Master Index of Archived Threads


Clem Labine

Johnny Dickshot Mar 02 2007 04:07 PM

Surprise! He's dead. First Met ever to wear No. 41 ]March 2, 2007 Clem Labine, All-Star Reliever for Brooklyn Dodgers, Is Dead at 80 By RICHARD GOLDSTEIN Clem Labine, an All-Star relief pitcher of the 1950’s who helped bring the Brooklyn Dodgers four pennants and their only World Series championship, died today in Vero Beach, Fla. He was 80. Labine’s death was announced by the Dodgers, who said he had been ill for a brief time. He recently attended a Dodgers adult camp in Vero Beach. A right-hander with an outstanding sinker and curveball, who was familiar to Ebbets Field fans for his distinctive crew cut, Labine was a late-inning presence on the 1950’s teams whose members became known as the Boys of Summer. He led the National League in saves in 1956 (with 19) and ’57 (with 17) and he was an All-Star in both seasons. He appeared in a National League-high 60 games in 1955, posting a 13-5 record with 11 saves, then beat the Yankees in relief in Game 4 of the World Series and saved Game 5. The Dodgers went on to win in seven games after losing to the Yankees in the Series five times, going back to 1941. Pitching in the major leagues from 1950 to 1962, Labine started only 38 games in 513 appearances. But he made several memorable starts. In the 1951 National League playoffs, he threw a six-hit complete game at the Polo Grounds in the Dodgers’ 10-0 victory over the New York Giants in Game 2, a day before Bobby Thomson’s pennant-winning home run off the Dodgers’ Ralph Branca. In the 1956 World Series, Labine beat the Yankees, 1-0, on a seven-hitter in Game 6, pitching all 10 innings, a day after the Yankees’ Don Larsen threw a perfect game. “I always thought Clem would’ve had a great career as a starting pitcher,” Carl Erskine, a leading Dodger pitcher of the 1950’s, said in a statement. “But he told me: ‘I don’t want to start. I liked the pressure of coming into the game with everything on the line.’ ” Labine grew up in Woonsocket, R.I., the son of a weaver and a descendant of French-Canadians, and signed with the Dodger organization when he was just out of high school in 1944. He began to flourish as a reliever in 1953, having mastered a sinkerball while pitching in the Venezuelan winter league. Labine’s sinker induced batters to pound balls into the dirt, where they would be snared by Gil Hodges at first base, Jackie Robinson at second, Pee Wee Reese at shortstop or Billy Cox at third base. “They go to swing at it, and it drops on you, and you get the top of the ball,” Labine told Peter Golenbock in “Bums,” an oral history of the Brooklyn Dodgers. “So you’re not gonna hit a lot of line drives off of me, just a lot of ground balls. And don’t forget who we had scooping them up: Gilly, Robinson, Reese and Cox.” Labine remained with the Dodgers when they moved to Los Angeles in 1958 and pitched for their ’59 World Series championship team. He was traded to the Detroit Tigers during the 1960 season, joined the Pittsburgh Pirates later that year and pitched in their World Series victory over the Yankees. He finished his career with the original Mets in 1962. Pitching for 13 seasons, Labine had a career record of 77-56 with 96 saves. After leaving baseball, Labine was an executive and designer for a men’s sportswear company in Rhode Island. His family endured travails in those years after he left the game. In an interview with Roger Kahn for “The Boys of Summer,” Labine told how his son, Clem Jr. known as Jay, enlisted in the Marines, then lost a leg when he stepped on a land mine in the Vietnam War. Labine, who had homes in Cumberland, R.I., and Vero Beach, is survived by his wife, Barbara; son Clem Labine Jr. of Woonsocket, R.I.; daughters Barbara Grubbs of Reno Nev.; Gail Ponanski of Smithfield, R.I.; Kim Archambault of Smithfield; and Susan Gershkoff of Lincoln, R.I.; five grandchildren; and one great-grandchild. Through those summers of the 1950’s, Labine cut a confident figure, coming in from the right-field bullpen at Ebbets Field to relieve pitching mainstays like Erskine, Don Newcombe, Preacher Roe and Johnny Podres. “If you had a lead, there was this thing where about the seventh or eighth inning, where he’d get up, sort of a ritual, and walk down to the bullpen,” the former Dodger pitcher Roger Craig told Bob Cairns in “Pen Men,” an oral history of relief pitching. “Clem was kind of a cocky, arrogant type, which was good. I liked it. He’d fold his glove up and put it in his pocket. I can see him now, strutting down to the bullpen and the fans cheering.”

