Poor Bill Buck

[Xanadu Dragon]

Saw this on ESPN.com tonight - - poor Buckner - or, should I say "Poor Red Sox Nation"?

[LeGrandOrange]

Damn, when is everyone going to realize it's Bob Stanley's fault? :)

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
Damn, when is everyone going to realize it's Bob Stanley's fault? :)

Stanley, Schiraldi, Gedman and John McNamara.

And we can blame Dave Stapleton for not running out on the field himself.

:p

[Xanadu Dragon]

People see what they want to focus on - - kinda the same with the Bucky Dent HR.

Dent's HR made it a 3-2 game in the Top of the 7th.

The final was 5-4. Why not focus on the Reggie HR or the Munson double? Why not Piniella's play out in the sun?

Maybe it's the "B" on the Boston caps? B for Bucky. B for Buckner. (ChrisCary, yes, I'm stealing this bit. ;) )

Wanna break the curse? Get new hats.

[gyb13]

Well, you also need to take into account that most Espn internet users are younger, and thus more likely to remember something that happened in 86 than in other years (not to mention all the tv coverage and replays given to BB's play)

[SmedIndy]

Bill Buckner, Ernie Lombardi, Fred Snodgrass, Fred Merkle, the list goes on.

Wish there was video of the Cubs / Giants game with the Merkle incident. That'd be a hoot to watch on ESPN Classic.

[Duque]

How many of those that voted, do you think, were not Red Sox fans? Maybe Yankee or Met fans trying to rub their noses in it?

Not saying I did vote, but if I had, I would've gone for the Bucky Dent HR :stinker:

[Xanadu Dragon]

Interesting point Duque - quite possible.

[LeGrandOrange]

That would be interesting to see the Merkle boner on TV if it existed then. Would it be a two-part special?
You know, the thing about Merkle that impresses me, and gives me a lot of respect for the guy's life, was that the incident occured at happened at such a young age, an age that an incident like this could scar him for life, and he still managed to pull off a not-so-bad career. He still manages some 1,500 more hits after being branded as a bonehead...sure the memory of him missing the bag was not to be erased, but in the context, when a guy has that much baggage like Merkle, getting 1,500+ hits after the incident showed great character and/or fortitude.
I can only wonder how Merkle would've done if he had done this in a Buckner era...I wonder if he'd have much of a career to speak of.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
I can only wonder how Merkle would've done if he had done this in a Buckner era...I wonder if he'd have much of a career to speak of.
A la Scott Norwood/Ray Finkle? :D

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by gyb13

A la Ray Finkle? :D

:jester: :thumb: What a great reference!

[Xanadu Dragon]

Ace Ventura............ :rolleyes:

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Ace Ventura............ :rolleyes:
The obvious need not be stated, Net :D

[SmedIndy]

Back to Billy Buck:

His first year as a Cub was the first year I really followed them (thanks to the Crawfordsville Cable system getting WGN). I always liked him a great deal, even though he was hurt before he came to the Cubs and it robbed him of his speed and his ability to play OF.

Later I saw him play for the Angels, and I was saddened.

[Baudib]

I met Buckner the year after he won the batting title. He was the guest at our Little League's opening day. Seemed like a nice guy.

He made a lot of outs. BALL FOUR BILL, TAKE BALL FOUR!

[SmedIndy]

He did make a lot of outs, and he wasn't as good as I thought he was, but he was one of the best players on some rotten teams, so that made his mediocre offense seem much better.

[wskksw]

taking everything else away--buckner was a .267, 18 hr--hitter batting third for a good team. someone wrote his name, 'third'. playing most games (153), in the high minors (AL-86), he drove in 102.
question: find another player with numbers like this, hitting third, on a very good team. i'm open. my initial reaction is: there aren't any.
as far as '75 goes: no carbo, no evans, no fisk. both of those events were far, far, more importantant than the catcher's home run.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Buckner gets a bad rap. A guy with that bad a foot needed a caddy. Where was his defensive replacement, Mr. McNamara? Mr. McNamara???

[pathogan]

Clemens, starting a career long pattern, BAILED on that game, with 5 or six days rest, with a 2 run lead, supposedly because he had blisters...from what I have read, no one saw the blisters.,,mcnamara, a stand up guy, was incredulous that he wanted out, yet defended him...Leave billy Buckner alone...Stanley crossed up Gedman on the pitch...a wierd,poorly played game...

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by pathogan
Clemens, starting a career long pattern, BAILED on that game, with 5 or six days rest, with a 2 run lead, supposedly because he had blisters.

As a non-Mets or BoSox fan I was astounded when he left the game after six innings. Never had tremendous respect for him since.

[JamesI]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LeGrandOrange
I can only wonder how Merkle would've done if he had done this in a Buckner era...I wonder if he'd have much of a career to speak of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A la Scott Norwood/Ray Finkle?


As someone who is a Buffalo Bills fan, the Norwood reference isn't fair. Norwood was at the end of his career when he missed that kick, he only lasted one more season due to age and declining ability, not the torment of the fans.
JamesI

[Rice4HOF]

A few things...

I'm a big Billy Buckner fan. It was not his fault. I don't believe that games are ever won or lost on one play. Someone grounding out to lead off the game is JUST AS CRUCIAL as someone batting in the bottom of the 9th in a tie game. I know it's hard to accept, but for example, if the Sox (or Mets for that matter) had scraped across one more run in the first 9 innings, we wouldn't be talking about Buckner right now.

