Baseball History Comes Alive Now Ranked #2 by Feedspot Among All Internet Baseball History Websites and Blogs!
Guest Submissions from Our Readers Always Welcome!
Scroll Down to Read Today’s Essay
Subscribe to Baseball History Comes Alive for automatic updates. As a Free Bonus, you’ll get instant access to my Special Report: Gary’s Handy Dandy World Series Reference Guide!
Today Vince Jankoski returns with the third of his four-essay series on World Series goats. We always think of players as goats, but we rarely assign blame for a lost World Series to the manager. Today, Vince Jankoski attempts to set that record straight, telling us in no uncertain terms that managers can be goats too! -GL
SPECIAL CATEGORY:
Gene Mauch – A Managerial “Goat”
Gene Mauch gets my nomination as a managerial goat. Mauch became manager of the woeful Philadelphia Phillies in 1960. They finished last that year and the next, losing 107 games in the latter season, including a 23 game losing streak. In 1962, buoyed by the presence of the expansion New York Mets and Houston Colt 45s, against whom the Phils were a combined 31-5 (they played .400 ball against the rest of the league), Philadelphia finished above .500, although good for only seventh place. They moved up to fourth the following season before making their move in 1964.
Gene Mauch
That year, they won their first three games, taking first place from opening day until May 3. Throughout May, June and part of July, they jockeyed between first and second, falling to third for only a single day. They found themselves in first at the close of business on July 15, and held that position until September 26. On September 20, they were six and a half games ahead of St. Louis and Cincinnati who were tied for second place. There were only 12 games left to play. The Phils had a lock on the pennant – until they proceeded to lose their next 10 contests, three to Cincinnati, four to Milwaukee, and three to St. Louis. They fell to third place, two and a half games out of first. They recovered to win their last two games against the Reds, but it was too late. They finished tied for second with the Reds behind the pennant-winning Cardinals.
How did it all happen? The Phillies had two excellent starting pitchers that season, Jim Bunning (19-8, 2.63 ERA) and Chris Short (17-9, 2.20). However, behind them the starting pitching was suspect, at least in the eyes of manager Gene Mauch: Dennis Bennett (12-14, 3.68); Art Mahaffey 12-9, 4.52); and Ray Culp (8-7, 4.13). By the end of the season, Mauch had lost confidence in all but Bunning and Short.
Gene Mauch as Expos manager with Rusty Staub
Bunning started and won against the Dodgers on Sunday, September 20, going the distance. It was the last game the Phillies would win in September. Mahaffey started and lost 1-0 against the Reds the following day. Mahaffey went six and a third innings giving up only a single run. He pitched well giving up six hits and two walks. The only run scored when Chico Ruiz stole home plate. Short started Tuesday, September 22, lasting only 4 2/3 innings in another loss to the Reds.
Chico Ruiz stealing home 1964 against Phillies, the play that broke the backs of the Phillies
When Bennett lost the next day again to the Reds, and Bunning lost to the Braves the following day, Mauch panicked. The Phils were still in first place, three games ahead. However, on Friday, September 25, Mauch started Short on two days rest. He lost to the Braves. Short did well for seven innings, but was removed with one out in the eighth. The Phils lost the game in 12 innings. Mahaffey started the next game, on Saturday, September 26, pitched well, but the Phils lost again to Milwaukee when the bullpen blew an early four-run lead.
Hall of Famer Jim Bunning
The following day, Sunday, September 27, Mauch started Bunning on two days rest. Bunning who had thrown a perfect game earlier in the season at Shea Stadium, did not respond well, lasting only three-plus innings, giving up ten hits and seven runs. Each of the five batters he faced in the fourth inning reached base. Surely, the limited rest reduced his effectiveness. It was the Phils’ fourth straight loss to the Braves. The next day Monday, September 28, Mauch again went with Short on two days rest. He pitched well but didn’t make it out of the sixth inning against the Cardinals.
Chris Short
The “Phillies Phold“
After Bennett lost to the Cards on Tuesday, September 29, Mauch again went with Bunning on two days rest with predictable results: Bunning tired early and was gone before the fourth inning was over in another loss to St. Louis. Philadelphia fell to third place, two and a half games out of first. The Phils won their last two games of the season against the Reds, but it was too late. Short started the penultimate contest on three days rest. Ed Roebuck was the winning pitcher in relief. Bunning won the finale, this time working on a full three days rest. Those wins pulled Philadelphia into a tie with the Reds for second place, a game behind the Cardinals who would go on to beat the Yankees in the World Series in seven games. The collapse is known as “the Phillies Phold”.
The overuse of Bunning actually began before the Phold. Bunning started on two days rest on September 16 while the Phillies were still six games in front. Bunning was 32 years old in 1964, surely a young man by ordinary standards, but getting on in years as major league pitchers go. That season he pitched 284 innings and had 13 complete games. His arm had to be tired in September. By contrast, Short was younger at 27. He threw fewer innings – 220 – with 12 complete games. Unsurprisingly, Short responded to the lessened days of rest better than did Bunning.
