'll be able to say, "See? If the Mets would have started them as rotation anchors in 2005, the team would have been even worse than it was." Leaving out the points for the moment, don't tell me what I will and won't say. Because not only are you completely wrong, but that's just being a dickhead. Secondly, what in the world are you talking about? I can't be proved wrong? What is that? The only thing that I'm really arguing is that Heilman and Seo aren't as good as the other three. That can't be proved wrong or right? The contentions that are unprovable are mostly yours, the ones that Heilman and Seo would've been treated better with Davey Johnson at the helm. What you don't seem to realize is that they really have been given opportunities to play. I think Seo got shafted too, but everyone has an orgasm over his performance last year and conveniently forgets his shitty 2004. Heilman also underperformed until last year, where the majority of his success came in the bullpen. When Sid, Doc, and Darling were given similar chances, they performed well, and thus they stayed in the rotation. Edit: Again, let me express my love for Davey Johnson. But how did those Red teams he managed do? When he wasn't given a world of talent to manage, how did he do? And I'm sure you realize his Met teams actually played below their talent level. Edit 2: Toned down the hostility, to curtail my own dickheadedness.

seawolf17 Jan 27 2006 09:24 AM

I loved Davey Johnson too... I'm just saying I don't know if he was the perfect manager. You can't slam other people for making blanket generalizations and then go make them yourself. As far as Kevin Mitchell goes, his numbers in AAA in '85 and with the Mets in '86 were pretty similar. team year g ab h r hr rbi obp slg Tides 1985 93 348 101 44 9 43 .354 .448 Mets 1986 108 328 91 51 12 43 .344 .466 Now I don't know what other utility options were out there in the winter of 85-86, but I don't think it makes Davey Johnson a genius for giving Mitchell ABs. In fact, Mitchell's numbers in '86 were pretty similar to another utility man the Mets brought north in 2001: name year g ab h r hr rbi obp slg Mitchell 1986 108 328 91 51 12 43 .344 .466 McEwing 2001 116 283 80 41 9 44 .342 .449 So was Bobby V a "genius" for giving Joe McEwing playing time? Again, I'm not saying I don't agree with your hypothesis, I'm just saying your proof has some shaky logical jumps.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 27 2006 09:28 AM

I guess the point is that Johnson stood up to Cashen, which was admirable. But that doesn't mean the Mets of today are necessarily evil. Tyler Yates is a recent example of a rookie starter who got a shot, but generally, I think if you're going to break in a guy, doing it the Hielman way is as good as any: Let him have some success in small bites and gradually work his way into a job. Out-of-the-box rookie pitching sensations are very rare. And not to turn this into a war, but so long as there's going to be criticism lobbed at the Mets for hanging onto veterans at the expense of youngsters, some of which is fair, one might expect it to be acknowledged when those veterans are exchanged for younger players. Sanchez and Schmoll are both younger than Seo, for instance. Nady is younger than Cameron. Maine & Julio are both younger than Benson. If you include the fact these moves will allow a greater role for Heilman, that's 6 young guys given a job opportunity at the expense of 3 older guys, so maybe that end of the criticism oughta go on hold.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 27 2006 10:03 AM

You're comparing what actually happened with with what could happen, and pointing out (unnecessarily) that would could happen hasn't actually happened yet. I liked Davey giving kids a shot. I liked more that his doing so worked out so well, but it took a lot of guts and baseball acumen to make those calls. Davey stood up to Cashen, which KC seemed to forget (or maybe the joy of jumping up and down on me was just too irresistible) but much more imprtant he spoke his mind whoever was resisting his arguments. He certainly knew what he was doing (which Willlie might or might not) but he stood up and spoke those views strongly, which Willie certainly does not do. I prefer Davey's way. In mid-summer 1986, I was fearful that Foster might NOT be released, and I was pissed that the Mets were keeping this over-the-hill slugger they had paid big bux for. I wanted Foster swapped out ((I still think they hung onto him too long, to the point that he had little trade value, which was my chief complaint about Piazza, if you're scoring) but at least they had the guts to pull the trigger when he gave them a damned good reason to let him go. This team regards over-the-hill vets as absurdly valuable, and it hurts them, and will hurt them in the future. This current club seems to think that money spent needs to be justified, whether it's justifiable or not. The DJ Mets were all about winning, not about CYA. But this is only what I liked about those Mets. Christ's sake, I open the floor to ask what other people like about those Mets, you read my post closely to figure out my "agenda" here, raise all sorts of objections to my thesis, and forget the purpose of this thread: to discuss what YOU love about the Davey Johnson Mets. Do you like arguing my thesis more than you loved the Davey Johnson Mets?

