Casey Stengel and Dave Roberts...

[frankbmd]

He was older than my grandfather when he signed for me in 1957.

To be honest, he was always older than my grandfather.

[Orioles1954]

Would you the Yankees have 27 titles in the playoff era? No.

Would the Yankees have won others if the playoff era existed in those days? Most probably.

Is the 2020 Los Angeles Dodgers World Series title legitimate? I consider it a partial title.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Is the 2020 Los Angeles Dodgers World Series title legitimate? I consider it a partial title.

Why would you think that, just because a normal full season wasn't played in 2020? All the teams played a similar number of games, and for the most part all had the same advantages and disadvantages. So with everything else being pretty much equal, why shouldn't that WS championship count just as much as any other one?

And if you're basing that opinion primarily on the fact they played fewer games in the regular season, then by that logic all the WS champions from when they only played 154 game seasons, and had no playoffs and all those additional games to then play, should all be looked down upon and only partially valued as well.

[Exhibitman]

Read Dynasty by Peter Golenbock. It details the Yankees' teams in the Stengel-Houk era. Casey was a hell of a lot sharper as a manager than most give him credit for, because of his corn-pone public persona. He platooned brilliantly, preserved pitchers' arms despite the trends of the time (Whitey Ford won over 20 only after Stengel left but he pitched into the late 1960s), used an ace reliever (Joe Page) and always looked for others, and generally knew what he was doing. Yes, George Weiss gave him a great bunch of tools to work with and yes, they did have a virtual farm club in KC, but he got the job done. Within five years of his and Weiss's departures, the club turned to crap. His teams had very few stars--only three HOFers (Ford, Mantle and Berra; well, also a few seasons of dimming DiMaggio), but they were deep, disciplined and hungry. On paper. the Red Sox and Dodgers were better teams, but that's why you play the games. Stengel also trained up Berra and Martin, who became good managers, and Elston Howard too, who probably would have gotten to manager had he not died only 5 years after the managerial color barrier was broken.

As for playoffs, sure, there would have been upsets. I am displeased with the playoffs as constituted. I don't think an entire season should boil down to a weekend. But that's another debate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Read Dynasty by Peter Golenbock. It details the Yankees' teams in the Stengel-Houk era. Casey was a hell of a lot sharper as a manager than most give him credit for, because of his corn-pone public persona. He platooned brilliantly, preserved pitchers' arms despite the trends of the time (Whitey Ford won over 20 only after Stengel left but he pitched into the late 1960s), used an ace reliever (Joe Page) and always looked for others, and generally knew what he was doing. Yes, George Weiss gave him a great bunch of tools to work with and yes, they did have a virtual farm club in KC, but he got the job done. Within five years of his and Weiss's departures, the club turned to crap. His teams had very few stars--only three HOFers (Ford, Mantle and Berra; well, also a few seasons of dimming DiMaggio), but they were deep, disciplined and hungry. On paper. the Red Sox and Dodgers were better teams, but that's why you play the games. Stengel also trained up Berra and Martin, who became good managers, and Elston Howard too, who probably would have gotten to manager had he not died only 5 years after the managerial color barrier was broken.

As for playoffs, sure, there would have been upsets. I am displeased with the playoffs as constituted. I don't think an entire season should boil down to a weekend. But that's another debate.

Sure they had stars. Rizzuto (HOFer actually), Mize for a couple of years (same), Bobby Richardson, Allie Reynolds.

[Shoeless Moe]

Stengel is beyond overrated.

All you are talking about is his Yankee years.

You are neglecting the 9 years he managed in Brooklyn & Boston and had a terrible record.

And again with the Mets, 4 brutal years.

I could have managed the 50's Yankees to 7 titles, maybe even 9 or 10.

They were stacked.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Stengel is beyond overrated.

All you are talking about is his Yankee years.

You are neglecting the 9 years he managed in Brooklyn & Boston and had a terrible record.

And again with the Mets, 4 brutal years.

I could have managed the 50's Yankees to 7 titles, maybe even 9 or 10.

They were stacked.

All we were talking about is 7 World Series titles in a decade.

I wish I was as passionate about anything as you are about hating the Yankees

[campyfan39]

Dodgers have been stacked and look at what Roberts has done.
i am no Stengel apologist but he is infinitely better than Roberts

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Stengel is beyond overrated.

All you are talking about is his Yankee years.

You are neglecting the 9 years he managed in Brooklyn & Boston and had a terrible record.

And again with the Mets, 4 brutal years.

I could have managed the 50's Yankees to 7 titles, maybe even 9 or 10.

They were stacked.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sure they had stars. Rizzuto (HOFer actually), Mize for a couple of years (same), Bobby Richardson, Allie Reynolds.