A young Dick Allen
In retrospect, it should be unsurprising that the Cardinals beat out the Phillies for the pennant. The Cards were led by Hall of Famers Bob Gibson and Lou Brock. Ray Sadeki won 20 games; Curt Simmons 18. They had power with Bill White and Ken Boyer. They had defense with six-time gold glove winners Curt Flood and Bill White and five-time gold glove winner Boyer who was league MVP that season. The pieces fit nicely together. The Phillies had some quality players. Ritchie (later Dick) Allen had an awesome rookie season. But, overall, going down the lineup, position by position, they were not the Cardinals’ equal.
To fully appreciate Mauch’s bad decision-making, it is useful to compare what happened with what would have happened if Mauch had not altered the rotation. From Monday, September 21 until the end of the season on Sunday, October 4, the Phillies played 12 games. Bunning started four games (September 24, 27, 30 and October 4); Short also started four contests (September 22, 25, 28, and October 2). Mahaffey (September 21 and 26) and Bennett (September 23 and 29) split the remaining four starts. Had Mauch kept his regular rotation, Bunning would have started three games: September 24 (which he did) and 28, and October 2. Short would have started four games: September 22, 26, 30, and October 4, all with a full complement of days off. Mahaffey would have started three games: September 21 (which he did), 25, and 29. Bennett would have started two games: September 23 and 27. Bunning and Short would have started a combined seven games without pitching on short rest.
So, Mauch’s juggling of the rotation only resulted in Bunning getting one more start and Mahaffey getting one less start. But Mahaffey, who had the best pick-off move of any right-hander on the planet, was on a roll and was well rested. Bennett was also pitching well. Why mess with that rotation?
Was It a “Choke” or a “Goat”?
I say why quibble? He failed his team at a crucial juncture. Mauch was considered by many to be a superior manager. He is 15th on the all-time managerial win list with 1,902, but he also lost 2,037 contests. He never won a big league pennant in 26 years of managing. True, he was given some bad teams: the Phillies of the early 1960’s and the expansion Montreal Expos. On the other hand, he managed the Minnesota Twins with Rod Carew and Burt Blyleven and never reached the playoffs. In two stints with California, he won two division titles, but never advanced to the World Series. He blew his best chance in 1964.
Baseball is rumored to have curses. Perhaps the baseball gods have punished Mauch for blowing the 1964 pennant by condemning him to viewing 26 World Series from the sidelines.
Vince Jankoski
Subscribe to our website, Baseball History Comes Alive with over 1400 fully categorized baseball essays and photo galleries, now surpassing the one million hits mark with over 1,178,000 hits and over 950 subscribers: https://wp.me/P7a04E-2he
Nice job, Vince. Before the El Pholdo, Mauch was considered a genius.
You could make a “goat” case for Yogi Berra in 1973 when the Mets were up 3 games to 2 against the champion Oakland A’s. He pitched Tom Seaver on short rest against Catfish Hunter, the best money pitcher in the game, and lost. Then he was forced to go with his second ace, Jon Matlack, also on short rest, in Game 7. Jon hit the wall in the third inning and Oakland won.
At the time we thought, pitch George Stone in Game 6, then Tom in the finale, with Matlack ready for short relief.
You’re right, Bill. I remember everyone thinking Mauch was a genius.
Bill,
I don’t know whether the 1973 Mets used a 4 or a 5 man rotation during the regular season, but by the playoffs their rotation was Seaver, Matlack, Koosman, and Stone, each pitching on 3 days rest – there was no day off in the NLCS so Stone got a start. That rotation, less Stone as the odd man out what with days off for travel, was what Berra went with in the post-season.
You make a great point. Stone had a good year. Plus, in addition to Matlack, Koosman might have been available also.
I attribute the Mets’ loss in the 1973 series to their bats falling asleep in Games 6 and 7. Consider: 3 runs (1 unearned), 2 extra base hits (both doubles) and 3 errors over a 2 game span. More errors than extra base hits. As many errors as runs scored. It takes a lot of good pitching to overcome that lack of support. Win either game 6 or 7 and they would have been the champs.
Vince, you are a true student of the game and I’m glad you responded.
My thinking is:
(1) The Mets had just beaten Oakland twice to go up 3-2, leaving for Oakland. They are unlikely to beat the A’s three straight on their home grounds against Hunter, a wonderful money pitcher. Even with full rest Tom Terrific was not going close out the Series on the road against the Oakland Ace.
(2) Stone would have been a glorified sacrificial lamb to bridge the gap to game 7 using Seaver, with full rest, and Matlack available for two innings of effective relief if needed. Koos might have been an option there also.
(Stone was in a groove, giving up no more than 2 runs in 6 or 7 innings every time out. Possible to steal the game with George allowing only 1 run in 6.2 innings and Tom getting the remaining 7 outs. Long shot to be sure.)
(3) Now, Berra is stuck with a tired pitcher on short rest also for the final game. Jon showed he had two good innings left in his tank. No guarantee, but a better chance to win.
Berra said, when asked why he started Seaver on short rest. “They’re going with their best, I gotta go with my best.” As much as I loved Yogi, so great in so many ways, that’s myopic thinking and shrunk the Mets chances as I see it.