Edgy DC Mar 02 2007 04:21 PM

Bitter Metly Month. Second-oldest Met, I believe.

metirish Mar 02 2007 04:29 PM

Labine had a fine career,why only 4 innings for the Mets? http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/labincl01.shtml

Frayed Knot Mar 02 2007 04:34 PM

Maybe because he gave up 6 runs in those 4 innings? Labine was an old Dodger and the early Mets - somewhat concerned about whether they'd be accepted just 5 years after 2 National League teams abandoned NYC - made a habit of stacking the rosters with aging Dodger & Giant favorites for sentimental reasons. It's part of the reason it took them so long to re-orient themselves in the direction of winning baseball.

metirish Mar 02 2007 04:36 PM

I suppose 35 was old back then,there can't be many old Brooklyn Dodgers left.

G-Fafif Mar 02 2007 04:38 PM

Clem Labine did not like Dick Young, which makes Labine all that much more likable. From Boys of Summer: ]I've got no bitterness. I'm here and he's still in New York with his column. I remember when the Mets dropped me. I deserved it. Still, it was the end. All Young could say, he'd known me thirteen years, was this. He said, 'That's the way it goes.'

sharpie Mar 02 2007 04:42 PM

In the article in this morning's Times, some longtime Dodger employee mentioned that he was very ill and now this.

Nymr83 Mar 02 2007 05:04 PM

]It's part of the reason it took them so long to re-orient themselves in the direction of winning baseball. they were still the quickest team to win a WS from its entry into the league until the Marlins.

G-Fafif Mar 02 2007 05:25 PM

Also, not a lot of great expansion options for N.L. teams in '62. Maybe the Mets could have drafted younger and with less of an eye toward old hometown heroes, but (and I'd have to look up the details) the existing teams were given great latitude in who they could protect, greater than it would be in later expansions. Also, no free agency, something the '90s expansioneers (especially the Diamondbacks) would take advantage of.

TheOldMole Mar 02 2007 05:43 PM

It was nice, having all those old Dodgers. And we lived with some losing teams...that was OK too. It was kinda fun. Casey, Choo Choo, Marvelous Marv...

G-Fafif Mar 02 2007 06:18 PM

Available to the Mets and Colt 45s via the expansion draft: A pool of 15 players from each N.L. team -- seven from the active roster as of 8/31/61 and eight from the rest of the players under their control. No individual club could lose more than four players to one team (or eight to both teams). In other words, you could protect just about everybody you wanted to protect. In those reserve clause days, leaving seven major leaguers and eight minor leaguers out by the curb was probably doing the existing clubs a favor. Quotes from the front offices right after the draft: Paul Richards, Colt 45s... ]We have a strong nucleus for a fine young club, which should help us build a contender in a hurry. From now on, we ask favors from no one. George Weiss, Mets... ]We did as well as we expected to do, maybe a little better, but please don't think this will be our starting club on opening day. We plan to purchase many more players and have some deals in mind. Richards, in retrospect, was kitting himself. Weiss tamped down expectations yet was still ("a little better?" A little better than what?) kidding himself. With all that dreck in the air, may as well revel in the opportunity to bring back Clem Labine and other expatriates.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 02 2007 07:10 PM

Clem Labine, until his death today, was the second oldest living Met. Because Yogi Berra outlived him, Labine was unable to take a turn holding the coveted title of Oldest Living Met. I made the following post in the now-archived "People Who Are Still Alive" thread on October 21, 2005: Yancy Street Gang wrote: The Twenty Oldest Living Mets Yogi Berra 5/12/1925 Clem Labine 8/6/1926 Duke Snider 9/19/1926 Joe Ginsberg 10/11/1926 Dave Hillman 9/14/1927 Herb Moford 8/6/1928 Frank Thomas 6/11/1929 Joe Pignatano 8/4/1929 Jimmy Piersall 11/14/1929 Hobie Landrith 3/16/1930 Frank Lary 4/10/1930 Tom Sturdivant 4/28/1930 Bob Friend 11/24/1930 Don Zimmer 1/17/1931 Roger Craig 2/17/1931 Willie Mays 5/6/1931 Carl Willey 6/6/1931 Norm Sherry 7/16/1931 Chico Fernandez 3/2/1932 Ed Bressoud 5/2/1932 Yogi inherited the title from Warren Spahn, who held it from April 14, 1965 until his death on November 24, 2003. I don't think we'll ever see anyone else with a 38-year reign. (Berra would need to live to be 116 for him to tie Spahn's record.) Since then Herb Moford has died (on December 3, 2005) and now Clem Labine. When Moford died, Jim Marshall moved into 20th place, and the death of Labine brings Sammy Taylor onto the list. So here's the current Top Twenty: Yogi Berra 5/12/1925 Duke Snider 9/19/1926 Joe Ginsberg 10/11/1926 Dave Hillman 9/14/1927 Frank Thomas 6/11/1929 Joe Pignatano 8/4/1929 Jimmy Piersall 11/14/1929 Hobie Landrith 3/16/1930 Frank Lary 4/10/1930 Tom Sturdivant 4/28/1930 Bob Friend 11/24/1930 Don Zimmer 1/17/1931 Roger Craig 2/17/1931 Willie Mays 5/6/1931 Carl Willey 6/6/1931 Norm Sherry 7/16/1931 Chico Fernandez 3/2/1932 Ed Bressoud 5/2/1932 Jim Marshall 5/25/1932 Sammy Taylor 2/27/1933

iramets Mar 03 2007 06:42 AM

"Gone is the romance that was Clem Labine's..."

