Talk to me about the Sox of the early 80s...

Red(s)HawksFan · Aug 10, 2015

I'm not well versed in this history (36 and my first vivid memories are of 1986), but I think the explanation is fairly simple. The Red Sox were horribly horribly mis-managed during that period, from ownership to the GM. It's nothing short of a miracle that through that, they still had the wherewithal to produce the homegrown talent that was the backbone of the 1986 World Series team and the Morgan Magic years...Boggs, Clemens, Hurst, Boyd, Barrett, Greenwell, Burks, etc.

Mighty Joe Young · Aug 10, 2015

Have a glance at this GM from hindsight thread for an overview of the late seventies , early eighties teams

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/62907-tales-from-the-gm-time-machine/

rlsb · Aug 10, 2015

Read Beyond the Sixth Game - 1980 through May 1984 will all be told by Peter Gammons, good overview.
Nutshell: front office turmoil, Zimmer mercifully fired, Houk takes over, does reasonably well for what he had to work with.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 10, 2015

8slim: I arrived in Boston in the summer of 1980 at age 22, and so the whole mishegas of that offseason passed me by a little; I had no context for it, but I could tell people were mad as hell.

But by 1981 and after I was a religious devourer of the Globe's baseball coverage, so I have a pretty vivid memory of how the Houk-era moves were framed by the press and perceived by the fans. Here's how I remember it:

1) The Armas deal was spun as a coup because he could play CF, so the Sox would be getting middle-of-the-order offense from all three outfielders (just like in the good old Freddy Lynn days!). Remember that this was before most people knew from walk rate or OBP; what mattered was that Armas hit a lot of home runs and racked up a lot of RBI. And it was also thought that Armas' power would spike coming from Oakland to Boston.

2) There was definitely optimism about Nichols as a prospect--more than he turned out to warrant--but there was also an impending OF hole when Yaz retired ('83 was his final year) and Rice presumably moved into the DH slot.

3) Therefore, with Boggs ready, it seemed like better use of resources to cash Lansford in for a power-hitting OF than to move him to 1B--especially since...

4) Not everyone had come to terms with the fact that Stapleton's 1980 was a mirage.

None of it worked as planned, partly because Armas turned out to be about as absymal an offensive player as it's possible for a 30+ HR guy to be (and not really a CF either), partly because Stapleton was a utility guy milking one good year, partly because Jerry Remy continued to fall off a cliff and Glenn Hoffman continued to be a whole lotta nuthin.

bob burda · Aug 10, 2015

I would urge you to get a copy of Peter Gammons' "Beyond the 6th Game" - which chronicles the demise of the '75 team that looked like a would be dynasty to many. Gammons' book functions as half history of the team and half character sketches of the various key players and figures involved from '76-'83. It is a fun and entertaining read, and if you want to know why Gammons was revered, his mature style is really on display. I would think Stout and Johnson's "Red Sox Century" could also give you some idea about that time period, though I haven't read the section of it pertaining to those years.

I was in college from '81 to '85, working on a golf course each summer, and watching plenty of Sox baseball with my dad in the evening - so I have my own pretty clear recollections of it too. That said, Gammons' narrative about it shaped my view of it early on, and it is hard for me to shake that off. I would wholly agree with what is said above, that this was a period of execrable management which pretty much extended until Duquette arrived in '94. Duquette gets (and probably deserves) mixed grades around here, but you can't imagine what an improvement he was over his predecessors.

chrisfont9 · Aug 10, 2015

Lansford's two transactions:

12-10-1980 Traded by California Angels with Rick Miller and Mark Clear to Boston Red Sox in exchange for Rick Burleson and Butch Hobson (December 10, 1980). 12-06-1982 Traded by Boston Red Sox with Garry Hancock and Jerry King to Oakland Athletics in exchange for Tony Armas and Jeff Newman (December 6, 1982).

The Burleson deal was a case of Sox management falling out of trees and landing on their feet. Burleson was asking for an increase in pay, and my memory is a bit foggy, but if he forced his way out of Boston it probably had a lot to do with the disastrous Yawkey era style of management. Burieson had his best year in Anaheim that first year, a 112 OPS+ in 109 games, but hurt his arm and barely ever played again. This after being completely durable in Boston. Hobson was sub- replacement level by then and lasted only a year with the Angels. Clear was a serviceable reliever, with one hot year and several modest ones. Miller was a useful fourth outfielder.

Lansford in Boston was a classic white-guy player, diving for everything and getting dirty, and in the process obscuring his limited range. He also won a batting title, albeit with not many walks or much power, but back then we thought that was a big deal. He was good, maybe a bit overrated, but definitely a good player and went on to have a steady career in Oakland. He was replaced by Wade Boggs, and our skepticism about this decision melted away pretty quickly.

