[Manny's PS2]

http://tracking.si.c...kner-in-game-6/

Quote

“The case is that Buckner was the best first baseman I had,” said McNamara. “And Dave Stapleton has taken enough shots at me since [then] that he didn’t get in that ball game, but Dave Stapleton’s nickname was ‘Shakey.’ And you know what that implies. I didn’t want him playing first base to end that game, and it was not any sentimental thing that I had for Billy Buck to leave him out there. He was the best first baseman I had.”.

My opinion was that Stapleton was a utility infielder who was converted to be a defensive specialist at first and was the superior fielder to a broken down Buckner. I was 16 at the time, but that's my recollection. Does anyone think Mac's take is truthful or do you think he's still trying to defend his bad decision.

This post has been edited by Manny's PS2: 04 November 2011 - 08:28 AM

[Edmund Dantes]

Who the **** cares? The worst part about this collapse is watching all the crusted over dried out vaginas in the media suddenly feeling like "yay!! We can go back to how shit was before 2004!!! And I won't look like a complete douchebag asshole who does not have an original idea as to how to write about baseball". Just ugh! 1986 has no bearing at all on what happened with this team, neither does 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, etc... It's also like all these baseball writers just had 8 year long nightmare where the team was doing well, and nothing they could write would stick. Now that they've woken up, it's back to the good ole days of just stirring the pot.

[Manny's PS2]

I just didn't remember Stapleton as anything but a defensive replacement for Buckner late in games, so I found his reasoning to be odd. He also took a shot at Clemens, who again said his blister was bleeding and that there was blood all over the baseballs. We all know the Texas Con Man never lies.

[MrNewEngland]

Why is this coming up 25 years later? I'm with ED... I don't give a sh!t.

[Manny's PS2]

I think SI interviewed McNamara for some reason - I just read the quotes and thought someone might agree with Mac. I'm curious if he's trying to revise the facts...or if Buckner really was better defensively than Stapleton...He also threw Stapleton under the bus calling him "Shakey"...

[BigSlick]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hSs34-d9qO4/S7lGccO9UJI/AAAAAAAAAGU/m4hjQ9kvFJ0/s1600/beat_dead_horse2.jpg

[rominer]

How come there's never any criticism for leaving Rich Gedman in there to swat at Bob Stanley's wild pitch instead of putting Marc Sullivan in there to actually move his body and block the pitch?

That guy gets no respect.

[Manny's PS2]

I think it's odd because McNamara had been using Stapleton as Buckner's defensive replacement for the latter part of the season, and didn't in game 6 of the world series with a slim lead in the late innings.

I realize it's "history", but to me it's still interesting. I find it interesting, but if you all don't, go to your megathreads and talk about your balls or peppers or Alex's deflowering.

[rominer]

Manny, on 04 November 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:

I think it's odd because McNamara had been using Stapleton as Buckner's defensive replacement for the latter part of the season, and didn't in game 6 of the world series with a slim lead in the late innings.

Then the question is, was McNamara using Stapleton for defensive purposes at the end of the season? Or was he only using Stapleton for the purposes of getting Buckner – who had no cartilage, bones, tendons, ligaments or muscles in his ankles at that point in his career – a little bit of rest?

Maybe "Buckner was the better defensive player" really is the truth – and when you're about to clinch the World Series, getting the guy an extra inning of rest for his ankles is low on your list of priorities.

I just think it's kind of sad that McNamara still feels the need (even if it's only when asked, and he's not out there preaching this stuff anymore) to go to such lengths to try to justify everything. So many different things had to go wrong for the Red Sox to lose that game. How hard would it be 25 years later to just say, "I might not have pushed all the right buttons, but I stand by my players and I stand by my moves. We just weren't able to finish it."

[BigSlick]

Manny, on 04 November 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:

I think it's odd because McNamara had been using Stapleton as Buckner's defensive replacement for the latter part of the season, and didn't in game 6 of the world series with a slim lead in the late innings.

We all know this though. Most of us lived through it and know all the background stories to it. Those who didn't live through it have still heard about it 100 times before. If you want to talk about the past, it would be much more fun to talk about 04 or 07.

[Hail Cesar]

BigSlick, on 04 November 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

If you want to talk about the past, it would be much more fun to talk about 04 or 07.

But then we wouldn't really be Red Sox fans, would we? Much better to dwell on the things that went wrong than the things that went right. It's possible that the comeback in the 2004 playoffs and the WS sweep will not be as talked about in history as a ball going through Buckners' legs. Sad when you think about it that way. Instead, I say f*ck that sh*t. Gotta keep the positive momentum flowing even in the offseason.