MFS62 Mar 03 2007 10:02 AM

Why do I get the feeling that the last surviving member of the 1962 Mets will be Don Zimmer? How ironic will that be. But if you were a fan of the '62 Mets, and Brooklyn, too, it would somehow be appropriate. Later

TheOldMole Mar 04 2007 09:06 AM

I thought Jim Piersall had died...?

iramets Mar 04 2007 09:10 AM

Labine also provides one of my best examples of the sort of shameless bullshitting that went on before the advent of sabemretric-style analysis (i.e., fact vs. legend). As is now being documented on retrosheet, "the Dodgers.com obituary for Clem Labine [claimed that] 'At one point, Labine retired future Hall of Famer Stan Musial 49 consecutive times,' " but Dave Smith of Retrosheet pointed out --in 1999!!!!!--that this simply isnt so, not nearly. Smith writes ":I mean, I saw this and sent the following note to the Dodgers and to the author of the story. The MLB story was later revised and that claim was removed. Labine certainly did well against a great hitter, but even at a quick glance the claim is silly. This is reminiscent of the bogus claims by Dick Radatz about his prowess in striking out Mickey Mantle. That circulated when Radatz died and I tried to debunk it, but I am sure my correction did not get nearly wide enough distribution to remove the myth. The same will probably be true this time." t's one thing to claim that "Musial had a hard time with Labine, as I vaguely recall," and quite another to make up numbers (or to accept someone's imaginary figures) just because they OUGHT to be true. I see this all the time in printed books, some blowhard just spewing the unlikeliest of facts, thinking that there's no way the facts can be proven or disproven, and I argue that when they are disproven, that author (or that source) has taken a serious hit to his general credibility on ALL factual and non-factual events.

SteveJRogers Mar 04 2007 09:18 AM

Heh, Carl Erskine repeated this "fact" yesterday with Chris Russo on WFAN. I didn't hear the interview or rest of the show, but I highly doubt it was corrected on the show. Whats that line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance? "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

iramets Mar 04 2007 09:31 AM

Great line (shitty movie, but great line). I don't doubt that Clem Labine helped create the legend, or even invented it himself--after all, it reflects well on him. But shame on the gullible dopes (like Russo) who accept the self-aggrandizement and so trash their own credibility. BTW, the actual stats (from Dave Smith): Career results of Stan Musial vs Clem Labine Report prepared May 15, 1999 from Retrosheet data AB H 2B 3B HR BB HP SO SF RBI BA OBA SA 42 10...1..1..1...6...0.....2... 0... 3..238 .333 .381 Good, but hardly 0-for-49.

Frayed Knot Mar 04 2007 10:41 AM

TheOldMole wrote: I thought Jim Piersall had died...? No, but Anthony Perkins did. I heard Erskine claiming the Labine/Musial stat yesterday too and found it hard to believe (I had never heard it before). I mean .. Rey Ordonez would get more hits than that off of Sandy Koufax, even if only by accident. One other thing that story does is provide an example (one of many) of why ballplayers don't always provide the best perspective on things, even when they were a part of them. Erskine sounds perfectly rational and sharp even in his advanced age but, at this point, has probably just heard and then repeated the story so often that I'm sure he truly believes it to be fact.

iramets Mar 04 2007 11:48 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: One other thing that story does is provide an example (one of many) of why ballplayers don't always provide the best perspective on things, even when they were a part of them. To put it kindly. Ballplayers are consistently and grossly unreliable. It drives me batty when their memories are cited as fact on the grounds that "they were there." I mean, think about this one. Is there ANY significant event you've dealt with some 40 times on your job in the last decade or so that has turned out negatively for you ten times but which negative outcomes you will vigorously in pulbic deny having ever occurred? If you're an HR manager, say, who has dealt with 42 sexual harrassment claims over the last decade or so, can you imagine claiming on the radio that you have dealt with 49 of them and never once has one of them turned out to be valid? If you're the president of the firm, how do you deal with such a claim? I'd fire the HR person pronto when it becomes public that we've lost 10 out of 42 sexual harassment cases. If you're a college student called into the Dean's office and you claim you've never failed a course in 49 courses, and the Dean whips out a transcript showing you've in fact failed 10 courses out of 42, is that a major loss of face? I'd say so. The point being that Musial getting a hit off Clem Labine ought to be something Labine remembers--pitchers are supposed to remember such things, and use that memory. "The sonofabitch hit a low, outside curve off the wall--gotta remember that next time"--but this happens ten times and he remembers it as zero? That's a pretty serious discrepancy.

