Pages

1/12/19

Reese Kaplan -- Earl Weaver's Style is Alive and Well in 2019


Any long time Mets fan must remember the quite colorful manager in the opposing dugout during the 1969 Miracle Mets season which resulted in the club’s first-ever World Championship.  Earl Weaver went to the Hall of Fame based upon his remarkable record managing the Baltimore Orioles to an average of over 94 wins per season, over 400 games over .500 and delivering five seasons of over 100 victories.


Weaver was not a man to hold back his opinions on how the game should be played.  He would likely fit right in the new church of launch angle given his disdain for the small ball played by some of his contemporaries like Billy Martin.  Weaver once said, “When you play for one run, that's usually all you get. I have nothing against the bunt in its place, but most of the time, that place is in the bottom of a long-forgotten closet.

Weaver continued, “There are only three outs an inning, and they should be treasured. Give one away, and you're making everything harder for yourself…I used to be a pretty good hit-and-run man when I played in the minors. I handled the bat well and could hit the ball to the right side of the infield. Nevertheless, I know that you often give the opposition an out on the hit-and-run play.

Similarly, he was not a big fan of the stolen base as an offensive weapon.  Said Weaver, “If you want to steal a base, steal a base. Don't make the hitter swing at a bad pitch trying to protect the runner.”  Also along those lines, “Don't play for one run unless you know that run will win a ballgame.”

He was well known to have a love affair for the three-run homer.  “There ain't no genius here. Strategy in baseball is overrated. People say, 'That Weaver, he plays for the long ball too much.' You bet I do. Hit 'em out. Then I got no worry about somebody lousing up a bunt, I got no worry about the hit and run - and that's really overrated - I got no worry about base-running errors. And I can't screw it up myself.

Now when your team includes the likes of guys like Boog Powell, Frank Robinson, Eddie Murray, Ken Singleton and others of that ilk, perhaps the infatuation with the long ball was understandable.  The Mets, by comparison, have had a lot of games started by players like Ruben Tejada, Eric Campbell, Austin Jackson, Nori Aoki and Kevin Plawecki.  Consequently, there is something to be said in not trying to swing for the fences when history suggests you’re simply not capable of doing so.

Way back in 1968 which is the same year Bob Gibson established a record not likely to be broken with a season-long ERA of 1.12, the entire league’s ERA was just 2.98.  After that season the mound height was lowered to help counteract the dominance of the league’s pitchers, yet despite the change the corresponding increase in ERA was not all that significant for some time.  For the next 8 years the league averaged around 3.50 which was a big tick above the 2.98 of 1968 but they didn’t hit the 4.00 plateau until 1977.  When the steroids era began in the early ‘90s it didn’t take long for the league average ERA to shoot above the 4.50 mark.  ERAs have hovered between 4.00 and 4.50 ever since.  

While most people acknowledge that doping is not as prevalent as it once was, the fact remains that HR totals are way up, with 2016, 2017 and 2018 capturing 3 of the 4 all-time HRs per game numbers.  However, at what price does this power come?  In 1999 the league batting average was .271.  Last season it was just .248.   Runs have not significantly increase, so what it suggests is that despite the prevalence of the long ball the depressed batting averages are not producing more scoring. 

So the question is whether or not Earl Weaver was right?  At a time when swinging for the fences is not resulting in greater run totals, could a reintroduction of small ball put some more bodies on base before those long balls clear the walls?  

Going into the 2019 season the Mets may indeed receive power from Peter Alonso (whenever he arrives), Robinson Cano and Michael Conforto.  If/when Yoenis Cespedes returns, there’s another candidate to hit home runs.  Would the team be better served with more high OBP guys like Brandon Nimmo and Jeff McNeil than borderline sluggers like Keon Broxton and Todd Frazier to balance out the lineup?

Personally, I'm fed up with the all-or-nothing approach embraced by the past two batting coaches.  I'd rather see quality ABs, walks, hitting the other way, infield singles and the like than strikeouts and weak pop-ups when the launch angle isn't working.  

How about you?

