Earl Weaver Was a Loser

[LouGehrig]

Weaver won only once in the WS, losing three times. He was clearly out managed by Gil Hodges in 1969, Danny Murtaugh in 1971, and Chuck Tanner in 1979.

Earl Weaver is Overrated
He Was Out Managed by Gil Hodges, Danny Murtaugh, and Chuck Tanner

© Harold Friend

Oct 6, 2007
One of the most overrated, disliked, egotistical managers in baseball history, Earl Weaver was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1996. Earl won the World Series only once.

Earl Weaver managed the Baltimore Orioles from the middle of the 1968 season, when he replaced Hank Bauer, until he retired in 1982. He came out of retirement to pilot the Orioles in 1985 and 1986, after which he retired for good. One of the most overrated, disliked, egotistical managers in baseball history, Earl Weaver was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1996.
Playing for One Run

Managing with the philosophy that “if you play for one run, that’s all you’ll get,” Weaver popularized waiting for the three run home run. During the regular season, Weaver’s approach produced four pennants but only one World Championship, primarily because in the World Series, playing for one run and getting one run is more productive than waiting for a three run home run that rarely comes.
The "Can't Lose" Orioles Lost

The 1969 Orioles won 109 games. Future Hall of Famers Jim Palmer, Frank Robinson, and Brooks Robinson were key members of the team that was prohibitive favorites to beat Gil Hodges’ Mets in the World Series. The Birds pitching staff had a 2.83 team ERA, allowed only 7.4 hits and 3.1 runs a game, and had an incredible 20 shutouts, 19 of which were complete games. The Orioles offense averaged 4.81 runs a game and hit 175 home runs. After winning the first game of the Series handily, the “can’t lose” Orioles lost the next four.
Gil Hodges and Earl Weaver: Contrasting Styles

A key play in Game 5 graphically illustrates the differences between Gil Hodges’ quiet, logical, professional managing style and Earl Weaver’s bombastic, emotional, self-aggrandizing behavior. With the Mets trailing 3-0, Cleon Jones led off the sixth inning and appeared to be hit in the foot by a Dave McNally pitch, but home plate umpire Lou DiMuro told Jones to get back into the batters box.

A calm Gil Hodges ran out of the dugout, grabbed the ball that was near the backstop, and showed DiMuro a shoe polish mark. Jones was awarded first base. Weaver protested vehemently, screaming uncontrollably in DiMuro’s face, but to no avail. The next batter, Donn Clendenon, hit a two run home run, in the seventh inning Al Weis’ home run tied the game, and two Mets’ eighth inning runs finished off Weaver and the Birds. Years later, Mets’ shortstop Bud Harrelson asked, “Do you think Earl Weaver would have gotten that call from DiMuro?”
Two World Series Losses to the Pirates

The Orioles repeated as pennant winners in 1970 and 1971. They beat the Reds in a five game World Series, led by Brooks’ Robinson great defense at third base in 1970, but in the 1971 World Series, Weaver and the Orioles found themselves losers as Danny Murtaugh’s team rebounded after losing the first two games at Baltimore to win in seven. Many blamed Weaver because he played injured first baseman Boog Powell, who hit only .111 in the Series and was visibly in pain at each at-bat. The Pirates, led by Chuck Tanner, beat Weaver’s Orioles in seven games again in 1979, this time overcoming a 3-1 deficit.
Weaver Confronted Palmer

Earl Weaver’s character was clearly visible at the Sports Boosters of Maryland Headliners Banquet in November, 2000. Weaver was being “roasted” as guest of honor when Jim Palmer needled Weaver about his height and drinking habits, at one point saying that the Maryland police were relieved that Weaver moved to Florida. Weaver got wild and told the audience that during his career, Palmer had claimed injuries he didn’t have. Weaver then confronted Palmer directly and had to be led away by former Orioles’ first baseman Lee May.
Playoffs and World Series Record

Earl Weaver is in the Hall of Fame based on his managerial achievements during the regular season. He is 0-2 in the playoffs and 1-3 in the World Series. Too bad Gil Hodges didn’t manage those Orioles teams.
References:

Earl Weaver's Manaagerial Record

Earl Weaver at Baseball Library

Bud Harrelson Interview

Earl Weaver Honored

[John F]

I'm going to ask again, Lou, please post the ARTICLE AND the link... Not the Link alone. I've edited the post to reflect this.

[Grandstander]

The correct measure of a successful manager is the regular season performance, not the performance in a short series where anyone can win. If we had a 176 game schedule and we wanted to determine which manager was the best among those competing, would we go by the overall record in those 176 games, or would we, for inexplicable reasons, zero in on one seven game segment and claim that this is all we need to examine?

This article is bull and the author is a dunce. Weaver was clearly one of the greatest managers in the history of the game.