Acquiring Tony Armas was a big deal. By OPS+ measures he wasn't as effective as Lansford, but the OF lineup of Armas, Rice and Evans was pretty devastating, along with other bit players like Mike Easler, peak-year Rich Gedman, last years of Yaz, and the emerging Boggs.

Bottom line: everything about the Red Sox' association with Carney Lansford worked out well. Except when his A's were beating us in the late 80s, but there wasn't much anyone could do about that.
[Edit: spelling]

WenZink · Aug 10, 2015

I split a season ticket for 3 of those years, so I probably saw 100 games between 1981 and 1984.

From a baseball fan perspective, it was all about the emergence of Dwight Evans as a hitter (as well as being the greatest RF) and Wade Boggs.

=The last years of Carl Yastrzemski, and when he retired, i thought I would never feel the same way about the Sox again.

= I went to the retirement of Joe Cronin's #4 and Ted Williams came back and still looked pretty good, except he was no longer the Splendid Splinter anymore.

- Remember that the early '80s were still before the building of the .406 club behind home plate, so there still existed the jet-stream that took fly-balls into the net. One of the reasons they wanted Tony Armas in the lineup, and also why soft-toss lefties like Tudor and Ojeda were considered expendable. (Ojeda was maddening, btw. In 1984 he led the league in shutouts with 5, in spite of an ERA+ of just over average.)

- The front office was a mess, and Ralph Houk was just a caretaker who was collecting a paycheck. There were stories about Houk going golfing on ST game days, and having his coaches manage the games. The whole thing came to a head, when in June of 1983, on the same day the Sox were hosting a fund-raiser for Tony C., Buddy LeRoux staged a coup, and replaced Heywood with the return of Dick O'Connell. Eventually, the courts decided against Buddy, and the next year Lou Gorman was brought aboard, and things started to change for the better.

= Edit.. and per chrisfont9's comments about Lansford, I felt he cheated in at 3rd (ala Pablo, btw) and that limited his range, although it made him look good on those slow rollers. I was not sad to see him go.

- Edit #2.. Forgot to mention all the Clemens hype after being drafted in '83, and then his arrival in '84, and then the shoulder injury and thinking his career was over like the one-hit wonder Jim Lonborg.

rlsb · Aug 10, 2015

Peter Golenbeck's book Red Sox Nation also has some background about this time period. His facts are not perfect, but the flavor is there.

HriniakPosterChild · Aug 10, 2015

I didn’t experience it firsthand, as I first got sucked into the team when Clemens’s 20K game made the Globe’s front page. But I remember reading John Tudor’s answer to the question of why he pitched so much better in St. Louis than he did in Boston. He said the pitching was no different, but the Cardinals’ defense made him look better.

I think many teams undervalued defense then, but the Red Sox might have undervalued it more than most.

rlsb · Aug 10, 2015

1980 - Saw this one: Red Sox hit 6 home runs in a game - and were annihilated. This game and these splits will tell you a lot about Mike Torrez and the bullpen that season. Tom Burgmeier was a nice exception. I won't make this a project, just an extremely SSS. It was years such as this that make you appreciate 2004-2013.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1980/Ltorrm0010161980.htm
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1980/B05310BOS1980.htm

Sampo Gida · Aug 10, 2015

1980-1985 were not great years, no doubt, but they only had year under 500. Mediocre teams, consistently mediocre. Boggs probably should have been called up earlier than he was but OBP was not as greatly appreciated so they traded for Lansford. A guy like him today gets called up 2 years earlier. Lansford was good and as someone suggested probably should have been moved to 1B to make room for Boggs, and then we don't trade Eck for Buckner, and history as we know it would be completely different

There was no WC then, if there was a similar alignment and system today, they probably get into the post season in 1982, but no great teams in that period for sure. No last place teams either.

HriniakPosterChild said:
I didn’t experience it firsthand, as I first got sucked into the team when Clemens’s 20K game made the Globe’s front page. But I remember reading John Tudor’s answer to the question of why he pitched so much better in St. Louis than he did in Boston. He said the pitching was no different, but the Cardinals’ defense made him look better.

I think many teams undervalued defense then, but the Red Sox might have undervalued it more than most.

His last year in Boston he gave up 32 HR and he did not strike many guys out. He walked fewer guys in St Louis and gave up fewer HR. Sure, the better defense helped, but the park was probably the biggest factor

Humphrey · Aug 10, 2015

HriniakPosterChild said:
I didn’t experience it firsthand, as I first got sucked into the team when Clemens’s 20K game made the Globe’s front page. But I remember reading John Tudor’s answer to the question of why he pitched so much better in St. Louis than he did in Boston. He said the pitching was no different, but the Cardinals’ defense made him look better.