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 10:10 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: In mid-summer 1986, I was fearful that Foster might NOT be released, and I was pissed that the Mets were keeping this over-the-hill slugger they had paid big bux for. I wanted Foster swapped out ((I still think they hung onto him too long, to the point that he had little trade value, which was my chief complaint about Piazza, if you're scoring) but at least they had the guts to pull the trigger when he gave them a damned good reason to let him go. This team regards over-the-hill vets as absurdly valuable, and it hurts them, and will hurt them in the future. This current club seems to think that money spent needs to be justified, whether it's justifiable or not. The DJ Mets were all about winning, not about CYA. I'm glad they got rid of him too, but I think more of it was due to his dickheadedness. If he was a nice guy, do you think they would've been as quick to drop him? Bret Sabermetric wrote: But this is only what I liked about those Mets. Christ's sake, I open the floor to ask what other people like about those Mets, you read my post closely to figure out my "agenda" here, raise all sorts of objections to my thesis, and forget the purpose of this thread: to discuss what YOU love about the Davey Johnson Mets. Do you like arguing my thesis more than you loved the Davey Johnson Mets? I'll admit that my first thought was, "He's only talking up the '86 Mets as a not-so-subtle way to bash the current Mets." I still think that was part of the reason you started this thread. If I'm totally off the mark then I apologize.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 27 2006 10:14 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 27 2006 10:21 AM

In 1984, Darling's rookie year, he had a 5.14 ERA and a losing record at the end of April. Send'm down to the minors, for Chrissake, he's not ready for MLB. http://www.ultimatemets.com/profile.php?PlayerCode=0345&tabno=9&vMonth=ALL&vYear=1984 Now to Seawolf's point about Mitchell's minor league stats, it's fine to point out that Mitchell had pretty good minor league stats, but to extrapolate from that the idea that minor league stats = no-brainer promotion is to suggest some pretty harsh things about the current management's treatment of players with some pretty good minor league stats. You sure you want to go there?

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 10:15 AM

I don't get it. Is there a current Met who got dumped to AAA because of one bad month?

Bret Sabermetric Jan 27 2006 10:23 AM

No, they did dump Seo to AAA because he had a good month, though. He's not a current Met, of course, because AAA apparently wasn't far enough.

KC Jan 27 2006 10:25 AM

This is a good thread. Hey I did some work here looking up stuff and dusting off 20 year old books - don't ruin the spirit of the argument with crap like: (or maybe the joy of jumping up and down on me was just too irresistible) The Abstract itself, the one you used to read regularly and get letters pub- lished in, said that Davey's job shouldn't be that hard. I didn't make it up.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 10:26 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: No, they did dump Seo to AAA because he had a good month, though. He's not a current Met, of course, because AAA apparently wasn't far enough. I agree with you there. They took a dump on Seo.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 27 2006 10:35 AM

KC wrote: This is a good thread. Hey I did some work here looking up stuff and dusting off 20 year old books - don't ruin the spirit of the argument with crap like: (or maybe the joy of jumping up and down on me was just too irresistible) Sorry. It was irresistible. Say, you you know Doc should have been shitcanned as well. After 8 starts, the morning of May 25, 1984, he was 3-3 with an ERA of 4.07. Look, Davey went a little wild here, this kid isn't ready for MLB either. Let's just send the both of them, Gooden and Darling, back to AAA where they can pitch with that fat Hawaiian kid until we're good and ready for them. Sometime in 1990 looks about right, huh?

Yancy Street Gang Jan 27 2006 10:49 AM

I have him at 4.15 Quibbling aside, it's true that Doc had pitched poorly in three of his first eight starts. I think his five good starts, though, offered a more compelling reason for keeping him than his three bad ones argued for sending him down. (That May 6 start against Houston was a real killer. I don't remember that one, but I do remember his second start, on April 13 at Wrigley. After the game, Gooden announced that the Cubs would be his enemies for life.)

Yancy Street Gang Jan 27 2006 10:53 AM

And here, by the way, is that Tim Leary game that haunted Frank Cashen. Leary was 22 years old and left the game with an injury after two innings. He wouldn't pitch in the big leagues again for another two and a half years.

heep Jan 27 2006 11:01 AM

>Can anyone recall a team since 86 that had an assortment of characters like that team? Will there ever be another team with that old-school approach, work hard, play hard, balls out cockiness? I think the 86 Mets will go down in history as the last team with that old-school fabric.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 27 2006 11:04 AM

Uh-oh. Here we go again. I think there's another hail storm coming.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 27 2006 11:05 AM

Tim Leary. I had a Daily News paper route then and recall reading a quote from Tommy Lasorda talking about how great Leary looked in the spring, probably on the date of his first start. Then, delivering bad news the next day.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 11:07 AM

HAIL

Yancy Street Gang Jan 27 2006 11:09 AM

I remember watching Tim Leary's two innings at my aunt's house. I was thrilled to see a sensational young pitcher on the Mets. Then I got called away from the TV because food was served. When I got back to the TV, it was the fourth inning and Pete Falcone was pitching. It took me a while to find out what had happened. Talk about short-lived excitement. Sheesh.