Edgy DC Mar 04 2007 06:14 PM

If we're going to use facts to debunk the myth, let's try and back up and find the facts that link him to the myth before digging him up and hanging him for it. I likewise think the notion that Bob Ueker wore out Sandy Koufax (he didn't) could be traced to Bob himself, but I don't have it handy.

iramets Mar 04 2007 06:45 PM

Edgy DC wrote: let's try and back up and find the facts that link him to the myth before digging him up and hanging him for it.. Huh? Didn't several posters say they heard Labine yesterday say (in a recorded conversation, presumably) that he'd gotten Musial out 49 straight times? You want a better link than that?

G-Fafif Mar 04 2007 07:09 PM

From Bill Madden's obit in Saturday's News: ]Labine was 77-56 with a 3.56 ERA in a career that began in 1950 and ended with his release by the original Mets in 1962. But it was his unparalleled success against Musial, an otherwise notorious Dodger-killer, that Labine maintained was his proudest accomplishment. He retired Stan the Man an incredible 49 consecutive times. "My pitches were neutral," Labine said. "They didn't run in on a batter or away, just straight up and down, so I was just as efficient against lefties as I was with righties. With Stanley, I didn't have a good changeup - which he loved - so I just never threw him one." He could certainly be proud of holding him to .238 and 3 RBI.

Edgy DC Mar 04 2007 07:11 PM

Sorry, I saw two posters write that Erskine made the claim.

iramets Mar 04 2007 07:42 PM

Actually, you're right. It was Erskine. It's not clear from G-Fafif's post that Labine was claiming credit for opher 49 or just pitching well generally against Musial. My bad.

iramets Mar 06 2007 12:32 PM ANNALS OF BALLPLAYER UNRELIABILITY, PART 2 Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 06 2007 06:30 PM

Jerry Grote recalled hitting a dramatic extra-inning walkoff HR against the Braves in 1969, and in recalling it in Stanley Cohen’s book A Magic Summer, he further claims that “I only hit six home runs that year, but I think three or four of them won ballgames.” Well, I’m sure that 3 or 4 HRs will tend to come in handy, but I decided to investigate Grote’s HRs to see if they all conformed to the drama of this 11th-inning walkoff shot. The HRs did all come in victories (when Grote jacked one out, it was likely that the opposing pitcher was not at the top of his game) but they were not all game-winners by a long shot, and often came in the early innings of a game. In his first HR of 1969, on 6/30, for example, the Mets were already leading 3-0 in the top of the first. Since they eventually won 10-2, I hardly see where this one could remotely be called a game-winner. METS 1ST: Agee walked; Pfeil grounded out (first to second to pitcher) [Agee to second]; Boswell singled to right [Agee scored]; Shamsky walked [Boswell to second]; Kranepool walked [Boswell to third, Shamsky to second]; Gaspar singled to left [Boswell scored, Shamsky scored, Kranepool to third]; WASHBURN REPLACED BRILES (PITCHING); Grote homered [Kranepool scored, Gaspar scored]; Weis popped to shortstop; McAndrew was called out on strikes; 6 R, 3 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Mets 6, Cardinals 0. In his second HR of 1969, on 7/18, the Mets were ahead 3-2, and Grote homered. They won 5-2, so that’s another one that can’t remotely be counted as a game-winning HR: METS 8TH: MCGINN REPLACED WICKER (PITCHING); Shamsky singled to right; GASPAR RAN FOR SHAMSKY; Garrett was called out on strikes; CLENDENON BATTED FOR KRANEPOOL; Clendenon flied to center; Grote homered [Gaspar scored]; Weis walked; RADATZ REPLACED MCGINN (PITCHING); Weis stole second; Koosman struck out; 2 R, 2 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Mets 5, Expos 2. His third HR of 1969 (on 8/1) is very marginal. It turned out to be the winning run of the game, a solo shot in a 5-4 victory, but at the time he hit it, it was the fourth inning and the Mets were up 4-3, so even if you count this as a GW-HR, it lacks the drama Grote’s narrative implies. METS 4TH: Grote homered; Koonce struck out; Harrelson flied to left; Pfeil grounded out (third to first); 1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Braves 3, Mets 5. Two days later, Grote hit the extra-inning HR that started this image in his mind of multiple 1969 HRs being big. This one was: METS 11TH: Grote homered; 1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Braves 5, Mets 6. His fifth HR of 1969, on 9/5, came with a 3-1 lead in a game the Mets won 5-1. Again, a nice thing, I’m sure, but no game-winner: METS 8TH: BOOZER REPLACED HARMON (PITCHING); Agee singled to left; Clendenon flied to center; Swoboda flied to right; Grote homered [Agee scored]; Gaspar grounded out (second to first); 2 R, 2 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Phillies 1, Mets 5. And his final HR came the next day, a solo shot leading off the third inning of a game the Mets eventually won 3-0. Technically again this was a game winner, but the timing of it makes Grote’s claim seem a little silly. METS 3RD: Grote homered; Harrelson singled to second; Cardwell singled to second [Harrelson to second]; Agee out on a sacrifice bunt (pitcher to first) [Harrelson to third, Cardwell to second]; Garrett hit a sacrifice fly to left [Harrelson scored]; Clendenon struck out; 2 R, 3 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Phillies 0, Mets 2. So to sum up: Of the other five HRs Grote hit in 1969, none of them changed a losing game into a winning game, and only one of them changed a tied game into a winning game—that tie was a 0-0 tie in the top of the third inning. They occurred in the first, third, and fourth innings, plus two in the eighth inning. Of those two eighth inning shots, they simply added to a lead that the Mets had-- the opposing team never scored another run after the Mets had gone into the lead, so neither of Grote's two 8th inning HRs affected the final outcome of either game. In other words, if you assert on the basis of Grote’s recollection that in 1969 he hit three or four home runs that won games, you will be seriously overstating the case.