I think many teams undervalued defense then, but the Red Sox might have undervalued it more than most.

I don't know whether the impetus for trading Tudor was from the front office or Houk, but I didn't like the move. Tudor had several good years for St. Louis. The best you can say about Mike Easler is that the Sox flipped him for Don Baylor.

The one thing I'll say for Houk is that he was damn good at damage control- didn't matter how bad someone played or what horrible moves the front office made, his public comments never swayed from the company line.

B H Kim · Aug 10, 2015

To me, the most vivid memories of the early 80's were not of any particular player or manager, but of the overall atmosphere at Fenway. You could walk up on just about any game night and buy a ticket (bleacher seats were around $3.00 as I recall) and the place was typically about 60% full and it often felt like it was mostly empty. There just wasn't a lot of energy in the park for most of the games in that era.

It really wasn't until around the middle of 86 that the atmosphere changed. I remember driving in for a game right before the All Star break in 86 and discovering, to my amazement, that the game was sold out. That hadn't happened to me in years. I was very disappointed since Tom Seaver was pitching that night, and, as it turned out, it would have been my only chance to see him pitch for the Sox.

kieckeredinthehead · Aug 10, 2015

Humphrey said:
The one thing I'll say for Houk is that he was damn good at damage control- didn't matter how bad someone played or what horrible moves the front office made, his public comments never swayed from the company line.

Sounds familiar...

Philip Jeff Frye · Aug 10, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
1) The Armas deal was spun as a coup because he could play CF, so the Sox would be getting middle-of-the-order offense from all three outfielders (just like in the good old Freddy Lynn days!). Remember that this was before most people knew from walk rate or OBP; what mattered was that Armas hit a lot of home runs and racked up a lot of RBI. And it was also thought that Armas' power would spike coming from Oakland to Boston.

This is exactly right. Armas was the prototype of an overrated player in the early 80s. Lots of homers, a great arm, played on the high profile A's playoff teams under Billy Martin, but never drew a walk and didn't do much with the bat when he wasn't hitting the ball out of the park.

Those early 80s teams were frustrating - they'd be in contention in August but would inevitably fade, playing into all the mediot cliches about the Red Sox being chokers. But the groundwork was being laid for a great, though obviously tragic, team in 1986. It's an era upon which I look back fondly, even though the teams were mostly disappointments. The fact that bleacher seats cost $4 back then certainly helps!

nighthob · Aug 11, 2015

Philip Jeff Frye said:
Those early 80s teams were frustrating - they'd be in contention in August but would inevitably fade, playing into all the mediot cliches about the Red Sox being chokers. But the groundwork was being laid for a great, though obviously tragic, team in 1986. It's an era upon which I look back fondly, even though the teams were mostly disappointments. The fact that bleacher seats cost $4 back then certainly helps!

For me the worst part about '86, which kept getting worse as guys like CHB jumped on the Curse of the Bambino bandwagon, is that the '86 Sox went from a plucky underdog team that was one play from beating the 1980s version of the Big Red Machine to, in essence, the favourite done in by some mythic curse. I hated the game six loss, but prior to that tragicomic ending I couldn't believe that they were really going to beat a team I didn't expect them to last five games against.

glasspusher · Aug 11, 2015

In regards to Houk- Yaz said he wouldn't have played as long as he did without having Houk as manager. The early 80s to me were watching what could have been a perennial contender dissolving away(I started following the sox in 1978 from the vantage point of central NJ). Lou Gorman wasn't perfect, but he was light years ahead of LeRoux & Co. 1986 was like a dream...until the end.

Flynn4ever · Aug 11, 2015

I remember my father (who proclaimed himself a Mets fan and my first visit to a ballpark was Shea) lamenting the Sox losing to the Reds in '75. My brother and I hung out in the driveway and he decided that since the Reds won, we should like them. I tried, but somehow I always end up a fan of the lovable losers. I became a Red Sox fan then and I worshipped Yaz. As for the early 80's we had what was left of Jim Rice, we watched what was left of Fred Lynn play for the Angels and we cursed 1978 like it was almost the end of time. Until of course 1986 came along and kicked us even harder in the balls. It was hell, but I remember (and I told this anecdote in '04 on this site) a woman in the local shopping mall saw me with my Sox cap on in the Autumn of '86 and she said "They won't win in my lifetime, but you will see them win the World Series." I have no idea if she lived until '04 but I cried my eyes out when Foulke threw the ball to first.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 11, 2015

Humphrey said:
I don't know whether the impetus for trading Tudor was from the front office or Houk, but I didn't like the move. Tudor had several good years for St. Louis. The best you can say about Mike Easler is that the Sox flipped him for Don Baylor.