If Stengel's Yankees didn't have many stars, I have no clue what team in history did have many stars. They had one at almost every position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

If Stengel's Yankees didn't have many stars, I have no clue what team in history did have many stars. They had one at almost every position.

You could fairly call Skowron a star for a number of years.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by G1911

If Stengel's Yankees didn't have many stars, I have no clue what team in history did have many stars. They had one at almost every position.

Agree.

The best managers are the ones that win with the teams that you don't expect too.

Stacked teams managers....c'mon.

[FrankWakefield]

Jimmie Reese played 3 seasons in the Majors, 1930 and 1931 for the Yankees, then 1932 for the Cardinals.

His first ball card is a ZeeNut, mid 20s, maybe 1925 or 1926... and he's on 1991 Bowman and Leaf cards as a coach, and on a 1993 Pacific card. There's a bunch of years before his first card and his last.

I think I have his second year ZeeNut card, in with a bunch of ZeeNuts somewhere; and one of his more recent cards. I think I have one of his minor league contracts, or I used to have one.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Why would you think that, just because a normal full season wasn't played in 2020? All the teams played a similar number of games, and for the most part all had the same advantages and disadvantages. So with everything else being pretty much equal, why shouldn't that WS championship count just as much as any other one?

And if you're basing that opinion primarily on the fact they played fewer games in the regular season, then by that logic all the WS champions from when they only played 154 game seasons, and had no playoffs and all those additional games to then play, should all be looked down upon and only partially valued as well.

If they played 10 games and then went straight to the postseason, would that be enough to count as a season?

How about 25? 50?

Naturally, there's got to be a cutoff somewhere, where the season is so small as to not really be a season. You might think 60 is enough. I'm not convinced that 60 is really meaningful. Seems more like about 37% of a season to me.

Comparing to the 154 game season seems a little silly, particularly in the context that you're arguing that 37% is no different than 95%. Obviously 154 games is a real season. It doesn't seem absurd to suggest that we can debate whether 60 games is really a full season.

And in my case for this specific "season", my deep seated ill will, antipathy, and malice towards the Dodgers doesn't make me inclined to feel charitable towards 37% of a season being regarded as a full season.

[bbcard1]

The biggest thing that the evolving schedule has meant is that the best team less and less wins the World Series. To a degree it has always been that way, but a best of seven game series is more likely to yield a more reliable result than a five game series...much less two five game sereieses and then a seven.

[Orioles1954]

With expanded playoffs I can only hope one day that baseball will shave a week or two off the regular season. At this time of year I'm completely tuned out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

A great Casey story is when he (and Mantle) were called to testify before a Senate Committee looking at baseball's antitrust exemption. They ask Casey what he thinks about it and he launches into a 45 minute monologue about his time baseball and God knows what else and essentially says nothing when all is said and done. They then ask Mantle what he thinks, and he brilliantly responds, I agree with everything Casey just said.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

If they played 10 games and then went straight to the postseason, would that be enough to count as a season?

How about 25? 50?

Naturally, there's got to be a cutoff somewhere, where the season is so small as to not really be a season. You might think 60 is enough. I'm not convinced that 60 is really meaningful. Seems more like about 37% of a season to me.

Comparing to the 154 game season seems a little silly, particularly in the context that you're arguing that 37% is no different than 95%. Obviously 154 games is a real season. It doesn't seem absurd to suggest that we can debate whether 60 games is really a full season.

And in my case for this specific "season", my deep seated ill will, antipathy, and malice towards the Dodgers doesn't make me inclined to feel charitable towards 37% of a season being regarded as a full season.

What difference does it really make how many games they play then, as long as the powers that be declare that is the number to be played for that particular shortened season? So I suppose you would also then argue/believe that any awards or achievements from 2020 for players should also be disregarded or downplayed as well then? Then maybe we shouldn't even consider any of the stats accumulated during that season as counting at all, or that they somehow be discounted. For example, Shane Bieber should have his pitching Triple Crown title taken away because the 2020 season was shorter than expected, right?

To go ahead and discount/downplay some records, statistics, and achievements, but maybe not others, all because a season was shortened, is what I would find and declare as being truly silly. My example using a 154 versus a 162 game schedule is not being silly at all, because I specifically used that as a somewhat extreme example, expecting someone to come along and comment about it. Arguing that 154 games is close enough to count as a full, complete season, but 60 games is not, just allows me to emphasize the arbitrariness of what should, or shouldn't, count as a full season. You yourself can't come up with a specific number of games that would possibly satisfy you as to what would then allow you to consider a regular season complete, and therefore worthy of fully recognizing all the records and achievements during it. But whatever number you possibly did come up with is simply your opinion, nothing more. And any argument still fails to explain with any solid, factual evidence or reasoning why any one number of games is okay, but another is not.

