Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 10 biggest errors in baseball history

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Nimrod View Post
    In Snodgrass`defense(no pun intended),he made a spectacular catch of the next batter`s(Harry Hooper) long clout that in Hooper`s opinion would have been a sure triple.Matty walked the next batter which brought Tris Speaker up to the plate.Mathewson got Speaker to hit a lazy pop up near first base that was manned by none other than Fred Merkle.Matty called for the slow footed catcher Chief Meyers to take it,but to no avail.Speaker,given a second life,belted the next pitch for a single to tie the score.Larry Gardner hit a long sacrifice fly to drive in the winning run.If Merkle had just caught the easy pop up.
    Merkle would get used to it. He played in the World Series five times and was never on a team that won it.

    Comment


    • #17
      some that come to mind

      Jose Lind in Game 7 of the 1992 NCLS
      the Cub SS in the Bartman game
      1. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that many players are over-rated due to inflated stats from offensive home parks (and eras)
      2. Strat-O-Matic Baseball Player, Collector and Hobbyist since 1969, visit my strat site: http://forums.delphiforums.com/GamersParadise
      3. My table top gaming blog: http://cary333.blogspot.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 9RoyHobbsRF View Post
        the Cub SS in the Bartman game
        They got that one. I was glad that they did.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ipitch View Post
          He didn't attempt to throw it. There was a breast pocket in his uniform (top) and it got stuck in there after he stopped the ball with his chest. Supposedly, that put an end to those pockets.
          Honestly, I've heard so many retellings of this story that I am not sure who to believe... One article from the Tribune by Hugh Fullerton, dated March 8, 1906 says the Browns were playing the Cincinnati Red Stockings and "Cliff was in centerfield. The ball took a bad bound and struck Cliff in the breast and in grabbing for it, he shoved it into the pocket of the shirt." Then another article from Baseball Historian Thomas Lonergan says that "Hoy (meaning William Hoy of Washington) hit a line drive into left field. Cliff Carroll, got his hands on the ball, juggled it, and it dropped into his shirt pocket, the umpire calling Hoy out." Finally there is the Bill Dahlen/Chicago Cubs story I posted, which I read off the back of an insert page from the "Sports: Heroes, Feats & Facts" 3-ring binder...
          Last edited by Capital City Goofball; 09-17-2012, 10:49 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Dude Paskert View Post
            I just checked on Hack Wilson's famous misplays in the '29 WS, he didn't get charged with errors on the fly balls lost in the sun during the A's 10 run inning.
            I also learned that Hack's mother died when he was 7 (parents were never married) and his unusual physique is considered by some to be due to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
            Also, his lack of impulse control was supposedly another piece of evidence. Funny the first place I ever read about the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome theory was in an amazon.com review of the book, Fouled Away: The Baseball Tragedy of Hack Wilson. Here is the review:

            In 1930, Hack Wilson set the single season record for most Runs Batted In (RBIs), arguably the most important single statistic in baseball. His 191 Runs Batted In still stands today. Through eight decades of baseball, no one has touched it. But Hack Wilson couldn't even approach his 1930 numbers in later years, and four years later, he was washed up, an alcoholic and out of Major League Baseball.

            This biography of Hack Wilson describes a tragedy. As Parker clearly demonstrates, the same demons that drove Wilson to play at the level he did also drove him to self-destruction. This is not a cheerful book. Wilson, while he was capable of greatness, was also tormented. He attacked fans in the stands, opposing pitchers, and was involved in a seemingly endless series of drunken brawls, both during and after Prohibition. And Parker tells this story fairly well. There are notable gaps, especially before and after Wilson's big league career; Wilson came from out of nowhere and died in obscurity. Parker must have struggled with both too much and too little real information.

            But I give the book only three stars for two reasons. First, although Parker dwells at length and many times on Wilson's odd physique, he never connects the dots between Wilson's hard-partying, hard-drinking mother and Wilson's large head, tiny feet, short legs and broad, flat face. Anyone who has worked with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome children will recognize immediately the signs in Wilson. FAS includes life-long poor impulse control. Parker's biography of Wilson reads like a primer on the life of an FAS victim.

            And, second, that realization changes dramatically the story of Hack Wilson's life. He wasn't just another young man with great promise who succumbed to alcoholism. He was a kid who was born with the odds against him, doomed to a crippling syndrome in the womb, who overcame those odds, to do truly great things. It's a story of patience and discipline in someone who struggled much harder than others to have either of those things. The successes Hack Wilson achieved are much greater when understood in context. The records he set beggar the imagination when you understand the handicaps he carried. There is a triumph, real triumph, in this tragedy. I only wish the author had seen it more clearly.
            SOURCE

            I doubt someone like Hack Wilson would be allowed to play baseball today. He would be labeled a "special needs child" at a young age, everyone would assume he would be helpless his entire life, and be taken care of.
            Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by KHenry14 View Post
              ... Buckner's error directly caused the loss of a WS game,...
              No it didn't.

              Buckner gets way too much blame for this. Most casual fans don't remember that the game was already tied when Wilson hit the ground ball, thanks to a Bob Stanley wild pitch that also put Knight in scoring position. I never understood why Schiraldi never had more blame on him for that game for getting into trouble, or Stanley for throwing a wild pitch to allow the tying run to score.