[Nat]

I'll have to disagree with you here, GS. The "postseason stakes are higher, clutch performers win" arguement is much esoteric B.S., but not all.
Field managers have two basic duties: motivation and strategy. Oftentimes, teams who've won a boatload of victories going into a playoff or World Series will be overconfident, and the manager will not properly motivate/ready the team when most needed....the 1990 A's team and 2006 Tigers are two prime examples, and both managers were quick to accept their share of the blame for what (didn't) happen.
Strategies also have to be reworked depending on the opponent, and in general one's team needs to be as multi-dimentional as possible when facing the best teams. It was frustrating as an A's fan to watch Art Howe be constantly out-managed because the team expected the station-to-station philosophy to work, without a backup plan. Wearing down opponents' pitchers works in the regular season, when facing an assortment of mostly-mediocre pitching...but not when facing the game's top performers who aren't afraid to throw strikes.

Anyway, those are only a couple examples, but regular-season and post-season performances do not only coincide, and not because of what Billy Beane calls the "postseason crapshoot" either. It's the well-rounded ballclubs with proper motivation who win it all, nine times out of ten.

[Grandstander]

Nat
It's the well-rounded ballclubs with proper motivation who win it all, nine times out of ten.
Right, like those well rounded Cardinals last season.

You write this as thought there is some agreed upon definition of what constitutes a well rounded ballclub, as well as if you were backed by statistics proving such clubs have won a majority of post season games.

I must suck the romance from your conceptions about the post season, it is indeed a crapshoot. To wit:

A team with 100 wins in the regular season has played .617 ball. In the context of a 7 game series, that is 4.3 wins.
95 win team....586....4.1 wins
90 win team....555....3.9 wins
85 win team.....525....3.7 wins

For the difference between a 4.3 win expectation and a 4.1 win expectation to manifest itself as one entire win, the teams would need to play one another at least 33 times, at which point the 100 win team could be expected to prevail 20.36 games to 19.33 games for the .586 team.

A mere 25 games would need to be played between the 100 win team and the 90 win team before a full game advantage went to the 100 win team. At that point they prevail 15.4 games to 14 games.

Finally it would take 17 games before the 100 win team prevails over the 85 win team 10.4 to 8.9 games.

And they are only playing seven games...and in the first round, they are only playing five games.

So, the supposed huge advantage of the 100 win team over the 85 win team, really isn't large enough to be felt within a seven game series. The difference between the 100 win club and the 95 win club would require nearly five World Series to be felt.

So, we may go with the romantic notions of well roundedness and clutchitudinality and out intangibilizing the other team who came to play wearing their game faces and so forth, but the math reveals a rather dry truth.

It is a crapshoot.

Earl Weaver was a great manager who had bad luck in the post season. Let us contrast Earl to say, Ozzie Guillen who is a crappy manager who had great luck in the post season.

[Zen653]

If the post-season is a crapshoot, then how do you explain championship dynasties? How do you explain the tendency of some players to significantly elevate their games in October?

[Grandstander]

Zen:
How do you explain the tendency of some players to significantly elevate their games in October?
The same way that you explain any hitting streak.

It happened. No one has the ability to "elevate" their game by personal will. That is an illusion we craft in the aftermath of an impressive performance.

Dynasties are simply good teams who got very good luck.

And what do you mean "if" the post season is a crapshoot? Didn't you see the numbers? They do not lie.

[Zen653]

It happened. No one has the ability to "elevate" their game by personal will. That is an illusion we craft in the aftermath of an impressive performance.

Josh Beckett has a career regular season ERA of 3.74. In the post-season, he has a career ERA of 1.74. Is it not possible that emotional makeup helps a player sharpen his focus and execution in big games? Are you assuming that all players handle pressure equally?

Dynasties are simply good teams who got very good luck.

The Yankees winning 4 World Series Championships in a period of 5 years was just luck? The Patriots winning 3 Super Bowl Championships in 5 years was luck? The Celtics winning 11 NBA Championships in 13 years was luck?

And what do you mean "if" the post season is a crapshoot? Didn't you see the numbers? They do not lie.

Your numbers simply anticipate the number of playoff wins over a 7-game series by looking at a team's number of wins per 162 regular season games. Such a model presupposes your conclusion that playoff baseball is the same as regular season baseball. In order to examine whether your hypothesis is correct, we would have to look for a correlation between the actual number of playoff wins and the anticipated number from extending regular season win averages. You haven't compared the two sets of numbers.

[bedir than average]

Zen, if you are right about Beckett, than he is a singular awful man, because often during the regular season he makes it clear that he could care less if his team wins. I mean if he turns if "on" in the playoffs (6 Starts) , that would mean that he turns it "off" during the regular season (34 starts) , thereby hurting his team's chances to make the playoffs.

[Grandstander]

Zen:
Josh Beckett has a career regular season ERA of 3.74. In the post-season, he has a career ERA of 1.74. Is it not possible that emotional makeup helps a player sharpen his focus and execution in big games? Are you assuming that all players handle pressure equally?
You offer anecdotal evidence which in no manner dislodges the math I provided above. Of course different players respond differently to pressure situations, but that takes place during the regular season as well. There aren't any special rules for the playoffs.