I remember at the time that this was the consensus, but Easler was really the better hitter of the two in a Sox uniform, with a 119 OPS+ to Baylor's 111.

B H Kim said:
To me, the most vivid memories of the early 80's were not of any particular player or manager, but of the overall atmosphere at Fenway. You could walk up on just about any game night and buy a ticket (bleacher seats were around $3.00 as I recall) and the place was typically about 60% full and it often felt like it was mostly empty. There just wasn't a lot of energy in the park for most of the games in that era..

This is absolutely right. It's hard to overemphasize how sleepy the baseball atmosphere was in Boston in the early 80s. The team wasn't that great, it was always easy to get a ticket, and baseball was just kind of a nice traditional summery thing, something to listen to on the radio while you hung out at the beach or did your yard work, nothing to get too excited about. Excitement was for the Celtics and Bruins: it was the Garden, not Fenway, that was the Boston sports mothership.

I hate to say this, and it may be hard to imagine for you young'uns, but the guy most responsible for changing that was Roger Clemens.

ji oh · Aug 11, 2015

The early 80s for me were about the end of Yaz and the start of Boggs. Watching Boggs was remarkable--the batting eye, the ability to foul pitches off, the consistent solid contact, the ritual at the plate, the unique stroke. You would plan your game-watching around making sure you saw all his atbats.

In 1985 he had "three pop-ups in 758 plate appearances."

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-31/sports/sp-20020_1_wade-boggs

Monbo Jumbo · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
....
- Remember that the early '80s were still before the building of the .406 club behind home plate, so there still existed the jet-stream that took fly-balls into the net. ....

Sampo Gida said:
....His last year in Boston he gave up 32 HR and he did not strike many guys out. He walked fewer guys in St Louis and gave up fewer HR. Sure, the better defense helped, but the park was probably the biggest factor

Yes and yes.

Sox management had an aversion left-handed pitching, and Tudor's HR rate perhaps shows why.

I always thought the aversion should have been to fly ball pitchers, rather than lefties. Their aversion to lefties meant they didn't pursue Tommy John as a FA in '78, but they thought fly-ball righty Mike Torrez was a good idea as a FA in '77. Ground ball inducing John won quite a few games against the Sox in Fenway in subsequent years.

John Marzano Olympic Hero · Aug 11, 2015

This is absolutely right. It's hard to overemphasize how sleepy the baseball atmosphere was in Boston in the early 80s. The team wasn't that great, it was always easy to get a ticket, and baseball was just kind of a nice traditional summery thing, something to listen to on the radio while you hung out at the beach or did your yard work, nothing to get too excited about. Excitement was for the Celtics and Bruins: it was the Garden, not Fenway, that was the Boston sports mothership.

Ten years ago ESPN Classic used to run "This Week in Baseball" episodes from the 70s, 80 and early 90s (BTW, this was a wonderful thing and I have no idea why they don't do it anymore.) Anyway, if they should a highlight from Fenway in the mid 80s, the place was a ghost town. I bet that there wasn't more than 15K at each game.

The only thing that you need to know about the early 80s Boston Red Sox was that Channel 4 Sports Anchor Bob Lobel captured the feelings of that era in one mantra: "Why can't we get guys like that?" Every night while he was doing the late night sports broadcast, he'd inevitably show a highlight of a former Sox player doing very well (usually Ojeda or Tudor) and he'd repeat his phrase. Over and over and over again.

Al Zarilla · Aug 11, 2015

John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
Ten years ago ESPN Classic used to run "This Week in Baseball" episodes from the 70s, 80 and early 90s (BTW, this was a wonderful thing and I have no idea why they don't do it anymore.) Anyway, if they should a highlight from Fenway in the mid 80s, the place was a ghost town. I bet that there wasn't more than 15K at each game.

The only thing that you need to know about the early 80s Boston Red Sox was that Channel 4 Sports Anchor Bob Lobel captured the feelings of that era in one mantra: "Why can't we get guys like that?" Every night while he was doing the late night sports broadcast, he'd inevitably show a highlight of a former Sox player doing very well (usually Ojeda or Tudor) and he'd repeat his phrase. Over and over and over again.

Not quite that bad. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/rsoxatte.shtml

Check out every year until 1946, and again in the early 60s if you want to see ghastly attendance. Savin is right, it was Clemens that turned it around in 1986.