Elster88 Jan 27 2006 11:15 AM

I don't know what the Mets were thinking getting rid of him. They should have given him at least three years to develop instead of dumping him. __________________ This post had the designation 72) Jeff Innis

Johnny Dickshot Jan 27 2006 11:19 AM

WayBack Machine: March 29, 1981. ] THE HOPE OF SPRING: BASEBALL'S ROOKIES By JOSEPH DURSO ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. RALPH HOUK peered past the palm trees and across 40 years of his life in baseball, and remembered what it was like to be a rookie. ''It's the most exciting time of your career,'' said Houk, who came out of retirement this year to become manager of the Boston Red Sox. ''Just to play alongside the guys you read about, to go first class in airplanes, or, in those days, on the trains. Just to go home and say you're in the big leagues.'' In the 26 training camps in Arizona and Florida, about 1,000 ballplayers were competing for 650 jobs this weekend, and 300 or so were rookies. They have 10 days left to survive the final cuts. After that, maybe 50 rookies will head north in first-class plane seats; the others will spend the summer riding buses in the minor leagues. Some bright rookies, like Cal Ripken Jr. of the Baltimore Orioles, have already been sent down. Others, like Tim Leary of the New York Mets, rated by many scouts as the best of the bunch, wait on the threshold. And one unusual rookie, Marty Bystrom of the Philadelphia Phillies, got the call last September, pitched five straight victories, appeared in the playoff and World Series and is still undefeated. Some rookies made news this spring but did not necessarily make the team. Howard Bailey of the Detroit Tigers fired a knockdown pitch at Bill Robinson of the Pittsburgh Pirates, hit him in the mouth and started a brawl in an exhibition game. Wally Backman of the Mets, sulking lately over his prospects, caught a line drive in Orlando the other day and started a triple play. Challenging Long Odds On a team of high-priced professionals like the New York Yankees, only one rookie pitcher may make it, and then only if he is righthanded. On a team in the throes of rebuilding, like the Mets, three rookies may make it: Leary, Mookie Wilson and Hubie Brooks. For the Los Angeles Dodgers, a chubby 20-year-old left-hander from Mexico who speaks no English may make it big: Fernando Valenzuela, who pitched 18 innings in 10 games last September without surrendering a run. They are challenging the long odds that face all first-year players and the outrageous odds that face the two who will be voted rookies of the year next fall. The big winners last year were Steve Howe of the Dodgers in the National League and Joe Charboneau of the Cleveland Indians in the American League. But as spring training winds down, most rookies are waiting and wondering. ''That's the other side of the coin,'' Houk conceded, ''and that's not so exciting: the knock-on-the-door danger. Unless you've already been given the job, or unless you have a super ego, you always wait for the manager to call you in and tell you that you're going back down. I know, I broke in with the Yankees.'' Who was the best rookie Houk ever saw? ''Probably Mickey Mantle,'' he said. ''That was 30 years ago, and we took a barnstorming trip by train before the season opened. Mickey hadn't even made the club yet. But in San Francisco, in the old Seals Stadium, they had signs out beyond the outfield to mark the spot where guys had hit the ball out. Joe DiMaggio, guys like that. Mickey was just a teen-ager, but he hit balls past all the signs, both lefthanded and right-handed.'' Mantle later signed his first big league contract on the train and was paid $7,500. Today's rookie, if he sticks, will get at least five times that amount. Two years later, especially if he goes to arbitration, he could raise the ante by 50 times that amount. But since veteran players command million-dollar salaries, many baseball people believe that today's baseball economics have given rookies unusual chances to win jobs, even during the pennant races of September. Praise for Leary Who is the best looking rookie of 1981? Tommy Lasorda, manager of the Dodgers, pretended a bit of innocence and replied: ''I like that son of a gun on the Mets. What's his name, Leary? He can throw the hell out of the ball.'' Whitey Herzog, manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, skipped the innocence and said: ''Leary. You look at him pitch and know that someday he'll be a super baseball player. I don't know if they'll want him to try it this year or not, but he'll be here someday soon.'' Herzog paid a visit to his minor-league camp the other day and watched David Green, the highly regarded young outfielder who went to the Cardinals from the Milwaukee Brewers' farm system in the trade for Ted Simmons and Rollie Fingers. The manager noted that Green was still learning, but added: ''How far away is he? About three miles.'' To qualify as a rookie, a player must have no more than 130 times at bat or 50 innings if he is a pitcher. And he must have spent no more than 45 days on an active big league roster, although September callup time does not count. According to scouts, executives and players, these are the brightest candidates who meet that definition in the class of 1981: TIM LEARY Pitcher, New York Mets He is a quiet 6-foot-3-inch, 22-year-old right-hander from California who was the Mets' No. 1 selection in the amateur draft of June 1979. He is, says Manager Joe Torre, ''overpowering.'' He lost his first five games at U.C.L.A. and his first four in the Texas League last summer. But otherwise, the numbers are upbeat. He won 15 games and lost 8 at Jackson, Miss., pitched six shutouts and was voted the most valuable player in the league. The