That is why I won't blame the loss on Schiraldi or Gedman or Stanley or Stapleton (for not tackling Buckner and taking over 1st base? :confuse: ). Maybe collectively on the batters for going something like 0-14 with runners in scoring position.

However, I believe that Bill Buckner single-handedly turned around the Red Sox. From 1967-1982 they were the only team without a losing season in the majors. Suddenly in 1983 they fell to below .500. They acquired Buckner in early 1984, and immediately turned back into a contender. If the Tigers had not started out 35-5, the Sox may have won that division. (I'm going by memory, but I believe from the time they acquired him to the end of the season, only about 2 games separated Detroit, Boston an Toronto). I 86 they finally put it all together, and remained strong contenders until 1991. Buckner was no longer there, but without him who knows how this team would have been built.

[spitball]

Originally posted by pathogan
Clemens, starting a career long pattern, BAILED on that game, with 5 or six days rest, with a 2 run lead, supposedly because he had blisters...from what I have read, no one saw the blisters.,,mcnamara, a stand up guy, was incredulous that he wanted out, yet defended him...Leave billy Buckner alone...Stanley crossed up Gedman on the pitch...a wierd,poorly played game...


I couldn't agree more.Remember his meltdown against the A's in the playoffs.(Was that the same year or the proceeding year?)
Anyway...Great point.Buckner should'nt have been in that position in the 1st place.

[pwdennis]

The Red Sox carried Dave Stapleton on the roster the whole year despite his .130 average. If this wasn't the situation to play him, then there wasn't one. This was entirely the manager's fault. Billy Bucks is not HOF quality but he doesn't deserve the goat horns here

[ChicagoDave]

Wasn't there another game to play after that one. Buck was an awesome player with a big leg and still managed to put up some good offensive numbers and field well.

[TimmyB]

Some of you guys have already covered some of this:
1) Schiraldi melted in the same inning
2) McNamara used Stapleton as a late-inning defensive replacement for Billy Buck all season. Why not then? (I have heard/read that he wanted his starters out there so they could celebrate the win in style -- if that's the case, it was dumb managerial reasoning.)
3) Stanley crossed up Gedman (or vice/versa)
4) Clemens was still 14 years away from being able to handle the pressure of a big game.

Now, I may be mistaken (memory being what it is) about this, but I seem to recall when the ball left Wilson's bat being very concerned (in the milliseconds I had to think about it), that Bucker wasn't even going to be able to get the ball to first (either himself or tossing to Stanley covering) in time to make the out. Obviously, the error iced it. But, I think it's been wrong for 16 years to hang it all on him.

Further, they needed him to get as far as they did.

Finally, regarding the ESPN poll that got this whole thing going in the first place, in the post-war era, nothing has had a more profound effect on Boston baseball than the 1967 Impossible Dream. Fisk, Carbo, Clemens, Dent, Buckner... a lot of this probably never happens if the team hadn't turned itself around and learned (as an organization) they could win again.

[BuzzBuzzard]

As far as I am concerned, no matter how you slice and dice it, it all falls at Buchner's feet. He makes the play, the RedSox win. It is that simple, IMO.

[Rice4HOF]

Not going to rehash everything again, but it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. If Buckner makes a remarkable play to get a very fast runner out, the game is simply TIED, and there are more innings to play to determine a winner.

Common fallacy that many people believe, but Boston was NOT winning the game when the error happened. She was tied.

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by Rice4HOF
Not going to rehash everything again, but it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. If Buckner makes a remarkable play to get a very fast runner out, the game is simply TIED, and there are more innings to play to determine a winner.

Common fallacy that many people believe, but Boston was NOT winning the game when the error happened. She was tied.

Ditto that thought. It was a team melt-down that history has placed at Buckner's (ahem) feet. The inning ends tied if Buckner makes the play. To say "if" Buckner makes the play they win, you first have to get out of the tie... which means you have to "if" the whole mess that came prior to it earlier in the inning.

BTW -- I don't think anyone here thinks it's okay that Buckner didn't make the play. It's just that there's an awful lot of responsibility for what happened that inning and it shouldn't all land on Billy Buck.

[BuzzBuzzard]

Absolutely a point I have failed to remember. My bad, and coming from a Mets fan, too. OK, so you can't give Buckner full credit for the WS loss, but you can certainly give him the lion's share, no?

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
Absolutely a point I have failed to remember. My bad, and coming from a Mets fan, too. OK, so you can't give Buckner full credit for the WS loss, but you can certainly give him the lion's share, no?

I see what you're getting at. If he makes the play, Knight doesn't score, the inning's over and it's on to the 12th. As a Sox fan who watched it unfold in all its horror, I have always put more of the (ahem) credit on Schiraldi's shoulders. This guy emerged as the closer in the latter part of the season, but he melted down in the 11th. If this guy does his job, there's no wild pitch, there's no Mookie.

I've always felt Bucker played a part in it -- the error was the icing on the cake of Red Sox Nation's collective day -- but he doesn't deserve all the blame (as history seems to be giving him).

I you ask average-Joe fan (non-Mets, non-Sox) about '86 and say "Buckner" they know exactly what you're talking about. If you say "Schiraldi" you probably get a lot of blank stares or shrugs.

Actually, I had forgotten just how bad it was until I watched episode 9 of Ken Burns' BASEBALL documentary about 6 years ago... that's what reinforced the notion that there was a lot more to that game than I had remembered.