The Talented Allen Ripley · Aug 11, 2015

Sellouts were rare even in the mid-to-late '80s. Bleacher seats were $5 if you bought them ahead of time, $7 day of. Going to a game was like deciding to go to the movies; no planning required, you could just look at the pitching matchups and head in on a whim. And this was during the '86 - '88 - '90 playoff runs.

lexrageorge · Aug 11, 2015

With regards to the trade of John Tudor for Mike Easler, it's easy to criticize in hindsight. But the rationale was not as far off as it may appear. The 1983 Red Sox already had 2 established left handers in the rotation with Bruce Hurst and Bobby Ojeda. In addition, Oil Can Boyd, Al Nipper, and Roger were coming up through the system. Tudor was certainly an established member of the rotation, but at 29 it was reasonable to expect that his upside was a solid mid-rotation starter. Tudor's BABIP during his last 4 years with the Sox was 0.261, 0.259, 0.322, and 0.267, so it's not entirely fair to say the Sox defense was the sole cause of Tudor's performance. In 1982 it appeared that perhaps Tudor did "figure it out"; coincidentally, that was the same season as his 0.322 BABIP. But his K rate dropped in 1983, while his BB rate climbed. And adjusting for his move to the NL, he wasn't a lot better in Pittsburgh in 1984 either.

Meanwhile, the Sox did see a chance to get a solid hitter well suited to play DH in Fenway. Unfortunately, Easler's had one solid year (140 OPS+) before entering his decline.

Back on topic: the 1980's were not the most exciting of times for Sox fans. In 1981, the Sox made a run in the 2nd half of the strike year, but fell short as the pitching depth got exposed. They had a nice start in 1982 but then faded mid season as the Brewers got hot. 1983 was pretty dreadful, however. The only highlights were Rice's resurgence, the emergence of Wade Boggs, and Yaz's final stop in various AL cities. Eckersley had by that point succumbed to injury and his personal demons and was no longer a reliable starting pitcher. The fact that the Sox were able to get Bill Buckner for him was fairly remarkable at the time. 1984 and 1985 were mediocre years in which the Sox were out of the race by the time May came along, but that was tempered somewhat by the emergence of some of the younger players that would play a key role in 1986 (Gedman, Barrett, Oil Can, Roger, Boggs), and the continued mashing of Rice and Evans.

chrisfont9 · Aug 11, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
I remember at the time that this was the consensus, but Easler was really the better hitter of the two in a Sox uniform, with a 119 OPS+ to Baylor's 111.

Baylor... I was looking to see who was CF before Armas, i.e. who was so bad that they felt compelled to put Armas in center. It was Miller, but that led me to Fred Lynn's bREF numbers, which were a sight to behold. Especially in 1979, when he finished fourth in MVP... to Baylor. Despite being vastly superior to Baylor in almost every measure except RBIs. Unimaginable. And trading Lynn still ranks as one of the most foolish things the team ever did, next to letting Fisk go for nothing and way behind refusing to sign Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays because of, um, baseball considerations.

chrisfont9 · Aug 11, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
I hate to say this, and it may be hard to imagine for you young'uns, but the guy most responsible for changing that was Roger Clemens.

Oh absolutely. 1986 changed the team's fortunes. We were glued to the radio all season long.

Rovin Romine · Aug 11, 2015

8slim said:
Thanks to everyone for chiming in, I'm learning a lot.

In terms of attendance, I vividly remember the Clemens 20K game in April of '86. I watched the game on NESN and was scoring at home (sadly not that kind of scoring, I was 12) and I believe it was up against a Celtics playoff game that night. Attendance was 13K.

I used to tape some of his box scores to my brown-grocery-bag covered school books. He was pretty unbelievable.

lexrageorge · Aug 11, 2015

Unfortunately, that period also brings up one of the worse memories of the Red Sox. Popular coach Tommy Harper was fired by the team for criticizing the fact that the management allowed the Winter Haven Elks to exclude the team's black players and coaches from invitations to social events. The ownership made no attempt to apologize for this either.

BeantownIdaho · Aug 11, 2015

The late 70's and early 80's were when I was growing up in elementary/middle school and absolutely loved baseball and the Red Sox. My stance in Babe Ruth was first like Fred Lynn's then progressed to Dwight Evans in which my coach asked me "What are you doing?" This is Dwight Evans' stance! Fred Lynn was my absolute favorite as a kid for many years. I was destroyed when he left Boston. Fast forward to 2000. I am the All-Star game in Atlanta. We are at Fanfest and I am in line for autographs from Hank Aaron and two other HOF's. I am ten people back when they change out the players. I am irritated and disappointed because the three I could have gotten were monumental. The next group included Fred Lynn. When I went up to meet him I told him he was my favorite player growing up. He acted as though he had never heard that before. "Really?" he asked. In the midst of thousands of people he said "Do you want to get a picture with me?" We went over to the side and we took a picture in front of the ASG logo. The guy was phenomenal as a player, but as I would find out, what a great man he was. He treated me like the only fan in the building - I have the picture and the ball he signed on display.