I'm not particularly fond of nor rooting for the Dodgers either, but can fully understand you possibly having some additional bias on this issue because the Dodgers somehow seemed to benefit from the shortened 2020 season and came out on top of it with a WS title. But as long as they played the same number of games, under the same rules, constraints, and restrictions, as every other MLB team had to, then it really doesn't matter if the regular season consisted of 162 games, 154 games, 60 games, or even fewer games. The regular season is what they (MLB) designated it to be.

And let's face it, the only reason the MLB regular season is so long has absolutely nothing to do with needing that many games to truly determine the best teams. It has all to do about money and how many games they could play and get fans to buy tickets for, or radio/TV advertisers to pay airtime for. During the years of the 154 game schedules, each team played the other seven teams in their respective leagues 22 times each. Then with expansion in the AL and NL in 1961 and 1962, respectively, both leagues added two new teams and bumped the regular seasons up to 162 games, and now played every other team in their league 18 times each. But since then, and further expansion to 15 teams in each league, every team now plays 19 games a season against each of their division rivals, but only 6 games each against four other teams in their league, 7 games each against the remaining six teams in their league, with the final 20 games spread against teams in the opposing league. So at least in the old days they had teams playing everyone else in their league the exact same number of times so you could more fairly determine who was the best team to represent their league in the WS. So I would submit to you that worrying about the total number of games needing to be played during a regular season to properly validate it as a "real" season and also determine who the best teams are to then represent their respective leagues in the WS, has already been obfuscated by the extremely unbalanced schedules and differing number of games they now have teams playing against other teams outside their own division, and in the other league.

MLB has already wiped away the old traditions originally established by having teams playing everyone else equal numbers of games. So why is it so important to still maintain another tradition and have about the same total number of games used to determine what comprises a full regular season? As it is now, some teams can greatly benefit, or be hurt, by the luck of the draw in what division they end up in, and to a lesser degree, what opponents they get scheduled to play from the other league that particular year. Everyone in the world has already been penalized enough because of the pandemic, why further look to penalize some MLB teams and players for something totally beyond their control?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

What difference does it really make how many games they play then, as long as the powers that be declare that is the number to be played for that particular shortened season? So I suppose you would also then argue/believe that any awards or achievements from 2020 for players should also be disregarded or downplayed as well then? Then maybe we shouldn't even consider any of the stats accumulated during that season as counting at all, or that they somehow be discounted. For example, Shane Bieber should have his pitching Triple Crown title taken away because the 2020 season was shorter than expected, right?

To go ahead and discount/downplay some records, statistics, and achievements, but maybe not others, all because a season was shortened, is what I would find and declare as being truly silly. My example using a 154 versus a 162 game schedule is not being silly at all, because I specifically used that as a somewhat extreme example, expecting someone to come along and comment about it. Arguing that 154 games is close enough to count as a full, complete season, but 60 games is not, just allows me to emphasize the arbitrariness of what should, or shouldn't, count as a full season. You yourself can't come up with a specific number of games that would possibly satisfy you as to what would then allow you to consider a regular season complete, and therefore worthy of fully recognizing all the records and achievements during it. But whatever number you possibly did come up with is simply your opinion, nothing more. And any argument still fails to explain with any solid, factual evidence or reasoning why any one number of games is okay, but another is not.

I'm not particularly fond of nor rooting for the Dodgers either, but can fully understand you possibly having some additional bias on this issue because the Dodgers somehow seemed to benefit from the shortened 2020 season and came out on top of it with a WS title. But as long as they played the same number of games, under the same rules, constraints, and restrictions, as every other MLB team had to, then it really doesn't matter if the regular season consisted of 162 games, 154 games, 60 games, or even fewer games. The regular season is what they (MLB) designated it to be.

And let's face it, the only reason the MLB regular season is so long has absolutely nothing to do with needing that many games to truly determine the best teams. It has all to do about money and how many games they could play and get fans to buy tickets for, or radio/TV advertisers to pay airtime for. During the years of the 154 game schedules, each team played the other seven teams in their respective leagues 22 times each. Then with expansion in the AL and NL in 1961 and 1962, respectively, both leagues added two new teams and bumped the regular seasons up to 162 games, and now played every other team in their league 18 times each. But since then, and further expansion to 15 teams in each league, every team now plays 19 games a season against each of their division rivals, but only 6 games each against four other teams in their league, 7 games each against the remaining six teams in their league, with the final 20 games spread against teams in the opposing league. So at least in the old days they had teams playing everyone else in their league the exact same number of times so you could more fairly determine who was the best team to represent their league in the WS. So I would submit to you that worrying about the total number of games needing to be played during a regular season to properly validate it as a "real" season and also determine who the best teams are to then represent their respective leagues in the WS, has already been obfuscated by the extremely unbalanced schedules and differing number of games they now have teams playing against other teams outside their own division, and in the other league.