big argument is whether to keep him or season him. Leary will have company. Mookie Wilson, a 25-year-old sprinter from South Carolina, will probably open in left field, and Hubie Brooks, a 24-year-old Californian, will play third base or shortstop before long. TIM RAINES Outfielder, Montreal Expos At age 21, he arrives as another of the Expos' prodigies from the Denver Bears, where he led the American Association in hitting with a .354 average. He also stole a record 77 bases and scored 105 runs in 108 games. Second base is pre-empted by Rodney Scott, so the Expos are shifting Raines to the left-field spot vacated by Ron LeFlore, who signed as a free agent with the White Sox. The Denver club has also supplied Tim Wallach, 22, who hit 36 home runs and knocked in 124 runs. He played 90 games at third base, 40 in the outfield and six at first base. If Manager Dick Williams can find a position for him, Wallach will spend the summer in Olympic Stadium. FERNANDO VALENZUELA Pitcher, Los Angeles Dodgers He was only 19 last September when he came up from San Antonio and helped the Dodgers overtake the Houston Astros, a left-hander with long hair, a cheerful manner and two types of screwballs. After 10 appearances in relief, he still has not yielded an earned run. His manager, Lasorda, says: ''I have never seen a rookie with so much charm, charisma and stuff. He will captivate the public.'' If Valenzuela has a rival in National League bullpens, it may be Lee Smith of the Chicago Cubs, a 6-foot-6-inch, 235-pound righthander. Smith will try to fill the void created by the trade of Bruce Sutter. CAL RIPKEN Jr. Infielder, Baltimore Orioles He is a 6-foot-4-inch third baseman and shortstop from Maryland, the 20-year-old son of Cal Ripken, the Orioles' coach. He hit 25 home runs last year in the Southern League and got 144 hits in 144 games. So far, his highest minor league level has been double-A. But one believer in him is Doug DeCinces, the regular third baseman, who overcame a sore back this spring and became the Orioles' hottest hitter. A week ago, Manager Earl Weaver eased the contest by farming out Ripken, but his return is expected. MARTY BYSTROM Pitcher, Philadelphia Phillies Bystrom, a 22-year-old Floridian, began the 1979 season on the disabled list and spent most of it in Oklahoma City before the Phillies called him up Sept. 1. Then he started five games in a tight pennant race, won all five, was voted the National League's pitcher of the month and started games in the playoff and World Series, both of which the Phillies won. He was added to the postseason roster by league dispensation to replace the injured Nino Espinosa. The Phillies have another well regarded rookie, Luis Aguayo, a 22-year-old infielder from Puerto Rico. FRANK DiPINO Pitcher, Milwaukee Brewers If the Brewers need a stopper in the bullpen aside from Rollie Fingers, they may have found one in DiPino, a 24-year-old left-hander from Syracuse, who was signed in 1977 after attending a tryout camp in Newark. He won 7 games and lost none last year at Holyoke in the Eastern League, with a no-hitter and an earned-run average of 1.30. Then he was promoted to Vancouver in the Triple-A Pacific Coast League, where he won 3 and lost 1 with a 2.25 earned-run average. He strikes out nearly one batter an inning. George Bamberger, the former manager of the Brewers, says: ''We need a left-hander to give Rollie Fingers a rest, and he may be it.'' ANDY RINCON Pitcher, St. Louis Cardinals ''He's started four games in the big leagues,'' says Herzog, ''and he's won three of them.'' All that happened after Rincon made his debut last Sept. 15. He beat the Chicago Cubs, 5-1; the Montreal Expos, 4-1, and the Mets, 5-1. He is a 22-year-old Californian with hard stuff, and even his promotion was dramatic. He was driving home after helping Arkansas win the Texas League championship with two playoff victories, when he was intercepted by the Texas Highway Patrol. The message: Report to St. Louis. He will be joined on the Cardinals by Tito Landrum, a 26-year-old Missourian who got nine straight hits in his professional debut. Landrum has a good glove in the outfield. KIM ALLEN Outfielder, Seattle Mariners He is a 27-year-old of distinction: Allen majored in psychology and sociology at California, enjoys jazz and chess and steals bases. He spent six seasons in the farm systems of the California Angels, Pittsburgh Pirates and Mariners. Last season at Spokane, he set a Pacific Coast League record by stealing 84 bases and had a 35-game hitting streak. Promoted to the Mariners in September, he stole 10 times in 13 attempts. His manager is Maury Wills, who sprinted with the best of them. TONY PENA Catcher, Pittsburgh Pirates One point in his favor is that he was signed by Howie Haak, who has sent more than 70 players to the big leagues. Another is that the Pirates need catching. Pena, 23 years old, from the Dominican Republic, did not play baseball in high school. But after five years in the minors, he blossomed last season in Triple-A. He led the Portland Beavers of the Pacific Coast League by hitting .329 and knocking in 77 runs. He also hit 13 triples, which means unusual speed for a catcher. DAVE ENGLE Outfielder, Minnesota Twins He might have been only an asterisk in baseball history: part of the payment made by the Angels in the trade for Rod Carew. But now, this 24-year-old alumnus of Southern California may be making it on his own. A former third baseman, he switched to the outfield last season, his third as a pro, and made 16 assists. He also led the International League in hitting with .307, getting 150 hits in 133 games for Toledo. He is a 6-foot-3-inch, 210-pounder, and he could earn a job in right field.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 27 2006 11:32 AM