WenZink · Aug 11, 2015

I just remembered my worst recurring nightmare from those early '80s Sox teams, and it was when they played the Royals in KC. The turf was so hard and fast, and it was all about speed in that ballpark. And the Royals had it. NESN was yet to be, and the weeknight games from KC were rarely televised, so I would listen on the radio.

Sox protecting a 2-1 lead in the eighth, and the starter tires and with one out in the bottom of the eighth and runners on 1st and 2nd, Houk would bring in Bob Stanley to get the double play and preserve the lead. Then Willie Wilson would smash a ball 15 feet from home plate, that would pick up speed, get through the infield and end up rolling all the way to outfield wall. Both Royal runners score. Royals up 3-2. Dan Quisenberry comes on to get the Sox 1-2-3 in the ninth. Radio clicked off just as Rice makes the final out.

I swear that happened at least a dozen times. Or maybe I just dreamed about it a dozen times. My recurring nightmare.

HriniakPosterChild · Aug 11, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
I remember at the time that this was the consensus, but Easler was really the better hitter of the two in a Sox uniform, with a 119 OPS+ to Baylor's 111.

Baylor had him beat on leadership, from what I remember reading.

HriniakPosterChild · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
Then Willie Wilson would smash a ball 15 feet from home plate, that would pick up speed...

Uh, is there a physicist in the house?

WenZink · Aug 11, 2015

HriniakPosterChild said:
Uh, is there a physicist in the house?

I'm not a physicist, but I do think that a ball off the bat with topspin can actually pick up a little speed when it hits a hard surface. In any event, it looks like it does, just like a "rising fastball" appears to rise.

HriniakPosterChild · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
I'm not a physicist, but I do think that a ball off the bat with topspin can actually pick up a little speed when it hits a hard surface. In any event, it looks like it does, just like a "rising fastball" appears to rise.

Yeah, I put in the same bucket as the so called rising fastball.

Philip Jeff Frye · Aug 11, 2015

8slim said:
Thanks to everyone for chiming in, I'm learning a lot.

In terms of attendance, I vividly remember the Clemens 20K game in April of '86. I watched the game on NESN and was scoring at home (sadly not that kind of scoring, I was 12) and I believe it was up against a Celtics playoff game that night. Attendance was 13K.

NFL draft was also that day, if I recall correctly, not that it was the media event it is now. It was also a fairly nasty April evening in Boston - not the sort of weather where you say, "Hey, let's head out to the ballpark!"

tomdeplonty · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
I'm not a physicist, but I do think that a ball off the bat with topspin can actually pick up a little speed when it hits a hard surface. In any event, it looks like it does, just like a "rising fastball" appears to rise.

A physicist did deal with the question. It doesn't actually speed up.

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-31/sports/sp-1250_1_bat-hits-baseball

(Edit: the rates of topspin are known/aren't fast enough to make the ball pick up speed)

joyofsox · Aug 11, 2015

nighthob said:
For me the worst part about '86, which kept getting worse as guys like CHB jumped on the Curse of the Bambino bandwagon, is that the '86 Sox went from a plucky underdog team that was one play from beating the 1980s version of the Big Red Machine to, in essence, the favourite done in by some mythic curse. I hated the game six loss, but prior to that tragicomic ending I couldn't believe that they were really going to beat a team I didn't expect them to last five games against.

I lived in Vermont at the time and only rarely saw the Globe, but I don't think the "Curse" was born yet. The Red Sox had had many disappointments, either within the East (72, 74, 78) or in the playoffs (75, 78), but where they might have been seen as never being able to win the big one, it wasn't supernatural.

I recently watched all seven games of the 1986 ALCS and was surprised at how the history of the Red Sox was almost never mentioned. During Game 1, "1918" was mentioned only once - a casual reference with 2 outs in the ninth inning! And it was mentioned in a purely informative way, implying that the general audience would not know this.

After the Mets won the WS, George Vescey of the NY Times wrote a column tying the Red Sox's failure to put away the Mets with Ruth (though not as obnoxiously as CHB would do later on). That was, I believe, the first mention of what became the CHB book, which was published in 1990.

am_dial · Aug 11, 2015

HriniakPosterChild said:
Baylor had him beat on leadership, from what I remember reading.

I recall plenty being written in the Worcester Evening Gazette about Baylor's kangaroo court (first time I ever heard that term) in 1986. A quick google turns up this article from SI's archives:

In any case, Baylor upholds the kangaroo tradition of harsh, unsparing justice. On the night Roger Clemens struck out 20 Mariners, Baylor fined him $5 for giving up a hit to Spike Owen on an 0-and-2 pitch. Hitting into a double play or failing to get a runner home from third with less than two outs also costs you $5. When the team is shut out, everybody in the starting lineup gets fined $1. In Boston's 7-5 loss to Milwaukee last Thursday night, young outfielder Steve Lyons, whose nickname is Psycho, was thrown out stealing third on his own, with the tying run on first and .400-hitting Wade Boggs at the plate. The sin was so egregious, Baylor says, "He'll need to take out a personal loan to pay the fine."

