The Baseball Digest Archive 4/86

I was semi off the grid this weekend; did anything happen in the NBA?

April 1986

As a reminder on these Baseball Digest writeups, I have been randomly grabbing an issue out of the box each week. When I noticed the April 1986 cover date on this week’s selection I was curious as to exactly when I stopped collecting Baseball Digest. I searched through the box and lo and behold this is in fact the most recent issue that I possess. I’m not quite sure why this was the moment that I ceased reading the magazine. 1986 was a pretty enjoyable season for me. I would think that I would have at least purchased the World Series wrapup issue as a keepsake, but nope.

As the table of contents shows, this issue is much lighter on written content than usual. This is the season preview, so it contains a batch of info - 1985 stats, spring training rosters for each team, etc. There is also a massive, team by team preview, which runs for more than 30 pages. I don’t know if the predictions were the sole choice of Jerome Holtzman, or if the editorial staff made the selections and gave Holtzman the responsibility of writing the previews, but whomever served as the oracle only went 1 for 4 in predicting the division winners. The choice of the Mets in the NL East was correct, but the other divisions? The magazine placed the Astros 4th in the NL West, the Angels 2nd in the AL West, and the Red Sox a distant 5th in the AL East.

I feel sorry for Harold Baines. He was a durable, productive hitter for years and as the cover story indicates his quiet demeanor led to his being consistently underrated, or as the tag reads, one of the game’s 10 most overlooked stars. He is not a Hall of Fame caliber player, however, but when he was elected he was the victim of a huge outcry as if it was somehow his fault that the Eras Committee made a poor choice. He did nothing wrong other than piece together a fine career, he doesn’t deserve to be the target of such bile.

As for the other overlooked stars of 1986 they are for the most part the type of players whose contributions are more subtle or the sort of players whose value would have been more apparent if current metrics were in use back then. (Bert Blyleven is one of the 10 as an example.) The likes of Bill Doran, Jim Gantner, and Jim Sundberg were included here. The one I question is Don Sutton. He began the 1986 season with 295 career victories, I find it hard to believe that someone with that on his resume would be overlooked.

It can never be stressed enough that Hall of Fame voters in the 1970’s and 80’s were a ruthless lot while using strange criteria at the same time. It’s more than just the shockingly low vote totals for some of the players on the ‘85 & ‘86 ballots. Why did Don Larsen get so many votes based purely on one game? Or ElRoy Face getting so many based on one strange season? And who voted for Jesus Alou?

Finally, make what you will of this article/chart. It determined which starting lineup was the most enduring in history. Or to put it another way, which team’s starting 8 played the most total seasons in their careers. The impetus for this article at this time was that at the eve of the ‘86 season there was a tie for the record between the 1965 & 1975 Reds. The tie would be broken as of Opening Day. 5 members of the 1975 Reds were still active players as opposed to 2 of the 1965 Reds.

SNL 50: Beyond Saturday Night - More Cowbell

Quick, what is the single greatest sketch in SNL history? Trick question, that is almost impossible to answer. But one of the most popular answers to that question is the Blue Oyster Cult Behind the Music sketch, better known as More Cowbell. The second of the new Peacock documentaries focuses on some of the most wonderfully insane 5 minutes in show history.

Among those interviewed are the sketch actors, along with the members of Blue Oyster Cult, and they even tracked down the actual Bruce Dickinson. The real life Dickinson was the reissue producer; in reality he had zero to do with the original recording. There were 3 credited producers on Don’t Fear the Reaper; there is a bit of dispute over who did what, but it appears that David Lucas was the closest parallel to Dickinson. It doesn’t appear that he promised gold plated diapers during the actual recording session, so that part is pure fiction. No one is sure who was the real cowbell player either, or even if was a cowbell and not a wood block. Put a pin in the wood block idea, that will come up again.

