Friday, August 12, 2022

Homage to Len Boehmer

Going into tonight's really big showdown in Fenway Park, I find myself thinking of Len Boehmer. That's right: the Len Boehmer. 

Len was originally signed by the Reds out of Flint Hill, Missouri. He worked his way diligently up the Cincinnati organization for seven years, until he reached Triple-A. And there he stuck, as people will, a first baseman without quite enough power or a high enough average to go any further.

The Yankees acquired him for this guy, pitcher Goofy McShinsplints, er, Bill Henry, and after he spent a year in Syracuse, excitement soon loomed large in the Yanks' 1969 spring training camp.

Why, as the baseball card below shows, Len was presumed to be one of the Yankees' "Rookie Stars" of the coming year, along with the curiously misspelled Jerry Kenney. Oh, the thrills we had to look forward to in those halcyon days!

Anyway, Len Boehmer ended up spending the entire 1969 season with the Yanks, despite hitting all of .176 with 0 homers and 7 ribbies in 45 games. How we could have used an effective, front-office dumpster diver then, eh? 

The main reason for this seems to have been that nobody was ever sure when first baseman Joe Pepitone might decide to opt out of playing for the day. He would even write (or dictate) in a later memoir that he would often feign injury to get out of a game (especially if he had just made an error). 

This is exactly what he did on the bright, Sunday afternoon of June 22nd, 1969. Suddenly, in the bottom of the 8th inning at Fenway Park, Len Boehmer was our first baseman, and batting fourth. 

As you might imagine, I was a little bummed out about this. It was not my birthday, but this was my annual birthday game present from my father, to go into the big town and see the Yanks play the hated Red Sox (I hated them; my father, an old Giants fan, rooted for them. Long story.)

Anyhoo, there we were, the Yanks were trailing, 3-2, and now our first baseman was Len Boehmer. Somehow, though, the Yanks managed to tie the game in the 9th (all right, it was a Bobby Cox sac fly), and then, with two out in the top of the 10th, Len Boehmer—LEN BOEHMER!—singled in Horace Clarke with the go-ahead run, a solid hit off the great Garry "Double Consonant" Roggenburk. 

"Ever-Reliable Roy" White followed with another hit, the Yanks' vaunted bullpen trio of Lindy McDaniel, Jack Aker, and Steve Hamilton brought it home, and I had a 5-3 birthday win, before a big, sullen crowd of nearly 30,000 at Fenway Park.

As for Len Boehmer, that was probably the highlight of his career. By the next year, Danny Cater had taken over for Pepitone, and Boehmer was back in Syracuse, where he would help the Chiefs take a second straight Governor's Cup—which, as we all know, is the main objective in any contemporary Yankees' season.  By 1971, he was out of baseball.  

(Incidentally, Boehmer even pitched seven, shutout innings at different times for those Syracuse teams. If ESPN had been around, they would've declared him the next Babe Ruth. And no, I'm not letting it go.)

I mention all this just to say what fun that game was, and what fun the crowd seemed to be having. It was a contest between two, unremarkable teams—the Sox would finish a disappointing third that year (after 1967, they always seemed to disappoint their fans) and the Yanks were fifth, with an 80-81 record. But it was a quick, crisp game—and fun.

So it was always fun between these two teams, or so it seemed. Through the amazing, Battles of the Titans in the 1970s and then the 1990s. Even during the crazy-long, back-and-forth, ding-dong action barnburners between the overjuiced  Roid Boys on both teams, in the early oughts.  

Now...

I can't tell you when I've felt less excited by a Yankees-Red Sox series, especially this late in the year. It's not just the appalling mismanagement of this staggering—and increasingly unlikable—Yankees team, which we have all gone over (and will again!). It's also how the game is run these days.

The Red Sox, obviously, have adjusted to it better than Foodstamps and The Brain. But even so, consider this: Boston did not finish last between 1932-1992. That's an even longer streak staying out of the cellar than the 1912-1966 Yankees ran up.

This year, if things continue as they likely will for the Beantowners, they will end up last for the 5th time since 2012. This, they have figured out, is the price of winning: completely imploding the team, and rebuilding. 

