Conference hbahba::cam_sports

Last year, I got Baseball America's Minor League Ballparks calendar, and
really enjoyed flipping off the months.

This year, I have the Ken Burns' Baseball calendar.  January has a shot
of kids playing ball sometime in the last century.  It also includes
anniversaries of famous events in the boxes for the individual days.

Since I don't look ahead past the current month, I can't tell you any
more, but it looks promising.

Steve

  I've got one of those 3-D calendars where you stand in front of it for
an hour crossing your eyes until you have a wopper of a headache then finally
you get to hop up and down yelling "I see the shark I see the shark".

  Then of course there's the Sports Illustrated calendar in the den. Big year
for Valenda.

  George

February was Tiger Stadium...  Kind of boring....


March is COOL.  It's called "Ten/Three/Fifty-One"


	It's October 3, 1951 and that's New York Giants righthander
	Sal (The Barber) Maglie firing the first pitch in one of the
	most excitign games every played.  The Giants vs. the Brooklyn
	Dodgers in the third and final game of the National League
	playoff at the Polo Grounds.  Nine innings later, Bobby Thomsons'
	legendary "shot heard round the world" rocked the Big Apple
	and propelled the Giants into the World Series.  Carl Furillo,
	the Dodger's leadoff hitter is at bat.  Wes Westrum is the catch, 
	Whitey Lockman is at first base, Eddie Stanky is at second,
	Alvin Dark is at short, Thomson is at third, Monte Irvin is in
	left and rookie Willie Mays is in center.


The painting looks down the left field foul line from foul ground along
the first base line.  The sky is blue, with some puffy clouds and you
can almost feel the little October nip in the air....


Great painting... March is gonna be a good month....8^)

'Saw

>                       -< I watched that game on the tv >-

Was that game televised?  

I've heard them replay the radio call on WFAN, and I still get goosebumps
when Bobby Thomson hits that dinger off Branca, but man, it'd be cool
to see.....


'Saw

    

    I mentioned once before but the memory I have from the game was not the
    homerun but watching the dodgers march out the leftfield bullpen gate,
    heads down, the all time picture of the agony of defeat.
    
    Since I mentioned it before I have to confess that we were watching
    Howdy Doody or Tom Mix and my mother was listening on the radio and
    when I heard all the commotion we switched over to the game.
    
    I was kind of disappointed when the cards came out and his stats were
    so ordinary, especially when compared to this other Giant guy who they must
    have posted triple A stats since if he were really that good I'dve been
    hearing all about him.

>    I was kind of disappointed when the cards came out and his stats were
>    so ordinary, especially when compared to this other Giant guy who they must
>    have posted triple A stats since if he were really that good I'dve been
>    hearing all about him.
>

But to me, that's one of the cool things about baseball.  On any given
pitch, even a guy with most ordinary stats can be a hero.

All these factors that float around in the fated universe, suddenly, and
sometime inexplicably fall together and mesh, and a Bobby Thomson hits
a game winning homer, or a Don Larsen pitches a perfect game....

That one bright and shining moment as it were.....

    
    
>But to me, that's one of the cool things about baseball.  On any given
>pitch, even a guy with most ordinary stats can be a hero.
    
    	See Bucky "bleeping" Dent! :-(
    
    JimH
    
    

>    	See Bucky "bleeping" Dent! :-(
>    
>    JimH

Gee, Jim, did you HAVE to spoil my day???????
    
    

    'Saw,
    	One of the tv stations has a clib from a Buckner interview of
    10/4/86 in which he talks about a bad dream he has of letting the
    winning run in on a ball thru his legs costing his team the world
    series.

RE       <<< Note 209.11 by AKOCOA::BREEN "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust" >>>

>    	One of the tv stations has a clib from a Buckner interview of
>    10/4/86 in which he talks about a bad dream he has of letting the
>    winning run in on a ball thru his legs costing his team the world
>    series.

  Of course in real life he did let in the run that lost the game but his
team probably would have lost that game and the series anyway, even if he
had made the play.

  George

    
    
    bite me george
    

  You disagree?

  George

>  You disagree?
>
>  George

   Yes.