And don't forget what an expert he was at turning his left shoulder into a pitch: 35 HBP to lead the league in 1986, per Baseball Reference.

Edit: added quotation from SI article.

OCST · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
I just remembered my worst recurring nightmare from those early '80s Sox teams, and it was when they played the Royals in KC. The turf was so hard and fast, and it was all about speed in that ballpark. And the Royals had it. NESN was yet to be, and the weeknight games from KC were rarely televised, so I would listen on the radio.

Sox protecting a 2-1 lead in the eighth, and the starter tires and with one out in the bottom of the eighth and runners on 1st and 2nd, Houk would bring in Bob Stanley to get the double play and preserve the lead. Then Willie Wilson would smash a ball 15 feet from home plate, that would pick up speed, get through the infield and end up rolling all the way to outfield wall. Both Royal runners score. Royals up 3-2. Dan Quisenberry comes on to get the Sox 1-2-3 in the ninth. Radio clicked off just as Rice makes the final out.

I swear that happened at least a dozen times. Or maybe I just dreamed about it a dozen times. My recurring nightmare.

Gahh.

It was like playing baseball on a pool table.

And the Sox fielded teams of nine DH's, and the Royals had nine guys who could run like hell. Or so it seemed.

UL Washington with the toothpick.

Various Bretts and Iorgs.

dwainw · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
I just remembered my worst recurring nightmare from those early '80s Sox teams, and it was when they played the Royals in KC. The turf was so hard and fast, and it was all about speed in that ballpark. And the Royals had it. NESN was yet to be, and the weeknight games from KC were rarely televised, so I would listen on the radio.

Sox protecting a 2-1 lead in the eighth, and the starter tires and with one out in the bottom of the eighth and runners on 1st and 2nd, Houk would bring in Bob Stanley to get the double play and preserve the lead. Then Willie Wilson would smash a ball 15 feet from home plate, that would pick up speed, get through the infield and end up rolling all the way to outfield wall. Both Royal runners score. Royals up 3-2. Dan Quisenberry comes on to get the Sox 1-2-3 in the ninth. Radio clicked off just as Rice makes the final out.

I swear that happened at least a dozen times. Or maybe I just dreamed about it a dozen times. My recurring nightmare.

Growing up a Red Sox fan in Iowa during the early/mid 80's, I LOVED when they played the Royals (along with the Twins), because, aside from a rare Game of the Week appearance, it was the only time I was exposed to live coverage of the team. You're right, they did struggle vs. KC. Those late 70's/early 80's Royals teams were so well balanced, the antithesis of the Red Sox teams of the same era.

That said, I had the great fortune of attending two terrific games there in August of '85, only the 2nd and 3rd games I'd ever attended up to that point as a 14-year old. All 3 games of that weekend series were 1-run games, two of them going extra innings. The Sox wound up winning on Saturday and Sunday (the games I attended), capped off by a 9th inning comeback on Sunday and a completion of the comeback with a 3-run 12th (including a HR by Easler). To add to the excitement, in both those games the Royals scored 2 runs in the bottom of the final inning, but the Red Sox hung on for the wins. Incredible games, especially considering what a rare treat it was for me. Never mind that that proved to be the peak of their season (they lost 17 of their next 20 games--total collapse), and the Royals went on to win the World Series. Those two games kept me buzzing all the way through to the amazing '86 season.

Skiponzo · Aug 11, 2015

"I just remembered my worst recurring nightmare from those early '80s Sox teams, and it was when they played the Royals in KC. The turf was so hard and fast, and it was all about speed in that ballpark. And the Royals had it. NESN was yet to be, and the weeknight games from KC were rarely televised, so I would listen on the radio.

Sox protecting a 2-1 lead in the eighth, and the starter tires and with one out in the bottom of the eighth and runners on 1st and 2nd, Houk would bring in Bob Stanley to get the double play and preserve the lead. Then Willie Wilson would smash a ball 15 feet from home plate, that would pick up speed, get through the infield and end up rolling all the way to outfield wall. Both Royal runners score. Royals up 3-2. Dan Quisenberry comes on to get the Sox 1-2-3 in the ninth. Radio clicked off just as Rice makes the final out.

I swear that happened at least a dozen times. Or maybe I just dreamed about it a dozen times. My recurring nightmare."

Right there with ya but I would include the damned Kingdome. That place was where Sox victories went to die.