Wow. Lasorda had Fernando Valenzuela in his camp, and he said that Tim Leary was the most promising rookie pitcher. Oh, if only...

ScarletKnight41 Jan 27 2006 11:35 AM

Hail!

ABG Jan 27 2006 11:37 AM

Need help remembering? http://www.newvideo.com/productdetail.html?productid=NV-AAE-74690 I wasn't sure if this had been posted yet, somewhere, but I just found it.

Yancy Street Gang Jan 27 2006 11:41 AM

Jack Lang writing in the 1982 Sporting News Baseball Guide: ]...Cashen had inherited Torre when he became the general manager. He was pressured into signing him to a two-year contract when Torre brought the team home fifth in 1980. But Cashen and Torre had many philosophical differences and they never worked well together despite outward appearances. Problems developed in the spring when Torre and his coaching buddy Bob Gibson urged Cashen to elevate rookie Tim Leary to the varsity roster. Leary's spring performances were sensational but Cashen wanted the pitcher to have at least a half season in Triple-A. Torre and Gibson won, but also lost. On the third day of the season, Leary left a game in Chicago after only two innings. He complained of an elbow problem he had concealed earlier. Leary never threw another pitch all season. Torre counted on Leary as a regular starter because Craig Swan was slow recovering from a slight tear of the rotator cuff in his right shoulder...

TheOldMole Jan 27 2006 12:00 PM

You don't call anyone a genius for one decision. And one can argue that "genius" is an inappropriate term for a baseball manager. I would not argue that. I like hyperbole.

Iubitul Jan 28 2006 04:13 PM

This is a great thread IIRC, Gooden made his first start in the climate-controlled conditions in the Astrodome. Perhaps that was a compromise between Davey and Frank Cashen. As for a reason to love davey, his line at his introductory presss conference: ]I would like to thank Frank Cashen for having the good sense to hire me A personal story: I used to do the baseball card show circuit to have guys sign a lot of the pictures that I shot. One is a picture of Shea that I took on a beautiful spring day - I had it blown up, and the idea was to have different Mets sign all around the sky over the stadium. Davey was the first one to sign it. When he looked at it, he asked me if I really wanted him to "ruin" such a great shot. He signed it really big, and right in the center. When, I said, "Hey, just like John Hancock", he laughed.

Matt Murdock, Esq. Jan 28 2006 07:28 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2006 11:07 PM

]I remember watching Tim Leary's two innings at my aunt's house. I was thrilled to see a sensational young pitcher on the Mets. Then I got called away from the TV because food was served. When I got back to the TV, it was the fourth inning and Pete Falcone was pitching. It took me a while to find out what had happened. Talk about short-lived excitement. Sheesh. i was in college at the time. I had borrowed a "transistor radio" (you youngsters can look it up), and was sitting alone in my dorm's kitchen/lounge area, ready to bear aural witness to the 2nd coming of seaver. I had bought the hype... hook, line and sinker. I remember the feeling, when Bob Murphy told me Leary's arm had fallen off... in the 2nd inning, i think, after striking out 2 or 3 already... i was literally sick to my stomach. I felt dizzy. I heard laughter in my head... it may have been my Yankee fan brother, or the last vestige of god still residing there. The feeling comes over me now whenever i hear somebody scream "play the rookie!" As for what i loved about Davey: he learned the game at the foot of the great one, Earl Weaver. Without benefit of computers, Weaver had devined the secret of winning... don't give away outs. They're precious. He invented BIFL. His offense was 3 walks and a 3-run homer. He platooned players to use for the talent at hand... he didn't ask them to do what they couldn't, and found spots to use them to do what they could. thus giving careers to guys like John Lowenstein and Gary Roenicke. Don't let your pitchers walk anybody. Better to let the other team hit solo HRs. Speed is more important on defense than on offense. you know, stuff like that. Davey learned it all, and then jacked it up a notch. Weaver never would've given Mitchell and Johnson starts at SS. He played Belanger there, for krissakes! Davey would trade defense for offense whenever he thought he could get away with it. If Doc or Fat Sid were pitching, Hojo or Mitchell could find themselves at SS, because there were likely to be alot of Ks. Neither Backman nor Teufel would ever make anybody forget Ryne Sandberg, but he kept their bats in the lineup. And its revisionist history not to credit Davey with Gooden's presence on the opening day roster. I remember distinctly reading about Cashen's reluctance to take the kid north, but Davey put his foot down and Cashen gave in. It's only a "no brainer" from this distance. And Davey did not give one good shit about what these kids did oiff the field. He wasn't interested in babysitting or good citizenship... he wanted to win. Davey was smart, tough, funny and took the Mets from losers to winners. How can anybody not like Davey?