[ghostoffoxx]

Hail Cesar, on 04 November 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

Instead, I say f*ck that sh*t. Gotta keep the positive momentum flowing even in the offseason.

Indeed.



One more. Just because...

This post has been edited by ghostoffoxx: 04 November 2011 - 01:29 PM

[BigSlick]

A few more...

[Manny's PS2]

Okay, this isn't the Red Sox History Megathread, assholes.

McNamara - Liar Liar pants on fire?
or
Was Shakey Stapleton just used to rest Buckner's legs and not a defensive replacement. McNamara said he had his "best first baseman" on the field. I think it's bullshit and gloss. He also did throw Roger under the bus, who I also believe had a blister that ruined his grip...




Remember that one game when that good player got that awesome hit?

[Kid T]

rominer, on 04 November 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

Then the question is, was McNamara using Stapleton for defensive purposes at the end of the season?

My recollection is yes. Stapleton was a horrible hitter, and I remember wondering if he had any value to the team other than being a backup defensive 1B.

Quote

Maybe "Buckner was the better defensive player" really is the truth – and when you're about to clinch the World Series, getting the guy an extra inning of rest for his ankles is low on your list of priorities.

He was better at digging bad throws out of the dirt, but he had very little mobility. The popular narrative being reported in the media at the time was that McNamara left Buckner in so he could celebrate the final out on the field with the team, since he was such an important midseason acquisition.


Regardless, this is all water under the bridge. Like others here, I'd rather recall the positive history.

[Manny's PS2]

Kid T, on 04 November 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

Regardless, this is all water under the bridge. Like others here, I'd rather recall the positive history.

That's stupid. You're stupid.

[rominer]

Kid T, on 04 November 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

My recollection is yes. Stapleton was a horrible hitter, and I remember wondering if he had any value to the team other than being a backup defensive 1B.

He finished second in Rookie of the Year voting in 1980. He brought star power.

Quote

He was better at digging bad throws out of the dirt, but he had very little mobility. The popular narrative being reported in the media at the time was that McNamara left Buckner in so he could celebrate the final out on the field with the team, since he was such an important midseason acquisition.

An important midseason acquisition in 1984, that is.

The popular narrative, I know. This is the first I've heard the "Stapleton was actually a lousy first baseman" defense. I don't think it really matters. Stapleton, Buckner, or David Ortiz makes that play 99 times out of 100. But it was that one that counted.

Quote

Regardless, this is all water under the bridge. Like others here, I'd rather recall the positive history.

It is water under the bridge…but it is kind of interesting how McNamara still doesn't seem to see that. Maybe they need to bring him back to Fenway for one of those Bill Buckner forgiveness ceremony things.

[VoteRiceIn]

Edmund Dantes, on 04 November 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

Who the **** cares?

I do....

The events that transpired in the fall of 1986 had a significant impact on my 'fandom' (sorry, but I lack a better term after 7 beers) as a RS fan, I believe in large part due to my impressionalbe age (11 at the time). Yes, to your point it means nothing today but why does it have to? In historic context the 1986 WS can & should stand alone. On a personal side, since 2004 & 2007, I've become significantly more rational in my view of RS historic mishaps/blunders/shortcomings and no longer have an issue with viewing the 'ghost' of RS past. I'd actually welcome any new insight in what transpired in that WS but if this MLB documentary is just another rehash of the same old story, I'll still enjoy (thanks to 2004) reliving a nastolgic time from my youth.

PS: I hope Roger Clemens gets bit by a scorpian while pitching in Puerto Rico this winter. (disclaimer: if scorpions are not native to PR (I'm very ignorant to the native species of PR, subsitute with one of the following: wolverine, vampire bat, honey badger, the spider on Greg Brady while visiting Hawaii, Box jellyfish, Harvester ants or whatever else hurts, stings and/or poisons).

This post has been edited by VoteRiceIn: 04 November 2011 - 11:31 PM

[acr]

Don Baylor should've been starting the NL games at first anyway.

Buckner takes a lot of flack about his defense in '86, but the real crime is the fact that he was a bad hitter and in the 3 hole behind Boggs and Barrett who had like .800 OBPs that series.

[LooiesWindup]

IIRC, some one ran a bunch of sims and 99/100 the Sox hold on. Then as a P.S. the guy off handed remark that "Henderson FO-9. Angels win.
So the Baseball Gods giveth, the Baseball Gods taketh. Que sera, sera and all that.