As opposed to the Royals The Mariners weren't very good but I distinctly remember Richie zisk's hitting and Doug Corbetts pitching doing them in.

(null)

Humphrey · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
I just remembered my worst recurring nightmare from those early '80s Sox teams, and it was when they played the Royals in KC. The turf was so hard and fast, and it was all about speed in that ballpark. And the Royals had it. NESN was yet to be, and the weeknight games from KC were rarely televised, so I would listen on the radio.

Sox protecting a 2-1 lead in the eighth, and the starter tires and with one out in the bottom of the eighth and runners on 1st and 2nd, Houk would bring in Bob Stanley to get the double play and preserve the lead. Then Willie Wilson would smash a ball 15 feet from home plate, that would pick up speed, get through the infield and end up rolling all the way to outfield wall. Both Royal runners score. Royals up 3-2. Dan Quisenberry comes on to get the Sox 1-2-3 in the ninth. Radio clicked off just as Rice makes the final out.

I swear that happened at least a dozen times. Or maybe II just dreamed about it a dozen times. My recurring nightmare.

When the Sox went into their swoon this year after the All Star break, it brought to mind 1976...the Sox played a (believe it or not) 6 game series at KC right after the break and lost 5 of them....and Darrell Johnson got canned.

jmcc5400 · Aug 11, 2015

Oh, man, the Royals. Things would always fall apart in that ballpark. KC would split the gaps and run all day. Even if the Sox had won the division in '78, they probably would have been sliced and diced by KC.

(And, I know this was at Fenway, but remember the day 5'4" Freddy freaking Patek hit 3 bombs over the monster?)

HriniakPosterChild · Aug 12, 2015

Well, at least KC did it to NY a few times, too.

reggiecleveland · Aug 12, 2015

Some here may get upset set by this, but the early 80s to me were about Jim Rice disappointing me. It was different to follow baseball from afar. Everything was print except the scores. 78 and 79 the hype about him was if he would hit 61 or win the 3ple crown. 83 was a really good year, but at age 30 he never hit 30 homers again. It may not be fair but at age 25 his comp on BR was Willie Mays. As good as he was I remember looking at boxscores the next day and sighing at Rice more often than not.

m0ckduck · Aug 12, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
This is absolutely right. It's hard to overemphasize how sleepy the baseball atmosphere was in Boston in the early 80s. The team wasn't that great, it was always easy to get a ticket, and baseball was just kind of a nice traditional summery thing, something to listen to on the radio while you hung out at the beach or did your yard work, nothing to get too excited about. Excitement was for the Celtics and Bruins: it was the Garden, not Fenway, that was the Boston sports mothership.

Well put. I would only add that the television broadcasts in those days were positively sedating as well. Bob 'Mumbles' Montgomery brought the same energy to the broadcasts that you would normally associate with a golf open.

ji oh said:
The early 80s for me were about the end of Yaz and the start of Boggs. Watching Boggs was remarkable--the batting eye, the ability to foul pitches off, the consistent solid contact, the ritual at the plate, the unique stroke. You would plan your game-watching around making sure you saw all his atbats.

In 1985 he had "three pop-ups in 758 plate appearances."

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-31/sports/sp-20020_1_wade-boggs

There was also something about Boggs accumulating only three (?) swinging strikeouts in an entire season. I can't find the reference, but I did find this mention of 58 misses in 1191 swings in the '89 season. There was a quote from this time describing Boggs fouling off two-strike pitches 'like a man sorting through the mail looking for the check' (paraphrase).

ji oh · Aug 12, 2015

m0ckduck said:
Well put. I would only add that the television broadcasts in those days were positively sedating as well. Bob 'Mumbles' Montgomery brought the same energy to the broadcasts that you would normally associate with a golf open.

There was also something about Boggs accumulating only three (?) swinging strikeouts in an entire season. I can't find the reference, but I did find this mention of 58 misses in 1191 swings in the '89 season. There was a quote from this time describing Boggs fouling off two-strike pitches 'like a man sorting through the mail looking for the check' (paraphrase).

Quote, from Pirates coach Ray Miller:
http://www.si.com/vault/1988/10/03/118549/the-big-show
''He gets to two strikes
and starts fouling off pitches, waiting for one he likes,'' says
Miller. ''He reminds me of a guy sorting through his mail looking for
a check.''

Also, see this comic from 2005:
http://www.soxaholix.com/tp/2005/06/

Talk to me about the Sox of the early 80s...

has trust issues

Member

The North remembers

New Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

New Member

Hates the crockpot

has fancy plans, and pants to match

Member

holden

Member

Member

Member

has trust issues

Johnny Rico

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

empty, bleak

Member

Sunny von Bulow

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

sublime

Member

New Member