Botched Coin Flip in 51'

[Shotgun Shuba]

Can anybody give me a good explanation why in 1951 the Dodgers, who won the coin flip against the Giants, decided to give away home field advantage? I have been over the pros and cons many times and it still seems to be a very dumb thing to do. I would love to hear some other opinions.

[penncentralpete]

Can anybody give me a good explanation why in 1951 the Dodgers, who won the coin flip against the Giants, decided to give away home field advantage? I have been over the pros and cons many times and it still seems to be a very dumb thing to do. I would love to hear some other opinions.

The "genius" Chuck Dressen ordered it.

[Number 4]

Can anybody give me a good explanation why in 1951 the Dodgers, who won the coin flip against the Giants, decided to give away home field advantage? I have been over the pros and cons many times and it still seems to be a very dumb thing to do. I would love to hear some other opinions.

From BaseballLibrary.com: "Surpringly, manager Charlie Dressen opted to play only the first game at home, rather than the last two. His reasoning was that if the Dodgers won their only home game, they would need to win only one out of two on the road." Doesn't make much sense as the winner of the tiebreaker must win two of the three games regardless of where they are played and it should be easier to win the two games at home.

[penncentralpete]

From BaseballLibrary.com: "Surpringly, manager Charlie Dressen opted to play only the first game at home, rather than the last two. His reasoning was that if the Dodgers won their only home game, they would need to win only one out of two on the road." Doesn't make much sense as the winner of the tiebreaker must win two of the three games regardless of where they are played and it should be easier to win the two games at home.

Like I said........Dressen "The Genius" ordered it so.

[musial6]

I didn't blame Dressen then, and I certainly don't blame him now. He was merely following precedent. Recall the only previous major-league playoff--Dodgers vs. Cardinals in 1946. The Redbirds won the first game in St. Louis (beating Branca, who else?). Back in Ebbets Field, the Cards pummeled Brooklyn (a Dodger ninth-inning rally falling short). I'm sure what seemed smart in 1946 seemed equally smart in 1951.

[KCGHOST]

Could you imagine a manager making that decision today?? ESPN would crucify him.

[Imgran]

Seeing as the game he chose to play at home was game 1, there is a certain logic to it. If you win Game 1 of a three game series both of the remaining games are elimination games for the other guy. Probablistically speaking if you want to guarantee one game of a three-game series game one is the way to go. Since you don't have that much of a disadvantage on the road (it's there, but road games are winnable) the strategic advantage of having your opponent back on his heels for the remainder of the series if it works out that way does count for something.

Of course it all goes to crap if you lose game 1, but that's baseball.

[Shotgun Shuba]

I think there is some logic to having the first game at home and getting off to a good start but I think that quickly falls apart if you don't win that game. I have often thought that having the three games straight in the Series sometimes works out well for the team supposedly at a disadvantage but if you don't take care of business then you are in trouble. My sources have told me that the Dodgers felt that they lost the '46 playoff because of the travel problems of losing that first game, having to come cross country and being exhausted. In 51' though it wouldn't have mattered. Sometimes logic should win out over a predetermined rule to never repeat a mistake of the past.
I think you can talk about the decision from any angle and feel you are grounded in sound thought. The problem is that I really do think it would have made a huge difference in the outcome of the series.

[musial6]

In the first game of the '46 playoff, Branca was working on five days rest, Pollet on three.

It's interesting that Ralphie was the LP in three of the five playoff games in '46 and '51.

[Imgran]

I think there is some logic to having the first game at home and getting off to a good start but I think that quickly falls apart if you don't win that game.

I did say the same thing. You have to be confident that you're going to win that baseball game to do it that way but it can be worth the risk.

I have often thought that having the three games straight in the Series sometimes works out well for the team supposedly at a disadvantage but if you don't take care of business then you are in trouble. My sources have told me that the Dodgers felt that they lost the '46 playoff because of the travel problems of losing that first game, having to come cross country and being exhausted. In 51' though it wouldn't have mattered. Sometimes logic should win out over a predetermined rule to never repeat a mistake of the past.

Unless I'm mistaken, if they'd lost that game they would have lost and then travelled regardless.

I think you can talk about the decision from any angle and feel you are grounded in sound thought. The problem is that I really do think it would have made a huge difference in the outcome of the series.

I doubt it. If they lost that first game at home then they would probably have lost it on the road too, the only question is whether their opponent is going to take a game from them at home, which both times they pretty much proved capable of doing.

[dodger dynamo]

Ok, I think they won the toss both times in 46 and 51 and they made the wrong decision both times. now if I recall correctly. they finished the season away in both of the contests and the decision to play it the way they did hurt them because of travel and rest. boston was closer to brooklyn than st.louis, the cards finished in chicago. long train ride to stl. hey it's been a long time, I was six in 46 until the end of the year so the memory plays tricks. then in 51 they finished in phillie I believe, pretty close to both brooklyn and ny, go figure. battlin bake the dodger dynamo

[musial6]

Ok, I think they won the toss both times in 46 and 51 and they made the wrong decision both times. now if I recall correctly. they finished the season away in both of the contests and the decision to play it the way they did hurt them because of travel and rest. boston was closer to brooklyn than st.louis, the cards finished in chicago. long train ride to stl. hey it's been a long time, I was six in 46 until the end of the year so the memory plays tricks. then in 51 they finished in phillie I believe, pretty close to both brooklyn and ny, go figure. battlin bake the dodger dynamo

In '46, the Cards and Dodgers both finished the regular season at home.

[MATHA531]

It's a silly argument.....if Pafko catches Thomson's pop up against the wall and Mays strikes out and Brooklyn wins, nobody says anything. Up until one out in the ninth inning of game 3, it was the right decision.

[musial6]

It's a silly argument.....if Pafko catches Thomson's pop up against the wall and Mays strikes out and Brooklyn wins, nobody says anything. Up until one out in the ninth inning of game 3, it was the right decision.

Agreed. Coin flips didn't decide those two pennant races. Blowing a 7.5 game lead on July 2, 1946, and a 13 game lead on August 11, 1951, did.

[aqib]

Agreed. Coin flips didn't decide those two pennant races. Blowing a 7.5 game lead on July 2, 1946, and a 13 game lead on August 11, 1951, did.

I thought 51 was because the Giants were stealing signs?