Edgy DC Mar 06 2007 12:45 PM

Musial grounded to Labine (in the midst of a five-run inning) the only time Clem faced him as a Met.

iramets Mar 06 2007 12:49 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Musial grounded to Labine (in the midst of a five-run inning) the only time Clem faced him as a Met. And drove in a run while doing so.

iramets Mar 06 2007 07:00 PM

Edgy DC wrote: If we're going to use facts to debunk the myth, let's try and back up and find the facts that link him to the myth before digging him up and hanging him for it. I likewise think the notion that Bob Ueker wore out Sandy Koufax (he didn't) could be traced to Bob himself, but I don't have it handy. The fax of Uecker vs. Koufax 1962: 0-for-0 1963: 0-for-1 1964: 0-for-4 1965: 6-for-15 1966: 0-for-9 Total: 6-for-29 , or a shade over .200. Not good, as Edgy says. OTOH, Uecker did have a huge game against Koufax on July 24, 1965—he got a single in the third inning, a HR in the fifth, and most flattering of all, when he faced Koufax in the 8th with two out and a runner on second base with the game tied 2-2, Koufax walked him intentionally. (The Cardinals won it in the 10th on a Willie Davis error.) Outside of this one magnificent effort, however, Uecker sucked hairy moose balls vs. Koufax, as did pretty much everyone else.

RealityChuck Mar 06 2007 07:56 PM

MFS62 wrote: Why do I get the feeling that the last surviving member of the 1962 Mets will be Don Zimmer? How ironic will that be. But if you were a fan of the '62 Mets, and Brooklyn, too, it would somehow be appropriate. More likely, it'll be the guy this forum's named for.

iramets Mar 06 2007 08:07 PM

Apropos of not much, Joe Christopher went 3 for his first 5 Abs vs. Koufax, and 7 for his first 20, but then went 3-for-22 against Koufax in his last few years as a Met, giving him a total of 10-for-42, respectable but not much more. Elio Chacon went 3-for-8 vs. Koufax in 1962 The Mets went fairly apeshit against Koufax the first time he faced them, Elio and JC particularly so, and Hodges went yard on his ass, too, as they scored six runs off K., but got their asses kicked just the same: New York Mets AB R H RBI BB SO PO A Christopher rf 5 2 3 1 0 0 1 0 Chacon ss 3 1 3 0 2 0 0 1 Cook 3b 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 Thomas lf 4 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 Hodges 1b 3 1 1 1 0 0 7 1 Kanehl 1b 2 0 1 1 0 1 4 0 Hickman cf 5 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 Mantilla 2b 5 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 Taylor c 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Chiti ph,c 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 Landrith c 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Hook p 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Hillman p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moorhead p 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ashburn ph 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mizell p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 40 6 13 5 3 10 27 10 FIELDING - E: Kanehl (2). BATTING - 2B: Hickman (5,off Koufax); Thomas (8,off Koufax). HR: Hodges (6,4th inning off Koufax 0 on 0 out). IBB: Thomas (1,by Koufax). Team LOB: 10. PITCHINGLos Angeles Dodgers IP H R ER BB SO HR Koufax W(7-2) 9 13 6 6 3 10 1 WP: Koufax (2). IBB: Koufax (3,Thomas). New York Mets IP H R ER BB SO HR Hook L(3-5) 2 5 5 5 2 0 1 Hillman 1 5 4 4 0 1 1 Moorhead 5 6 3 3 1 4 1 Mizell 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 Totals 9 19 13 13 3 7 4 Hook faced 3 batters in the 3rd inning