Elster88 Jan 28 2006 08:56 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 28 2006 10:35 PM

]Davey was smart, tough, funny and took the Mets from winners to losers. I still give more credit to Frank. He built the team. Davey took it and did a lot of things wrong. He wasn't the best in-game manager. And he was unable to keep Doc and Darryl from ruining their careers. I don't blame Davey for their problems, that would be unfair. But he sure as hell didn't help them. But when it comes down it he managed the only World Series championship for my favorite team in my lifetime. So I love him.

KC Jan 28 2006 10:03 PM

Well, Counselor Murdock – if your going to mention “no-brainer” you should also comment on “genius”. The former was retracted by me, and the latter -- although not retracted by the original poster -- w­as also questioned in this thread. No one discredited Johnson's role in bringing up his kid to pitch, the argument was over how big a deal it was, how big a gamble it was, and if it makes him the great promoter of young players that the Mets of today sorely lack. Or at least that was I was arguing about. Nice speech anyway.

Matt Murdock, Esq. Jan 28 2006 11:14 PM

]I still give more credit to Frank. He built the team. Davey took it and did a lot of things wrong. He wasn't the best in-game manager. And he was unable to keep Doc and Darryl from ruining their careers. I don't blame Davey for their problems, that would be unfair. But he sure as hell didn't help them. He may not have been the best in-game manager, but he was the best one this organization has ever had... BV included. And no, he wasn't a den mother. as i said. But Doc and Darrrrryl were responsible for ruining their own careers. Yes, KC, keeping Doc (against Frank's expressed preferences) was NOT a no-brainer. Nor was Davey a genius or a particular acolyte of youth over experience. He'd play a ham sandwich if it would give him the slightest edge. But any manager that would play Kevin Mitchell at SS is my favorite manager ever.

Zvon Jan 28 2006 11:56 PM

TheOldMole wrote: I was gonna go with G-Fafif's, so I'll ditto his. And, what the heck, everyone else's. Im only on the 2nd page so far and i already am gonna echo the old mole. Those were just damn good times for Met fans. Davey J wasDaMan.

Bret Sabermetric Jan 29 2006 07:42 AM

KC wrote: Well, Counselor Murdock – if your going to mention “no-brainer” you should also comment on “genius”. The former was retracted by me, and the latter -- although not retracted by the original poster -- w­as also questioned in this thread. "Well, teacher, if you're gonna yell at me for setting your desk on fire, you should also yell at Bret for picking his nose."

TheOldMole Jan 29 2006 06:15 PM

I'm not sure I like the idea of a ham sandwich with an edge.

Matt Murdock, Esq. Jan 29 2006 07:26 PM

how about if you use sharp cheddar?

mlbaseballtalk Jan 29 2006 08:39 PM

Matt Murdock, Esq. wrote: And no, he wasn't a den mother. as i said. But Doc and Darrrrryl were responsible for ruining their own careers. Yes, KC, keeping Doc (against Frank's expressed preferences) was NOT a no-brainer. Nor was Davey a genius or a particular acolyte of youth over experience. He'd play a ham sandwich if it would give him the slightest edge. But any manager that would play Kevin Mitchell at SS is my favorite manager ever. I forget who it was, but over in the MOFO someone in a simillar thread suggested that if Johnson was better at handling young talents maybe Gregg Jefferies may have reached his potential if he was handled the way Jose Reyes and David Wright have been instead of mocked and riddiculed by the veterans in Davey's clubhouse That be an interesting case study But then again, back in the real old days there was this cocksure, mean and arrogant SOB that bursted into his clubhouse full of veteran aholes who wanted to shut this rookie up, but the rookie stayed. His name? Ty Cobb Okay, Cobb being a HOFer and quite possibly, err I mean he was a psycopath, but still sometimes that attitude works in the right (err, no pun intended) culture. Perfect example is a USC educated fellow entering the clubhouse of a simply horrid baseball team. I think we know how THAT turned out... Steve

Elster88 Jan 29 2006 10:49 PM

]I forget who it was, but over in the MOFO someone in a simillar thread suggested that if Johnson was better at handling young talents maybe Gregg Jefferies may have reached his potential if he was handled the way Jose Reyes and David Wright have been instead of mocked and riddiculed by the veterans in Davey's clubhouse What, do you expect these managers to be den mothers? They're grown men. So what if the entire dugout takes a dislike for one poor rookie prick? No need for Davey to get involved. So what if Darryl is showing up hungover to games? No reason for Davey to get involved. So what if the team destroys an airplane? Some people like Jeff Pearlman think this is cool and want to hang out with those guys. No reason for Davey to get involved. He's not a den mother for crying out loud.