  Well I've made this case before but why not do it again. 

  I believe that even if Bill Buckner had made that play at the end of game 6
of the 1986 World Series the Mets would have won anyway. 

  Think about it. They would have gone into the 11th inning tied 5-5. The Mets
had Rick Aguilera on the mound and a strong bull pen behind him. The only guy
left in the Red Sox bull pen who had not spent most of the year at Pawtucket
was Joe Sambito. 

  Could Joe have held off the Mets long enough for Dave Henderson to work yet
another miracle? Somehow I doubt it. The Mets would have won in 11 or 12
innings. 

  Then as we saw, they won game 7 the following Monday. That would have been
the same. 

  The Mets would have won anyway.

  George

>  I believe that even if Bill Buckner had made that play at the end of game 6
>of the 1986 World Series the Mets would have won anyway. 

   Nope.

>  Think about it. They would have gone into the 11th inning tied 5-5. The Mets
>had Rick Aguilera on the mound and a strong bull pen behind him. The only guy
>left in the Red Sox bull pen who had not spent most of the year at Pawtucket
>was Joe Sambito. 
>

   Rick Aguilera was not yet the pitcher that he became in Minnesota, not
 even close.

   Undoubtedly Bob Stanley would have remained in to pitch, and Sambito would
 not have been brought in.  If a reliever were to have been brought in to
 start an inning, it could have easily been Oil Can Boyd, who had had a very
 good season.

>  Then as we saw, they won game 7 the following Monday. That would have been
>the same. 

   If the Sox had not lost in such a deflating way, or if the relief pitching
 pattern had changed, it would NOT have been the same game.  Perhaps the Sox
 would have held on to the lead in that game.

>  The Mets would have won anyway.

 Nope.

    
    
    	I don't really care what would have happened if Buckner
    had made the play. I've always thought that Buckner got more than
    his fair share of BLAM! for the 86 Series.
    
    	The Sox player I've never been able to forgive is Calvin Schiraldi.
    He had Carter down 0-2 in the count, and threw a ball out over the
    plate. That hit started the rally. The pitch should have been up
    arround Carter's eyeballs. He would have swung at it!!!!
    
    JimH
    
    

    Schiraldi, Stanley, Gedman, McNamara, Buckner... take your pick.
    
    
    Spud

    McNamara
    

But remember the bottom of the ninth.  The Mets get the first two men on,
Davey Johnson sends Howard Johnson up to hit.  Everybody in the ballpark
or watching on TV thinks HoJo is up there to bunt, but Davey lets him hit
away.  He fans, and the Mets' opportunity to win in regulation dissolves.

Yes, I agree that John McNamara should have had Dave Stapleton in at first
base for defensive purposes, and I told that to the TV set at the time.
But for the whole series, McNamara managed circles around Davey Johnson,
and the bottom of the ninth was merely the most egregious example.

If Calvin Schiraldi hadn't frozen up, both as pitcher and fielder, John
McNamara would be regarded as a genius, and Davey Johnson wouldn't be
the manager of the Reds.

Steve

    It's all Dave Henderson's fault!! If he didn't hit the HR against the
    Angels, Gene Mauch would have managed (and lost) a World Series, Red
    Sox fans would have forgot about the ALCS after 1988, Bill Buckner
    would still be living in the Boston area and I wouldn't have mind the
    Mets winning the Series. 
        
    Mike

RE                     <<< Note 209.17 by MIMS::ROLLINS_R >>>

>   Undoubtedly Bob Stanley would have remained in to pitch, and Sambito would
> not have been brought in.  If a reliever were to have been brought in to
> start an inning, it could have easily been Oil Can Boyd, who had had a very
> good season.

  Stanley would have gotten pounded. That Met's team could come at you from
both sides of the plate but Clemens was the only right handed pitcher that was
at all effective against them. They pretty much hit the rest of the Red Sox
righties at will. 

  And the Can would not have made a difference. As the scheduled starter for
game 7 the following day he probably wouldn't have pitched but even if he had
he would have gotten pounded as well. The Can usually took a few innings to
settle into his grove and it's not likely that ever would have happened against
the Mets at all.