Johnny Dickshot Mar 06 2007 08:21 PM

Freakin Kanehl

iramets Mar 06 2007 09:10 PM

After wasting much of my day adding up boxscores to arrive at lifetime totals, I've learned that retrosheet has already added up totals for most pitcher/batter matchups. Uecker's official numbers vs. Koufax are AB H 2B 3B HR BB IBB SO HBP SH SF AVG OBP SLG Sandy Koufax 38 7 2 0 1 3 1 8 0 0 0 .184 .244 .316 It would be interesting to compare various memories of what people think they did against other people with what the numbers show. As it happens there was a backup catcher on the Braves/Cardinals/Phillies who killed Koufax, but it wasn't Uecker. He was swapped for Uecker, though, even up. Here's Gene Oliver's lifetime numbers Gene Oliver 51 20 1 0 4 3 0 11 0 0 0 .392 .426 .647 Not too shabby.

iramets Mar 06 2007 09:52 PM

There are about 20 hitters who got at least 100 ABs against Tom Seaver. The six best collectively got 660 ABs (about a full season) against him, and got 198 hits off him, for exactly a .300 BA (with 33 HRs). I wonder if Seaver could identify these batters, given that information. I wonder if you can. Want to try to guess these six? While you’re guessing, name the six batters who each got 100 ABs against Seaver and who collectively batted .219 (161 hits in 735 Abs) with 6 HRs. All twelve btw are multiple All-stars (I’m pretty sure), with a few HOFers in the mix, so these are names you know.

iramets Mar 06 2007 10:10 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 06 2007 10:48 PM

To get a little more contemporary on your asses, Jose Reyes has batted against five pitchers at least 10 times apiece, with very good and very bad results: The bottom five he has 75 Abs against but only 4 base hits (3 singles, 1 double). That's .053. You’ll know who they are when he faces them this season, but you can guess who they are right now. (Willie probably has these numbers—I wonder if he’ll sit Jose down against them this year. Prolly not—Jose sits for no one.) Or you can guess which five pitchers Jose has faced 82 times so far with a total of 39 hits against ( a cool .476 average!) with 3 HRs, 4 triples (all off the same guy!), and 10 doubles. That’s an .805 slg against these hapless pitchers. BOLO for these guys this year. Curiously, in a very long career in one league, Tom Glavine has never faced a single batter as much as 100 times, and probably never will. I guess that's what comes from playing so many different teams, interleague play, etc. If we reduce Glavine's level to 50 ABs, there are five guys who've batted 313 times against him (the data is said to be incomplete) with 110 hits for a .351 average with 21 HRs, pretty good for a half season's work. OTOH, five guys who've hit against him at least 50 times have only a .199 average, with 281 ABs and a mere 56 hits (and one puny HR). Each list of Glavine's foes, btw, contains at least one sure shot HOFer, and a few scrubbinie middle infielders--the lists seem pretty evenly matched to me, sugesting that maybe there is small sample size at work here, and not design.

metirish Mar 06 2007 10:15 PM

Mike Schmidt Frank Robinson Willie Stargell

Johnny Dickshot Mar 06 2007 10:26 PM

This is a quiz as to the 5 pitchers who have faced Reyes most often? My guesses: Wolf Willis Myers L Hernandez Smoltz

iramets Mar 06 2007 10:36 PM

metirish wrote: Mike Schmidt Frank Robinson Willie Stargell This is your Seaver list? No. No. Yes. Willie Stargell 128 / 31 8 HRs .242 .300 .555

Edgy DC Mar 06 2007 10:41 PM

There's got to be some Lou Brock action in there. I'll add Don Kessinger for good measure. I don't know where he batted in the lineup, but he was a Cub, he was a Cardinal, and he played every day from 1967-1977. OE: That would leave about 22 of the 33 homers to Willie Stargell, though, wouldn't it?

iramets Mar 06 2007 10:45 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: This is a quiz as to the 5 pitchers who have faced Reyes most often? My guesses: Wolf Willis Myers L Hernandez Smoltz Actually, it's not, though I can tell you that Willis, Myers, Smoltz and Hernandez would be on such a list. Willis 44 Smoltz 36 Hernandez 36 Myers 33 Hudson 28 Lieber 28 Wolf has a mere 23. Pretty good, Johnny. Some these guys have pwned Reyes, some not so much.

iramets Mar 06 2007 10:49 PM

Edgy DC wrote: There's got to be some Lou Brock action in there. I'll add Don Kessinger for good measure. I don't know where he batted in the lineup, but he was a Cub, he was a Cardinal, and he played every day from 1967-1977. OE: That would leave about 22 of the 33 homers to Willie Stargell, though, wouldn't it? Which list are you putting these guys on, the good vs. Seaver or the bad?