              And of course there are those that believe Wilson would have beaten it out for an infield single even if Buckner had come up with the ball, prolonging the inning for another batter.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Brooklyn View Post
                No it didn't.

                Buckner gets way too much blame for this. Most casual fans don't remember that the game was already tied when Wilson hit the ground ball, thanks to a Bob Stanley wild pitch that also put Knight in scoring position. I never understood why Schiraldi never had more blame on him for that game for getting into trouble, or Stanley for throwing a wild pitch to allow the tying run to score.

                And of course there are those that believe Wilson would have beaten it out for an infield single even if Buckner had come up with the ball, prolonging the inning for another batter.
                This is a point I never considered. I just watched the play again and it seems to me it was possible that Wilson could have beaten Buckner to the first base.

                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                  This is a point I never considered. I just watched the play again and it seems to me it was possible that Wilson could have beaten Buckner to the first base.

                  my grammaw could have beaten Billy Buck to the base.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Brooklyn View Post
                    No it didn't.

                    Buckner gets way too much blame for this. Most casual fans don't remember that the game was already tied when Wilson hit the ground ball, thanks to a Bob Stanley wild pitch that also put Knight in scoring position. I never understood why Schiraldi never had more blame on him for that game for getting into trouble, or Stanley for throwing a wild pitch to allow the tying run to score.

                    And of course there are those that believe Wilson would have beaten it out for an infield single even if Buckner had come up with the ball, prolonging the inning for another batter.
                    I think even if Buckner came up with the ball Wilson would have easily beaten him to first. The Red Sox pitcher was really let off the hook because I think he would have been the goat if Buckner made the play and the pitcher wasn't there to cover first. I don't think Buckner was the goat of that game. It was Schiraldi and Stanley.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
                      I think even if Buckner came up with the ball Wilson would have easily beaten him to first. The Red Sox pitcher was really let off the hook because I think he would have been the goat if Buckner made the play and the pitcher wasn't there to cover first.
                      Stanley took off for 1st base as soon as the ball was hit.

                      It's been debated for years as to whether Mookie would have been safe anyway. I say there's no chance that he "would easily beaten him (Buckner) to first". Watching the replay, Mookie appeared to be right at the start of the 45-foot 1st base running lane when the ball reached Buckner. Buckner appears to be about 15' from 1st base. 20' at most. Buckner wasn't that slow, and he seems to be moving pretty quickly in the video.
                      Last edited by ipitch; 09-17-2012, 12:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by EdTarbusz View Post
                        I think even if Buckner came up with the ball Wilson would have easily beaten him to first. The Red Sox pitcher was really let off the hook because I think he would have been the goat if Buckner made the play and the pitcher wasn't there to cover first. I don't think Buckner was the goat of that game. It was Schiraldi and Stanley.
                        I think that this is right, Stanley would have had to been really hustling off the mound to record an out at first, Billy Buck couldn't have done it. The mess was really not of Buckner's making, and I've said before that everybody knew he shouldn't have even been in the game at that point...Stapleton was an agile defender who probably could handled that ball unassisted to at least leave it a tie game.
                        I also question McNamara's decision to not start that inning with Stanley, Schiraldi was clearly terrified on the mound...he basically threw fastballs down the middle the whole time. I guess the issue would have been what to do if you put Stanley in and he wasn't on that night, so that's not an easy call.
                        "If I drink whiskey, I'll never get worms!" - Hack Wilson

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ipitch View Post
                          Stanley took off for 1st base as soon as the ball was hit.

                          It's been debated for years as to whether Mookie would have been safe anyway. I say there's no chance that he "would easily beaten him (Buckner) to first". Watching the replay, Mookie appeared to be right at the start of the 45-foot 1st base running lane when the ball reached Buckner. Buckner appears to be about 15' from 1st base. 20' at most. Buckner wasn't that slow, and he seems to be moving pretty quickly in the video.
                          I agree - I tend to think Buckner beats Wilson to the bag by a half-o-step. Of course we will never really know.
                          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ipitch View Post

                            Buckner wasn't that slow,.
                            By that time in his career he really was. His ankles were seriously messed up, plus he sprained an achilles tendon in the playoffs against the Angels. He had all the guts in the world, and he was terribly mistreated by the Boston fans, but he wasn't going to beat Wilson to the bag.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
                              http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-bi...2768--mlb.html

                              Yahoo published the above article in light of the 500,000th error in big league history being made. What do you think? Does it cover all the bases or is it lacking?
                              Mickey Owen's play was not an error, it was a passed ball.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by westsidegrounds View Post
                                By that time in his career he really was. His ankles were seriously messed up, plus he sprained an achilles tendon in the playoffs against the Angels. He had all the guts in the world, and he was terribly mistreated by the Boston fans, but he wasn't going to beat Wilson to the bag.
                                It's preposterous to say that with certainty. That is simply your opinion. Did you see my last post (#25)? It appears to me that Mookie was right at the start of the 45-foot 1st base running lane when the ball reached Buckner, and Buckner was about 15' to 20' from 1st base. Do you disagree with those numbers? If so, please post your numbers.

                                Watching the video, if you didn't know who the fielder was, would you say that the 1st baseman looked very slow? He doesn't look slow to me. He moves to the ball pretty quickly, no matter how much he may have hobbled at other times.
                                Last edited by ipitch; 09-17-2012, 02:14 PM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X