  In fact I blame the Can as much as anyone for the Sox losing the series. At
one point in he actually had Game 3 somewhat in hand and Gedman wanted him to
throw the curve to Carter but dam it to hell he just had to throw the scroogie
and Carter hammered it into the outfield and broke the game open. 

  If the Sox had won that game they would have had the Mets down 3-0 and Hursts
would have won the whole thing in front of the home crowd in game 5. 

  After game 2 the Sox went 1-4 against the Mets. I'll never understand how
Buckner could be held responsible for losing all 4 of those games never mind
game 6.

  George

George, I'm with you all the way on this one.  The way Bill Buckner was
treated after 1986 really soured me on Red Sox fans.  He played in con-
siderable pain, gave it everything he had, and had all the blame for
one of the true team losses in history heaped on his head.

You're right of course than Oil Can Boyd was not available to relieve
in Game 6, because he was scheduled to start Game 7.  After that game
was delayed a day by rain, Bruce Hurst got the start and was staked to
a 3-0 lead in the 2nd.  But he tired in the 6th, and the Mets tied it
up.  That was where I expected to see the Can, much as the Mets brought
in Sid Fernandez in the 4th.  He gave them 2-1/3 excellent innings and
a chance to get back into it.  True, Boyd had done some major league
spouting off about losing his start (he was a loose cannon that whole
season), but I was surprised he stayed on the bench while Schiraldi,
Sambito, Stanley, Nipper, and Crawford gave up 5 runs in the 7th and 8th.

Steve

    >He played in considerable pain, gave it everything he had, 
    >and had all the blame for one of the true team losses in 
    >history heaped on his head.
    
    One can only wonder if a replacement player makes the same 
    mistake whether he will be booed off the field and talked
    about in here using words like "I told you so" by the
    anti-replacement ball bunch.  Or will folks say he "gave it 
    everything he had"?
    
    My guess is the former much more often than the latter.
    
    
    billl
    

Why should replacements be treated any more fairly than real major
leaguers?

Apart from unreasonable considerations like human decency, that is.

Steve

    Don't know how you're going to boo a player off the field when you
    won't be at the game to begin with...
    
    glenn
    

    Isn't it the ostrich that buries it's head in the sand when it senses
    an uncomfortable situation?
    
    I'll bet you miss some good baseball.
    
    
    
    billl

>    Isn't it the ostrich that buries it's head in the sand when it senses
>    an uncomfortable situation?
>    
>    I'll bet you miss some good baseball.
    
    I'll take my chances.  I'll go to Pawtucket, Portland, New Britain, 
    whatever, and I won't be missing any better baseball.  I love Fenway
    but I've been there close to 500 times already, and it's not going
    anywhere tomorrow.
    
    glenn
    

No, he won't.  He'll go to Pawtucket and see better ball for less dough.

Anyway, I really don't think this will go so far that replacements have
an opportunity to be their generation's Bill Buckner.  Again, I expect
there to be a settlement once it gets into ownership's thick skull that
they are not going to bust the union.  Say... early June.

My God, a World Series with replacements.  What a thought to take into
the weekend.

Steve

I've always heard that McNamara wanted to replace Buckner with Stapleton
but Buckner talked him out of it.

Buckner lost that game with his error.  No matter how you cut it, no matter
what went before, he lost that game with his error.

Were Schiraldi, Stanley, "Squints" Gedman also to blame?  Yep....


'Saw

> Buckner lost that game with his error.  No matter how you cut it, no matter
> what went before, he lost that game with his error.
    
    That's the bottom line.  I harbor no ill will towards the guy, never
    once booed him, but the error was the play on which the game ended, and
    was lost.  Plain and simple.  In a game as unpredictable as baseball,
    there's no telling what would have happened.  You can't even state a
    likelihood (the Mets had won 108 games that year-- the likelihood for
    the entire series was a convincing Boston loss).  In the next inning 
    the Sox were still in the middle of their batting order; the Mets were 
    at the bottom; forget about his future Aguilera was being shelled in 
    _that_ game; anything was possible.
    
    glenn
    

    Re:  Steve .30
    
    If the thought of an all replacement World Series bothers you so, go
    back to last October and tell us how you felt about no World Series for
    the first time in 90+ years due to the players walking out.
    