Zvon Jan 29 2006 11:04 PM

Oh, and Hail Heep. (im only two pages behind on every thread,lol)

Vic Sage Jan 30 2006 12:05 PM

]What, do you expect these managers to be den mothers? They're grown men. So what if the entire dugout takes a dislike for one poor rookie prick? No need for Davey to get involved. If it effects a rookie's ability to perform, or even if a manager thinks it might, he should get involved. Some players have tougher skin than others. But its not about off-the-field activity. Its about on-the-field performance. ]So what if Darryl is showing up hungover to games? No reason for Davey to get involved. I don't think Casey got too involved with Mick's hangovers, either. Didn't stop them from winning a WS or 2, did it? ]So what if the team destroys an airplane? Some people like Jeff Pearlman think this is cool and want to hang out with those guys. No reason for Davey to get involved. The Oakland As, the Yanks of the Bronx Zoo, the Dykstra/Kruk/Daulton Phillies.... there have been skads of winning teams that acted like ANIMAL HOUSE. No, i don't think Davey needed to get involved. ]He's not a den mother for crying out loud. that's the only correct thing you said in your post.

Elster88 Jan 30 2006 12:15 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 30 2006 12:17 PM

Vic Sage wrote: ]What, do you expect these managers to be den mothers? They're grown men. So what if the entire dugout takes a dislike for one poor rookie prick? No need for Davey to get involved. If it effects a rookie's ability to perform, or even if a manager thinks it might, he should get involved. Some players have tougher skin than others. But its not about off-the-field activity. Its about on-the-field performance. So what are you saying? Jefferies' on the field performance wasn't affected? So why did he instantly become a better player when he switched teams? That's one fucking amazing coincidence. Maybe Davey could've some of the veterans aside and said, "Why don't you lay off the poor bastard?" He could've taken Jefferies aside and said "Stop being a whiny bitch." Vic Sage wrote: ]So what if Darryl is showing up hungover to games? No reason for Davey to get involved. I don't think Casey got too involved with Mick's hangovers, either. Didn't stop them from winning a WS or 2, did it? So to paraphrase: "My young player with immortal HOF talent is damaging his career and the team's performance by drinking too much and showing up hung over at games. But it's okay because Mickey Mantle did it." Yeah, good argument. Vic Sage wrote: ]So what if the team destroys an airplane? Some people like Jeff Pearlman think this is cool and want to hang out with those guys. No reason for Davey to get involved. The Oakland As, the Yanks of the Bronx Zoo, the Dykstra/Kruk/Daulton Phillies.... there have been skads of winning teams that acted like ANIMAL HOUSE. No, i don't think Davey needed to get involved. So by this do you mean: "Let the team I'm managing behave like assholes, trash planes and ask stewardesses for blow jobs while on a team flight. As long as they keep winning like the A's, Yanks, and Phillies, I'm all for it!"? That's what Pearlman seems to think, too. I don't agree with this. I don't think I need to explain why. It seems to be a very bad belief. Vic Sage wrote: ]He's not a den mother for crying out loud. that's the only correct thing you said in your post. No need to be a complete prick. Maybe I was overly sarcastic in my post, but at least I didn't blindly dismiss what you were saying. I feel the need to reiterate: I like Davey. I'm only using the behavior of the Mets from the late '80s as examples. I agree that managers don't need to be baby-sitters. But the complete non-interference policy that Vic is advocating and Davey followed is going too far to the other extreme. I'd like to think that managing a team is more than just putting a lineup together and teaching fundamentals. Davey should've done more off-the-field than he did. There are plenty of reasons why that team only won one WS, but one of the main reasons they didn't reach their potential was that they ran wild off the field. The manager could've helped. _____________ This post had the designation 70) Doug Flynn

Vic Sage Jan 30 2006 01:41 PM

so, you dump a bucket of sarcasm on my head, then call me a complete prick for responding? I'd say i was only a partial prick. But you've sure got a lot of balls. Inferences about how guys might've performed, or how the Mets might've won even MORE (despite the fact that they were the WINNINGEST TEAM IN BASEBALL during Davey's tenure) if Davey had done this or that are pure speculation. He could've walked Straw into AA meetings and ended up with the same result. Jeffries might have BEEN a complete jerk who deserved whatever hazing he got. Or Davey might've seen it as a standard right of passage that all jocks endure, to some degree. (by the way, we don't really KNOW what Jeffries endured, beyond heresay and innuendo, do we?) Jeffries didn't just blossom when he left. He was actually pretty good HERE, but he came up pretty young, and the Mets got tired of tolerating his glove in the infield and lost patience with him just as he was approaching his peak years. I wasn't surprised he blossomed once he was relieved of defensive obligations and got to play everyday in a park suited to his gap power bat. But you seem to want to credit his improved performance to the fact that Ron Darling wasn't around anymore to pick on him. Hmmm. Ok. I'm only basing my evaluation of Davey based on what he did, not on what i think he should've done. I know other teams and other players have blossomed and succeeded without a manager acting in loco parentiis, and i know that the Mets won more during his tenure than they ever did before or since, and i know post-season can be largely a crapshoot, so i'm not going to sit here 20 years later and say: "gee, davey, if you just sat on those boys more on flights, we'd have had more world series wins." You, apparently, want to conflate your moral judgments about how athletes comport themselves with their on-field productivity and draw some conclusions about it. I don't.