This sketch was an example of how the singer can be just as important as the song; would it have been half as funny had it starred someone other than Christopher Walken and Will Ferrell? Well, we might have found that out. Ferrell originally pitched the idea several episodes earlier, in one hosted by Norm MacDonald. A Norm MacDonald take would have felt vastly different; like Walken he has a very specific cadence to his delivery. It would have had more of a “what the hell are you doing?” tone had it been Norm. In addition, Ferrell’s original concept called for the instrument in question to be a wood block. You’re probably hearing Walken saying “I gotta have more wood block” in your head right now, and he clearly would have made that phrase sound magical. But something about the “ow” sound in the word “cowbell” in the Walken voice is much better.

This sketch is one of the prime reasons why Jimmy Fallon irritates me so much. I get that in a live show, it’s not always easy to avoid laughing. But I hate when Fallon looks at the camera with his “ain’t I adorable” look as he breaks character. It’s egregious here; he has only 2 lines and he still can’t keep it together. Contrast that with Chris Parnell. Ferrell pointed out that Parnell never breaks, and Ferrell sure tried to get him to lose it. Look at the moment where Ferrell is playing the cowbell right in Parnell’s face and Parnell is giving him the death stare. It feels like half staying in character, half “I know what you’re trying to do to me you MF, but it won’t work.” Parnell admitted that at one point he did almost break, and the doc includes raw camera footage which shows Parnell stifling laughter, but luckily it was during a moment where he was not on camera and he regained his composure once the camera cut back to him. That’s a good life lesson. Be a Chris Parnell, not a Jimmy Fallon.

Another great tidbit is that the doc showed some of the dress rehearsal, and it wasn’t sizzling in dress. Everyone was worried that it would be cut before the live show, but luckily it did make it to the show and 2 crucial changes were made. First, Walken was pacing himself during dress and essentially saved his best performance for the live show. Second, Ferrell went to wardrobe and asked to be given a new shirt one size too small. The rest is history.

I should also mention the response from the members of BOC. They got a kick out of the fact that although the sketch perfectly replicated their wardrobe and hairstyles, they did not match up correctly with the real band members. And as you likely know, there was no such person as Gene Frenkle. In a funny touch, the filmmakers “hired” Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer/Will Ferrell doppelgänger Chad Smith to portray Frenkle in dramatizations. Unfortunately the man does not exist.

Next time I’ll look at the third documentary in the series. This one focused on SNL writers.

The Hall Of Fame Cap Project - NL West

I haven’t gotten to the AL East yet, but it should come as no surprise that the Yankees are the franchise with the most HOF caps - that’s the case with both the real plaques as well as with my attempt to reassign caps where needed. Second place would be the Giants, but that is at least partially due to the shenanigans during the Frankie Frisch/Bill Terry era of the veterans committee. Not to cast aspersions, but there are a few names on the Giants’ list whose credentials are shaky at best. Anyhoo, here is my opinion on what should be the correct team cap for NL West players.

Arizona Diamondbacks (1): Randy Johnson

Colorado Rockies (2): Todd Helton, Larry Walker

Los Angeles Dodgers (11): Roy Campanella, Don Drysdale, Burleigh Grimes, Gil Hodges, Sandy Koufax, Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Robinson, Duke Snider, Don Sutton, Dazzy Vance, Zach Wheat

San Diego Padres (3): Tony Gwynn, Trevor Hoffman, Dave Winfield

San Francisco Giants (17): Dave Bancroft, Roger Bresnahan, Orlando Cepeda, George Davis, Carl Hubbell, Travis Jackson, George Kelly, Freddie Lindstrom, Juan Marichal, Rube Marquard, Christy Mathewson, Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Mel Ott, Gaylord Perry, Bill Terry, Ross Youngs

Differences: Not that I was going out on any limbs, but my selections align with the actual plaques for the 3 expansion teams. (I’ll explain my Winfield selection below.) Same with the Dodgers; all 11 mentioned above also have Dodgers caps on their real plaques, although to be fair they were also all fairly obvious choices. There are 5 Giants with blank caps - Bancroft, Bresnahan, Davis, Marquard, and Ott. In Ott’s case that’s because on his plaque he is depicted with his head turned, so the front of his cap is not visible. Otherwise it would have been an easy call; the Giants were the only team that he played for.

