Bill Rigney: King of the Boneheads

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

When your pitcher gives up two back to back home runs, and you leave him in, you are on the edge of your seat on every pitch to the third batter.

Well Rigney did this on July 31, 1963 and his pitcher gave up a third consecutive home run. Whew - stoopid! But Rigney left him in again - and he gave up the fourth! This is World Class stupidity, never been equalled in baseball history.

On this day, Paul Foytack gave up home runs to the 8th slot in the order: Woody Held, the pitcher: Ramos, the leadoff hitter Tito Francona and a rookie's 1st HR in the bigs: Larry Brown. Not exactly a murder's row. Everyone in the park (and viewing from home) who was not named Rigney knew that his pitcher had lost his edge.

What is your favorite bonehead play?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

Agree that I'm always frustrated when a pitcher obviously doesn't have it and yet the mgr seems obligated to let the guy allow 5 or 6 runs before yanking him. Just curious....what inning was it and what was the score of that game at the time?

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

It was the 6th inning, and although Im not sure of the score at that time, the L.A. Angels lost to the Indians by that margin, four runs.

[Archive]

Posted By: paul

My favor bonehead managerial move:

Every single move John McNamara made in the final inning of game 6 of the 1986 World Series.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony

Every move that Gene Mauch made in the 9th inning of game 5 of the '86 AL playoffs. Cost the game, the series, the pennant, and ultimately (and somewhat indirectly) the lives of Donnie Moore and his wife.
Not that this was unique for Gene, as he also threw away the '64 pennant by overpitching Short and Bunning. At least when he managed Montreal they never got close enough to first to allow him to ruin their chance at a pennant.
My vote for worst manager of the latter part of the 20th Century.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Mc

My fav bone head move is when the bullpen coach sends in a pitcher that doesn't have any movement on the ball. Without movement it's easy to see the ball. Case in point Jenks from the White Sox. Throws as hard as anyone out there 100 mph, but flat as buckboard!

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

I think this would rank down on my list of bonehead plays. While the Angels did lose by four runs, a search of the boxscore at http://www.retrosheet.org shows that the Angels were trailing 5-1 when Foytack got in his groove. As well, there were two outs at the time and Rigney may have been saving his bullpen. By the time 2 home runs were hit, it would have been 7-1. Even though 1963 wasn't 1968 in terms of lack of scoring, I'm sure Rigney realized a comeback from 6 or 7 runs behind was very unlikely, thus switching the pitcher would have little effect on the game outcome. He did remove Foytack after the fourth homer.

The Angels scored 4 in the top of the 7th to make the final score closer.

There have been numerous instances in history where a pitcher has allowed more than four runs without getting the third out, by allowing a combination of walks and hits. No doubt we are drawn to the Foytack example by the starkness of how the runs were scored.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Please Max - do elaborate!

I am interested in those baseball incidents which rank as greater boneheadedness than allowing your pitcher to stay in the box through a four consecutive HR barrage.

Max: please consider the above a request for entertainment, not a challenge of one-upsmanship in futility. But I too have other candidates for the crown.

[Archive]

Posted By: DAve Williams

Dan Duquette deciding that Roger Clemens was finished, and refusing to sign him for the BoSox.

[Archive]

Posted By: tbob

The media's darling, the Twins GM who decided David Ortiz was washed up and let him go, only to go to the Red Sox where he has about the same number number of homeruns the last 2 years as the entire rest of the Twins team combined. It makes me recall the time the Twins got rid of a pitcher they thought was washed up who became a Red Sox and later had a pretty good career- Luis Tiant. I also will never forgive his great signing of Joe Mays to a huge long term contract. Mays' fastball is about the same speed as mine was when I was 18 and I was a catcher! The guy was off all last year rehabbing and has been the worst pitcher in the major leagues this year.
I get so tired of the fawning "he does more with less" drivel the media gives him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim Newcomb

"This is World Class stupidity, never been equalled in baseball history."

Maybe that comment was meant in fun, but I can think of plenty of sound reasons why a manager might decide to leave his starter in after giving up three consecutive home runs, much less two.