MLB has already wiped away the old traditions originally established by having teams playing everyone else equal numbers of games. So why is it so important to still maintain another tradition and have about the same total number of games used to determine what comprises a full regular season? As it is now, some teams can greatly benefit, or be hurt, by the luck of the draw in what division they end up in, and to a lesser degree, what opponents they get scheduled to play from the other league that particular year. Everyone in the world has already been penalized enough because of the pandemic, why further look to penalize some MLB teams and players for something totally beyond their control?

BobC:

You seem pretty passionate about this, and that’s cool.

Beyond my clearly irrational desire to deny a title to the Dodgers, I’m really not that invested in it. At the same time, I do think that it’s fair to question whether season-long awards like batting titles, ERA titles, etc. should have the same weight when the season is only 60 games long. If someone had hit .400 during the 2020 “season”, would you really think that it should count as actually hitting .400 for the season?

So if a 60-game season floats your boat, then bully for you! But I’m going to be a hater and suggest that it shouldn’t count the same as a full season.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

BobC:

You seem pretty passionate about this, and that’s cool.

Beyond my clearly irrational desire to deny a title to the Dodgers, I’m really not that invested in it. At the same time, I do think that it’s fair to question whether season-long awards like batting titles, ERA titles, etc. should have the same weight when the season is only 60 games long. If someone had hit .400 during the 2020 “season”, would you really think that it should count as actually hitting .400 for the season?

So if a 60-game season floats your boat, then bully for you! But I’m going to be a hater and suggest that it shouldn’t count the same as a full season.

Nic, there is no right or wrong answer. I 'm just pointing out how so many things have changed over the years, and a lot of people may not realize it.

My biggest question/concern is for someone like Bieber. If people can't validate the Dodgers WS championship that year, then how can they in their thinking still validate Bieber's achievement? Same thing with all the player stats as well. Way I look at it is, either EVERYTHING counts, or none of it does. You can't just arbitrarily decide some stats and achievements count, while others don't. Makes no logical sense. At least not to me.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

He was older than my grandfather when he signed for me in 1957.

To be honest, he was always older than my grandfather.

He was 82 when I sat next to him at Dodger Stadium in 1972 with my Grandfather. He looked 90 in a leisure suit jacket that looked like a horse blanket in the 100+ degree heat on a Sunday afternoon in the sun.

My grandfather whispered to me, "That's Casey Stengel". When he found out my name was Chuck/Charles...he signed my program, To Charles, from Charles Casey Stengel.....3 times. I cherished that program until it turned up "LOST". I have all my other programs from that ERA. How I wish it would show up somewhere so I can buy it, LOL.

Eventually, it seemed like the entire ballpark lined up to get his autograph, LOL. A very special day with my Grandpa I will never forget.

This is all I have now. and a neat story for my Grandkids, who can look him up on Wikipedia. I had to look him up with "baseball cards"

[Jay Wolt]

[Leon]

One from my previous collection...

[brianp-beme]

Little David was feeling left out, so here is a card of him...a 2006 Topps Heritage (1957 style) picturing him, fittingly, as a San Diego Padres player.

Brian (card not mine)

[oldjudge]

Great teams don’t necessarily have a boatload of HOFers. More likely than not they have a bunch of really good players who just fall short of HOF caliber. The great Yankee teams of the late 1990s were great because of guys like Paul O’Neill, Tina Martinez, David Cone, Scott Brosius, David Wells, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte, etc. Same with the Yankee teams of the fifties and early sixties.
As for Stengel, I think he was a horrible manager. He cost the Yankees the 1960 series by not starting Ford, after he requested to be started on short rest, in game 7. I don’t think Robert’s is particularly bad or particularly good, just an average stat executor.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Great teams don’t necessarily have a boatload of HOFers. More likely than not they have a bunch of really good players who just fall short of HOF caliber. The great Yankee teams of the late 1990s were great because of guys like Paul O’Neill, Tina Martinez, David Cone, Scott Brosius, David Wells, Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte, etc. Same with the Yankee teams of the fifties and early sixties.
As for Stengel, I think he was a horrible manager. He cost the Yankees the 1960 series by not starting Ford, after he requested to be started on short rest, in game 7. I don’t think Robert’s is particularly bad or particularly good, just an average stat executor.

I dunno Jay. It wasn't short rest-- it was NO rest. Whitey had just pitched a complete game the day before. Hardly seems reckless for the manager to go to someone else, regardless of what his Ace says. Besides, they had a three-run lead with 6 outs to go when the bullpen blew it. So unless you think Whitey Ford would have been pitching, and effectively, for his 17th inning in around 24 hours, I don't see how Casey's decision cost the team the series.