Elster88 Jan 30 2006 02:02 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 30 2006 02:15 PM

="Vic Sage"]so, you dump a bucket of sarcasm on my head, then call me a complete prick for responding? I acknowledged my own sarcasm. You're right, calling you a prick after being so sarcastic is stupidly hypocritical. ="Vic Sage"]I'd say i was only a partial prick. But you've sure got a lot of balls. I'm not sure about that. It doesn't take a lot of balls to call names on a website. I'd just say that I'm a prick too. ="Vic Sage"]Inferences about how guys might've performed, or how the Mets might've won even MORE (despite the fact that they were the WINNINGEST TEAM IN BASEBALL during Davey's tenure) if Davey had done this or that are pure speculation. He could've walked Straw into AA meetings and ended up with the same result. I realize it's speculation. But do you have to completely ignore the situation, as it seemed Davey did, just because it might not help? He could've tried something. ="Vic Sage"]Jeffries might have BEEN a complete jerk who deserved whatever hazing he got. Or Davey might've seen it as a standard right of passage that all jocks endure, to some degree. (by the way, we don't really KNOW what Jeffries endured, beyond heresay and innuendo, do we?) Jeffries didn't just blossom when he left. He was actually pretty good HERE, but he came up pretty young, and the Mets got tired of tolerating his glove in the infield and lost patience with him just as he was approaching his peak years. I wasn't surprised he blossomed once he was relieved of defensive obligations and got to play everyday in a park suited to his gap power bat. But you seem to want to credit his improved performance to the fact that Ron Darling wasn't around anymore to pick on him. Hmmm. Ok. I'm sure there were other factors that went into Jefferies improved performance. I'm sure one of them was that the Mets hated him and he was able to get away from that. If this originated out of nothing but Jefferies being overly sensitive to rookie hazing, then Davey still could've helped, as I said. He could've pulled Jefferies aside and told him to grow up. ="Vic Sage"]I'm only basing my evaluation of Davey based on what he did, not on what i think he should've done. I know other teams and other players have blossomed and succeeded without a manager acting in loco parentiis, and i know that the Mets won more during his tenure than they ever did before or since, and i know post-season can be largely a crapshoot, so i'm not going to sit here 20 years later and say: "gee, davey, if you just sat on those boys more on flights, we'd have had more world series wins." You, apparently, want to conflate your moral judgments about how athletes comport themselves with their on-field productivity and draw some conclusions about it. I don't. Some athletes are dickheads. Some of them get wasted and try to bang hot stewardesses when they are in a drunken stupor. I realize this and it doesn't bother me. This is nothing about moral judgements. If I was a ballplayer making millions I'd probably be doing much of the same, though I probably wouldn't whip it out on the plane. The specific examples I am using are just examples of their wildness that I am using to illustrate my point. What does bother me is that they built a talent pool that comes along once in a lifetime and only won one WS. You make the point that the postseason is a crapshoot. My point is that they should've reached the postseason more than twice. They certainly had the talent to do more. The problem wasn't a lack of talent. So what else could've helped? Davey Johnson taking a more hands-on approach could've helped. I don't think this is an unfair or illogical conclusion. And I've already said a million times I love Davey. This particular debate didn't come from any dislike for him or the late eighties teams. The first post of yours that I disagreed was when you said he wasn't a den mother and apparently wanted to leave it at that. My argument is that there are degrees. This team, and teams in general, could be better served with a manager that could've calmed down some of the off-the-field shenanigans. This is not a stretch of my imagination or the result of a prudish, holier-than-thou background.

ScarletKnight41 Jan 30 2006 02:10 PM

Elster88 wrote: I acknowledged my own sarcasm. You're right, calling you a prick after being so sarcastic is stupidly hypocritical. I'm not sure about that. It doesn't take a lot of balls to call names on a website. I'd just say that I'm a prick too. This is why I like Elster. I appreciate how he can step away from a dialog and re-evaluate it from different angles.

Elster88 Jan 30 2006 02:12 PM

Thanks, Scarlet. Of course the opposing argument is that I should reread my original posts before hitting submit and avoid stupid remarks ahead of time. :-)

ScarletKnight41 Jan 30 2006 03:01 PM

We've all posted off the cuff, or decafienated, or whatnot. Recognizing that is half the battle.