Edgy DC Mar 06 2007 10:58 PM

I guess I'm answering the unasked "who had the most appearances?" question.

iramets Mar 06 2007 11:02 PM

DWright has faced five pitchers at least 10 times apiece with a .125 BA (9/72) and 0 HRs. He's also faced five pitchers at least 10 times apiece for a .555 BA (30/54)with 10 HRs. What would be interesting would be to see if any of these pitchers have common characteristics (left-handed fastball/changeup guy, righthanded power pitcher with poor control, etc.)

Frayed Knot Mar 06 2007 11:05 PM

I've lost track of all the questions here. I remember the 'Uecker wearing out Koufax' story as coming from McCarver. Taht doesn't neccesarily mean that he's the one who started it but that's how I heard it relayed. Timmy boy is probably recalling that one season where Ueck had some success and then extrapolating. The Labine/Musial legend probably grew in much the same manner.

Edgy DC Mar 06 2007 11:20 PM Edited 4 time(s), most recently on Mar 13 2007 09:35 AM

Some examples of the Uecker myth: St. James Encyclopedia: "While Uecker's offensive skills were weak, he had his greatest batting success, ironically, off the top pitcher of his generation, Sandy Koufax." Uecker Quote: Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk from Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets. Sports Encyclopedia: Strange Stat: Bob Uecker arguably the worst hitter ever with a lifetime .200 average, had one pitcher he could hit. That pitcher was the most dominant of the era, Sandy Koufax. Uecker's lifetime average in over 50 At Bats against Koufax is .429. Amazin'. [url=http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox/tree/browse_frm/month/1996-01?_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F1996-01%3F&]Tom Boswell's Heart of the Order[/url]: "In his prime, Sandy Koufax found one hitter almost impossible to retire. Koufax and catcher Jeff Torborg held many confabs discussing selection of pitches to this nefarious fellow, who once hit two home runs and built a .400 average aginst the Dodger southpaw. `We tried everything. Curves and fastballs. In, out, up, down,' recalled Torborg. `Nothing worked. Bob Uecker owned Sandy Koufax.'" I think we might have found the source from which the river of bullshit flows, and, if so, it's not Uecker. Looks like I'm wrong about the Ueck. The funny thing is that Bob's numbers, while not good, are nothing to be ashamed about for a whack-hitting goofy-acting backup catcher against the toughest pitcher in baseball during a pitchers' era.

iramets Mar 06 2007 11:22 PM

Edgy DC wrote: I guess I'm answering the unasked "who had the most appearances?" question. Well, if youse guys keep answering questions I haven;t asked, I guess I'll have to look it up, right? Most Seaver ABs: Brock 152 Rose 139 Bowa 132 Kessinger 129 Oliver 127 Stargell 128 What do these next five guys have in common, besides they all kill Oliver Perez? (28 for 76 with 13 HR—on a full 608 AB season that comes to a .368 BA and 104 HRs) : Pujols, the Joses Hernandez and Cruz, Jay Payton (!) and Pat Burrell.

metirish Mar 06 2007 11:22 PM

The Uecker quote is just so funny..

Frayed Knot Mar 06 2007 11:31 PM

We've now got 3 seperate stats in this thread for Uecker v Koufax. Between them they say that he had: * 29 ABs * 38 ABs and * "over 50" The Uecker story I've never heard the details of is the one where his career was said to have ended prematurely due to injuries received in a bar fight.

iramets Mar 06 2007 11:32 PM

OTOH, Perez gets these guys out easily: 6/62 0 HR. Do they have any common traits, besides being bad hitters whom I’ve never heard of? Chad Moeller. David Ross, Tim Hummel, Jason Romano, and Jolbert Cabrera. I think I spread a little Jolbert Cabrera on a cracker last night--it wasn't bad. The secret to Perez's sporadic success seems to be: face bad backup catchers and middle infielders. He's great against nobodies, not so much against the Pujols and Burrells.

iramets Mar 06 2007 11:39 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: We've now got 3 seperate stats in this thread for Uecker v Koufax. Retrosheet, which says their Uecker/Koufax matchups are complete, gives 7 for 38 (.184), with 1 HR. That's what I'd go with. Just pick someone you think you'd connect with. Are there any pitchers, for example, you'd think would be tough on Reyes? Any type of pitcher? Any type you'd think he'd cream? Those Uecker quotes are mind-blowing. Have these people no shame?