Explanations: I thought long and hard on George Davis. He could have just as easily been placed in the 19th century category. His career split between the 2 centuries. It looks like he had more career value in the 1900’s, but on the other hand the majority of his Giants career took place in the 1890’s. I’ll split the difference and classify him as a 20th century with a Giants cap.

As for Dave Winfield, he was actually more responsible than Wade Boggs was for the policy change that gave final decision on the plaque to the Hall & not the player. Seems that when Winfield was elected he basically told the Padres and Yankees that whichever team offered him a job would be the one whose cap would grace his plaque. The process was shady, but the decision was correct even before considering that his checkered history with Yankees ownership left a bad taste in his mouth. He played almost as many games in San Diego than he did in New York, and more importantly he signed with the Yankees beginning with his age 29 season. It’s not that his decline phase had already begun, but his secondary skills were starting to slowly fade. His defense was noticeably weaker with the Yankees; he continued to be a productive hitter but he wasn’t the 5 tool player that he was with the Padres. Also keep in mind that A) Jack Murphy Stadium was a poor hitter’s park, so take park factors into account when looking at his San Diego stats & B) the lineups he played on in New York were significantly stronger. Better hitters = more base runners = more RBI opportunities = more RBI’s. He was a hell of a player in New York, but he was better in San Diego. A Padres cap it is.

31 Days Of Oscar

One of my favorite annual traditions kicked off this past weekend, as TCM began its 31 day long marathon of Oscar nominated and Oscar winning movies. Even if you have little use for awards shows and could not care less about who wins Oscars, this is still a great opportunity to catch up on seeing any classic movies that you’ve never seen or to rewatch any number of beloved movies. The month is well curated with special theme nights and every year I look at the schedule and have the same thoughts. “Ooh, that’s a great one, I should watch it again. Ooh, that’s another great one, I should watch that one too. Maybe this is the year I’ll finally watch Cimarron.” (I seriously doubt this is the year I finally watch Cimarron.)

On a related note I’m sure you all know by now that there is a specific type of movie that Academy voters love to honor as well as a specific type that they generally won’t touch with a 10 foot pole. That’s why I love the fact that the final movie TCM aired this year before the marathon began was Eraserhead. That’s a chef’s kiss if there ever was one.

50 Years Ago - The Stepford Wives

The Stepford Wives has become such a cultural reference that even people who have never seen the movie - either the original or the remake - know exactly what the reference means. Stepford refers to a conformist suburbia, more specifically a docile, robotic, suburban housewife.

The movie was clearly of its time - so many old school station wagons with the wood paneling. Katharine Ross stars as a wife and mother of two young daughters who is uprooted to the Connecticut town of Stepford. She had zero say in the matter, and in fact the move impedes her own budding career as a photographer. Her husband assures her that it’s the right move, constantly carping on how safe their new community is.

It doesn’t take her long to realize that something is a bit off about Stepford. All of the women have the same heavily sprayed hairdos, all wear similar house dresses, all walk their shopping carts up and down the supermarket aisles with the same zombie like expressions on their faces. Ross’s character finds solidarity with another woman who had recently moved to Stepford, and they attempt to investigate what the deal is with this town.

At the same time, her husband is spending all of his free time with the local men’s association. The creepiness factor increases when they all come to the house to meet her. One of the residents is a famous caricaturist, and he spends the evening drawing her.

How to read this movie? Is it a backlash against feminism? Or does it satirize the attitudes of men who are unwilling to accept generational change? Whichever interpretation is correct, it does have a creepily effective Invasion Of the Body Snatchers sort of vibe. In addition, this is a movie from the 1970’s, so SPOILER ALERT a happy ending is not a guarantee.

In the half century since its premier, The Stepford Wives has become a bit of a minor cult classic, largely because of the cultural footprint that it has left. I would hardly call it a great movie, but it effectively does what it intends to, and based on that factor it is a success.

Closing Laughs

I was intending on activating payments over the weekend, but the weekend got a little away from me so I’m to do it later on today instead. Once again, no obligation whatsoever but any contribution to the kitty would be greatly appreciated. Have a great day & I will see you all again on Wednesday.