-- bases remain empty-- 1 swing can mean only 1 more run
-- weakest hitters in the opposing lineup are up, and the odds are drastically with the manager's bet that they can't all club homers
-- tired bullpen, or manager has little confidence in pen
-- 162 games is a long season
-- starter is at least throwing strikes

Hardly qualifies as world-class stupidity to me.

Now giving up Clemens, that's a whopper of the first order. What is Duquette doing now, anyway?

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Tim, that is clearly the most optimistic view point I have ever heard! Now I am an optimist too, but to respond to "your starter just gave up 4 HRs in a row" with "At least he is still throwing strikes" - I can't stop laughing.

But as far as giving up Clemens (or Ruth, for that matter); the trade sequence that I have difficulty following is McGraw's:
1926 - Frankie Frisch, gone
1927 - Rogers Hornsby, gone
1928 - Lefty O'Doul, gone

And what did he get? A decade+ hole at second base.

That is some serious players to give up for no gain.

Of course the optomitrist will look at this and say "He kept Hubbell and Ott".

********************************

Please do not consider any of this to be intended as anything other than fun.

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick

In 1999, Chan Ho Park was left in long enough to give up a grand slam home run to Fernando Tatis, have the Cardinals bat around in the inning and Tatis come up again with the bases loaded. Tatis hit another grand slam. Not only was Tatis the first player to hit 2 grand slams in 1 inning, Park was the first pitcher in over a century to give up 2 grand slams in 1 inning, let alone to the same player. Leaving a starting pitcher in to face all of an 11-run inning sounds like a good way to ruin his psyche.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Well Nick, giving up two grand slammers in an inning certainly compares, and may beat giving up 4 consec. HRs (especially considering Tatis hit them both).

You say Park is the only 20th century pitcher to do this. Who were the 19th century pitchers who gave up 2 grand slammers in an inning, if you know?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim

My fave? Got to be ol' Steve Lyons - the player who dropped his pants on July 16, 1990 in the middle of the game while trying to clean dirt out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick

Bill Phillips of the 1890 Pittsburgh Pirates was the only pitcher before Park to give up 2 grand slams in 1 inning.

I don't know who the batters were on his. Phillips apparently had some really bad games - in 1901 he gave up 19 runs and 22 hits in one game against the Phillies.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Thanks Nick.

I was glad when Tatis hit those two ..... because I collect cards of players who have set RBI (and other) records. And the card of the former RBI/inning record was a costly one (Ed Delahanty - 7).

Although that does not get me out of buying a Delahanty, all it does is decrease the number of them that I need.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

The web page below provides the frequency of runs scored in various situations, covering 1999 to 2002.

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

I am told that the event "bases empty with two outs, then 4 or more runs scored", occurs about .3% of the time from 1999 to 2002, or about once per team per year. This of course does not provide a breakdown of how many times a single pitcher allowed four or more runs (much less often, of course) in such a situation. If I get any further information on this, I'll post it.

Thanks again to retrosheet http://www.retrosheet.org for giving researchers the ability to compile this sort of information. (And I encourage anyone who has an interest in this type of thing to join the Yahoo group on this, RetroList)


Max

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Nick: I just looked up Bill Phillips. As it turns out, according to my information, if I want a card of his to go along possibly with the Park and Foytack (and maybe others) it has to be a 1911 Sporting Life Cabinet. That is a w600. I have been looking for an excuse to buy one (why do I need this supplemental justification, I wonder).

Any out there? Bill Phillips, went 1-9 for the Pirates to kick off an otherwise uneventful career which ended with a losing record, and high ERA. Oh wait. Maybe the B/S/T will have one!

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

for getting rid of Ortiz. Chances are if he was still a Twin he would be nothing more than the subpar player he was at the time. If you want to blame someone blame Scott Ullger, the Twins hitting coach. He obviously couldn't develop Ortiz into the hitter he has become.

On a different note, how can you have a thread about boneheads without mentioning Fred Merkle. Or does he just go without saying?