G-Fafif Mar 07 2007 02:52 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Ballplayers don't always provide the best perspective on things, even when they were a part of them. Thought of this insightful statement about half an hour ago listening to Dan Patrick interview Lou Piniella on ESPN Radio regarding where Alfonso Soriano will hit in the Cubs' order. Since Soriano has so much power, would you move him from leadoff? was Patrick's question. Piniella answered with an inspirational story about how the Yankees got Bobby Bonds in his, Piniella's, first year with the team, when "we were playing at Shea Stadium," and Bonds was inserted into the cleanup slot and hated it and was doing miserably, so he was switched back to leadoff and he thrived so much that he hit 40 homers and "the Yankees almost won the pennant." Let's see... --Bonds came in '75, Piniella's second year as a Yankee, team's second year at Shea --Bonds was traded for and replaced Murcer who had a devil of a time at Shea, so I'm guessing Piniella kind of blurred them together (having gone out of his way to invoke the ballpark) --Bonds, for the most part, batted either third (33 times) or first (101 times). He indeed hit for a much higher average as a leadoff man and hit with more power (five homers from the three-hole where he hit until mid-May). --Bonds hit 32 homers. Very nice, but not 40, not particularly close to 40. Tailed off in the second half, too. --The Yankees battled the Orioles for the A.L. East crown, right down to the wire in 1974 while Bobby Bonds was still in San Francisco. In '75, Bonds' only year, they were very much an also-ran. Piniella's overriding point, that sometimes a power hitter is more comfortable batting leadoff, is proven out. But most of the points he used to make it were askew. But how would he remember? He was only a player then.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 07 2007 03:04 PM

I had a recent email exchange with George Theodore producing similarly disappointing results. I explained to him that using photo data and other evidence I'd been able to narrow down the switching of his uniform number from 18 to 9 to a period early in the 1973 season, probably mid-May. Did you recall any additional detail? GT: I think it was in 1974.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 07 2007 03:07 PM

You've been e-mailing with George Theodore??? Cool! What's he up to these days? And is he interested in visiting with us? (Of course, if he doesn't remember anything, it might not be such an interesting visit.)

Edgy DC Mar 07 2007 03:11 PM

Considering that, besides his nickname, he's best remembered for a brutal outfield collision, we're lucky he remembers anything at all.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 07 2007 03:13 PM

He might! I am not the guy to set it up though ... I used up my favors with him getting him to answer my questions. But I will say his name + Utah + phone in Google produces surprisingly accurate results.

Frayed Knot Mar 07 2007 04:21 PM

And, btw, I don't neccesarily mean to pick just on ballplayers and imply that they're all lying lyers with lyer sprinkles on top. The human memory is very fallable as cops will tell you about even first-hand recollections of accident or crime scenes. Or, as they sang in Gigi: He: We met at nine. She: We met at eight. He: I was on time. She: No, you were late. Both: Ah yes! I remember it well. He: We dined with friends. She: We dined alone. He: A tenor sang. She: A baritone. Ah yes! I remember it well. It's just that when things are heard directly from a player there's a tendancy for fans & media to simply accept it as gospel even though they're no better at it than the rest of us and, from an unbiased perspective sort of view, sometimes much worse.

iramets Mar 07 2007 04:42 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: And, btw, I don't neccesarily mean to pick just on ballplayers and imply that they're all lying lyers with lyer sprinkles on top. . But they are. As you say, so is everyone, but they're given special credibility. If Piniella, Labine, Grote, etc. says he participated in some long-ago event that happened in such-a-way, that pretty much settles it. So it's not that they're bigger liars than other people, it's that they get away with the most easily contradicted lies that chaps my shorts. You or I or Lewis Libby would do time for perjury if we tried getting away with some of their bullshit.

metirish Mar 13 2007 09:18 AM

I'm reading a fiction book by Robert B Parker where Clem Labine gets mentioned in passing,the book is about a private eye named Spencer brought in by the Red Sox owner to investigate weather the Sox star pitcher is throwing games....not a bad read either..

iramets Mar 13 2007 01:36 PM

="metirish"]I'm reading a fiction book by Robert B Parker where Clem Labine gets mentioned in passing,the book is about a private eye named Spencer brought in by the Red Sox owner to investigate weather the Sox star pitcher is throwing games....not a bad read either.. That's a very early Spencer novel, as I recall. (The first one was The Godwulf Manuscript--this may have been the second.) Nowadays, the amusing part is reading about Spencer some 35 years after he made his debut, self-describing as a Korean War vet, which makes him about 40 years old, at least in the mid 70s and about 75 today. But he's still beating guys up, out-racing young thugs, etc.

Frayed Knot Mar 13 2007 04:01 PM

"and about 75 today ... still beating guys up, out-racing young thugs, etc." Otherwise known as the 'Barnaby Jones' syndrome.

Edgy DC Mar 13 2007 04:07 PM

My dad floored and detained a 25-year-old when he was in his mid- sixties. I don't think he could pull that off today though.