The Yankees winning 4 World Series Championships in a period of 5 years was just luck? The Patriots winning 3 Super Bowl Championships in 5 years was luck? The Celtics winning 11 NBA Championships in 13 years was luck?
Of course it wasn't "just" luck, it was a combination of talent and luck. None of those teams would have been in the playoffs if they had not been talented, none would have made repeated trips to the playoffs if they had not been talented enough to win the regular season. At any point in any of the above events, some bounce of the ball could have altered your perception of a dynasty.

Zen, your error here, if you will take some time and think about it rather than snapping off a reply in order to "win" this exchange, is in your perspective, You are looking back on the outcome of luck and mistaking it for predestiny. You are not examining what is really going on, you are allowing the drama of events, which could just as easily had different outcomes, to make you believe that the outcome we got was the only possible outcome. Those dynasty teams repeated because of some vague clutch characteristic... which in reality, simply does not exist.

These same dynasties which you perceive as being the product of some specialized post season ability, can be easily reproduced by random chance in board simulation games where there is no possibility of the outcome being the product of superior desire, character or clutchness. That should tell you all that you need to know....think about it.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by John F

I'm going to ask again, Lou, please post the ARTICLE AND the link... Not the Link alone. I've edited the post to reflect this.

OK.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

The correct measure of a successful manager is the regular season performance, not the performance in a short series where anyone can win. If we had a 176 game schedule and we wanted to determine which manager was the best among those competing, would we go by the overall record in those 176 games, or would we, for inexplicable reasons, zero in on one seven game segment and claim that this is all we need to examine?

This article is bull and the author is a dunce. Weaver was clearly one of the greatest managers in the history of the game.

Earl Weaver lost when it counted most. Those are the facts. You may not like them, but you can't deny them.

Why is Joe Torre in so much trouble at this time? Think his regular season work could save him?

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Earl Weaver was a great manager who had bad luck in the post season..

Yeah. Having to face Seaver, Koosman, Ryan and McGraw was bad luck. Having Gil Hodges alertly show shoe polish to Lou DiMuro was bad luck.

There are winners and there are losers. The 2001 Diamondbacks were winners. They never should have won that series, and statistically, they never should have won, but they did, because Brenley outmanaged Torre.

You want me to back it up. No problem. Brenley had his hitters choke up on the bat a little against Mariano to have a better chance to make contact. Brenley pitched Schillinger with only three days rest. He used Johnson on two consecutive days. And Torre played the infield in. See Tim McCarver.

Don't tell me it's about Weaver. It is, but these examples illustrate how a manager makes a difference.

Pretty good for a "dunce." huh?

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Didn't you see the numbers? They do not lie.

They do. Ask Benny Disraeli and Mark Twain.

[Zen653]

You offer anecdotal evidence which in no manner dislodges the math I provided above.

Your math is still based upon the unproven assumption that regular season games play out identically to post-season games. I understand that this is your hypothesis. I think it's a reasonable one to make. But your numbers don't back it up. They project the number of playoff wins on the basis of regular season wins without showing that one relates to the other. You need to demonstrate a correlation between projected post-season wins and actual post-season wins before you can confidently assert your conclusion.

I think regular season baseball differs from post-season baseball in several critical areas. The first one is scheduling. When you play a 5 game divisional series over 8 days, you only need a 3-man starting rotation. This strongly favors top-heavy pitching teams over ones with mediocre staffs. When you can ignore your #4 and 5 starters - something that clubs cannot do during the regular season - that clearly has an impact on the results. The second difference also relates to the regular season schedule. Teams do not play the same number of games against each other. They have different inter-league opponents. They have different divisional opponents. Strength of schedule, or lack thereof, can inflate a team's win total. The third difference is the roster. The team that starts in April is not always the team that you see in October. Clubs make major trades during the season. They pluck key players from their minor league rosters. Guys get injured. Others recover. Teams get hot over certain stretches and momentum carries them (see the 2007 Colorado Rockies.) Players have a diverse set of emotional makeups and respond differently to pressure. Starting pitchers perform on short rest (something that almost never happens in the regular season.) These are all factors that make the post-season different from a wholistic view of the regular season.

Of course different players respond differently to pressure situations, but that takes place during the regular season as well. There aren't any special rules for the playoffs.

Yes there are. In a playoff scenario, your team faces elimination. This rarely comes up in a regular season context. Game 7 of the World Series is going to be more stressful than August 12th of the regular season when the Pittsburgh Pirates risk losing the division if they don't win all of their remaining games.

You are looking back on the outcome of luck and mistaking it for predestiny. You are not examining what is really going on, you are allowing the drama of events, which could just as easily had different outcomes, to make you believe that the outcome we got was the only possible outcome. Those dynasty teams repeated because of some vague clutch characteristic... which in reality, simply does not exist.

I'm not discounting your theory, I'm only pointing out that you have not proven it correct with your numbers.