    I can't see where you'd feel any better.
    
    
    Spud

RE                     <<< Note 209.33 by POBOX::WIERSBECK >>>

>    If the thought of an all replacement World Series bothers you so, go
>    back to last October and tell us how you felt about no World Series for
>    the first time in 90+ years due to the players walking out.
    
  ... or due to the owners insisting on a cap.

  ... or due to a bunch of billionaires not being able to agree with a bunch of
millionaires on how to split up a fortune.

  Depending on your point of view.

  George

Spud, I was pretty upset about the World Series not being played.  There
I was on my usual October visit to the States, with neither baseball nor
hockey to watch.  I was mad, because I saw it as an attempt on the part
of the owners to break the union that was going to lead us to right where
we are now, and you can read that in this notesfile and in HUMANE::BASEBALL.

But I'd rather have no World Series than class A ball that calls itself a
World Series.  To lose it is one thing, to demean it is another, and worse,
IMO.

Is it just the eternal optimist in me, or is it a good sign that Jerry
McMorris is now heading the owners' negotiating team?

Steve

>Is it just the eternal optimist in me, or is it a good sign that Jerry
>McMorris is now heading the owners' negotiating team?
    
    Steve, talks broke off yesterday.  And I'll be the first to admit I
    watched a couple of Sox games this weekend.  The Sox prospects looked
    pretty sharp against a poor to mediocre BC team and the replacements
    didn't look too bad either.  As a matter of fact there were a couple of
    nice plays.
    
    					Steve

    I agree, Steve.  I didn't see anyone on the Sox team who even
    resembled the "never-had-it, never-will" type that the anti-
    replacement crowd talks about.
    
    
    billl

    I listened to some of the Sox-Twins game on Saturday.  The Sox
    announcers were saying the RF (don't remember the name) had the most
    impressive arm they had seen since Sammy Sosa in '91.  The CF made a 
    nice diving catch over the weekend as well.
    
    George:
    
    Call it what you want, but the players took the walk.  As it turns out
    they accomplished nothing (to speak of) and ultimately I'll forever
    blame them for stealing the World Series of '94 from us.  
    
    Let's see what happens when some of these guys start feeling the
    reality of losing 30-40 K per day.
    
    
    Spud

RE                     <<< Note 209.38 by POBOX::WIERSBECK >>>

>    Call it what you want, but the players took the walk.  As it turns out
>    they accomplished nothing (to speak of) and ultimately I'll forever
>    blame them for stealing the World Series of '94 from us.  
    
  So can we assume that had it been a lockout you would have blamed the owners?

  George

    The fact is, they made the first move.  Are you saying the owners would
    have imposed a lockout prior to the end of last season?
    
    
    Spud

Guys, guys, guys...

This is the CALENDAR note.  Take it to baseball....

    'saw,
    
    
    didn't know where else to put this note, but have you noticed who is
    playing in the European Cup Winners Cup Final this year??  (For the
    second year in a row!!)
    
    I'll give you a hint... they play in red and they don't come from
    Liverpool!!
    
    I don't suspect that it will be televised widely in the US (ha! ha!)
    but watch the International news papers on May 11th.  The final is in
    Paris on May 10th, and I can send you an eyewitness report if you're
    interested.
    
    The teams are:
    
    	Arsenal(UK) vs Real Zaragosta (Spain)
    
    
    If the Arse do win, they will be the first team in history to
    retain the title (they beat Parma 1-0 in last year's final).
    
    
    All the best, 
    PJ
    
    (We'll convert you yet, 'saw)
    

A bunch of has beens, no doubt.  

You'll never convert me....8^)

    Actually, I was expecting the Groucho response...
    
    
    "I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would invite me to
    join!!"
    
    At least this allows me to continue he 'pool bashing.
    
    BTW do you remember who Arsenal had to beat in 1971 in order to win the
    'double' or who they had to beat on the last day of the 1989 season in
    order to win the League Championship??  I have both games on tape, if
    you're interested!!
    
    
    PJ