10 comments:

  1. When Jennry Mejia is considered, overall doping levels have not declined😀.

    I think each team should play to it strength...power and small ball mixed. But guys get paid more, typically, for power #'s, and perhaps the shift screws up certain player's hitting rhythm, so they just hit and hope it eludes the shift, which has caused most of the drop in average over time, I would think. All that said:

    PLAY THE SQUIRREL!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I loved Earl Weaver arguing with umps.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good article, Reese.

    I think Sandy was an Earl Weaver disciple, for sure. The method works great when you are consistently getting the three run
    homer, but it is prove to uneven results when you don't (think winning the opening game of a three game set 10-1, and then following up with 2-1 losses on the weekend).

    I will take the more consistent "small ball" approach.......look at the Red Sox last year for proof of concept. I also think that is
    the direction the Mets are heading (contact hitting, etc) when you look at the personnel that joined the organization in the past few months.

    I think the Squirrel will have a role, for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike, Red Sox were 1st in doubles, 9th in homers and 11th in triples, so the played small AND large ball in leading the majors with 876 runs.

    BTW:

    Hearkening back to my "Citifield Sux" article from yesterday, Boston scored just 6 more runs than the Mets on the road, but scored a whopping 194 more runs at home than the Mets did at home - that's nearly 2.4 runs per home game. The 1968 Mets, by comparison, averaged 2.9 runs per game, period, so the gap is huge. So was the gap in wins.

    Let all read that, and draw their own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bronx Bombers get DJ Lemahieu.

    He hit .317 in Colorado, but just .229 away last season.

    So that move seems iffy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, oh--Thomas & I are riding off in opposite directions.

    One of the great pleasures of 1969 was seeing that hat-stomping wacko thoroughly out-managed by the steady, cool hand of Mr. Hodges. Weaver is proof that success (he certainly was that), maturity & brains don't necessarily correlate (why do I hear a whisper of Ruffles & Flourishes in my ear?).

    The Bosox are an offensive machine (and leading the majors in 2B is evidence of that than 9th in HR's). Now Tom probably would like to wall off that CF alley in quirky Fenway to turn that triples into 4B trots, but sorry, not me.

    Baseball is loosing it because HR, K & BB are the offensive norm. Thank you Earl Weaver.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hobie, Reese posted an ESPN chart in his response the other day - open the link, and note that Citifield is the WORST place to hit - Mets and Miami are quite far below the rest of the pack - I for one prefer scoring to be in the middle of the 30 teams.

    "No scoring" is quite boring.

    http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

    And Baltimore the past 7 seasons won 65 more at home than the road. The Mets? Just one more.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "No scoring" is quite boring. Agree--especially when the opposition consistently scores at least one more.

    A. One of the remedies to that is HR/K strategy in a ballpark not conducive of it, be jettisoned. Increasing HR totals for both visitor & home team may not realize any greaterW-L success

    B. Since both teams in any given game face the same architecture, so what are the advantages of Home over Away? Batting last, ground rules familiarity & home cooking, I suppose. Included in the latter metaphorically would be: conjugal activities & fan support. Kinda think there are some clues there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mack:

    The Mets may have finally their heir apparent at third base in JD Davis. But there really isn't an heir apparent at the catcher position behind Wilson Ramos.

    The other thing that (to me) still needs to be addressed is another really decent (but not too expensive) starter. I have never been overly thrilled with Jason Vargas although a bit inconsistent he can be really good too. It's just knowing which one you are going to get in any given start.

    However, if the Mets were to get like a Mike Minor or even a Clay Buchholz added in, may work better. Then move Vargas to the pen where the team needs another lefty reliever. He then could be the emergency starter as well, maybe with Lugo from the right handed side.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Reese:

    I kind of feel the same way as you regarding batters that can more easily get on base batting at the top of the order. Of course there is a balance needed between guys who can hit for basehits/walk and then the guys who can power drive the ball out of the park. I like the traditional formula the best. The first two batters hit the singles, doubles, and walk. Steal second base. Then the three thru six batters drive them in with the long ball threat potential realized.

    Now if the 3-6 batters could be extended out to 3-8, then even better really. Booyah!

    ReplyDelete