Hey, it's worked. Four rings since 2004, including one in 2013 and 2018 (though that year the cheating helped). But in between...year after year of dismal, hopeless teams. Or teams that are stripped for scrap at the trade deadline if they don't look promising. 

Is that better or worse than our own management's brand of playing out the definition of insanity? You tell me. But either way, when did it all get this...dreary? When did it all become this endless series of payroll and salary cap calculations, with endlessly interchangeable parts?  

I admit it: I'd rather watch this team than the one that was counting on "Gerry" Kenney and Len Boehmer. But what happened to building a team up and watching it flourish? When did we last have someone who could do that? Oh, right: last century.

Here's looking at you, Len!





 

40 comments:

The Archangel said...

Why when I see Jerry Kenney and his stats, do I think of Aaron Hicks?

HoraceClarke66 said...

Don't be ridiculous, Archie! Jerry Kenney was a lifetime .237 hitter. Aaron Hicks is a...oh, hmm, never mind.

JM said...

It was more fun back then. We had nothing to lose, so any win was great.

BTR999 said...

A name from the deep ravine of the past...

AboveAverage said...

Mary Sheppard, wife of former Yankees public address announcer Bob Sheppard, dies at 95 :(

(and I had to select a few pictures of tractors to publish my comment)

Beauregard Jackson Pickett Burnside said...

I haven’t listened to a Yankees game in two weeks. Is it safe to wade back in?

Beauregard Jackson Pickett Burnside said...

Now arriving, 95, Mary Sheppard, 95.

Doug K. said...

I thought this was going to be about Lag B'Omer

Imagine my disappointment.

AboveAverage said...

JUD JAH!

AboveAverage said...

with all the strained pitch release grunting of Eovaldi my spider sense seems to think that he's going to blow out his arm again

Carl J. Weitz said...

So, Horace....when is your birthday? My guess is around a week or so before the 6/22 date you mentioned? Inquiring minds (well, at least my mind) wants to know.

Doug K. said...

And another lead flushed by the Yankee pen. When will this period of ineptitude end?

Seb said...

How many more times does Holmes have to crap the bed before Baboone understands?

Rufus T. Firefly said...

Listening from my mountaintop lair. Debating with No. 2 on whether to destroy the earth to end this torture. ...activating the "lasers".

Rufus T. Firefly said...

I hate this team right now.

Rufus T. Firefly said...

The only redeeming quality to this broadcast is the drunk Yankee fan that you can hear through the radio feed.

Hinkey Haines said...

I was wrong. This is a tire fire inside a dumpster.

BernBabyBern said...

Remember when this team was going to outdo the 1998 Yankees? Be historically good? Join the '27 Yankees and '61 Yankees as iconic teams of the franchise?

Ah, the good old days.

Oasisdave said...

Lol, thanks Cashman, we might have not been for real before the deadline but now we just plain suck

Hinkey Haines said...

Ah, no one really cares about this crap. The Giants beat the Patriots last night, in the only NY-Boston game that REALLY mattered.

AboveAverage said...

THE PAAAAAAAAAIN!

Kevin said...

Paiiiiiin, paaaaaaaiiiiiiin! Helpless slaughtered innocents, paaaaaain!

Hazel Motes said...

Kevin--that's plagiarism.

MJ said...

It WAS cool (or maybe it was what it was; ask him) seeing Hicks bust it 6 feet down the line on that grounder to first after having walked the ball in from center earlier in the game.

Each time Ba Ba Booney kept a-gnawin' that gum. Napoleon Doublemint, that adenoidal fuckhead do be.

Watching the people running this team fuck this up is going to be fun.

HoraceClarke66 said...

It's just numbing after a while.

The good news is that the pitching seems to have (sort of) righted itself. With some big exceptions. WTF are we trying to get big outs with Lou Trivino...when David Robertson now has 3 scoreless outings with the Phils? When Clarke Schmidt is throwing six perfect innings in Scranton? This is madness.

AND...CHANGE THE LINEUP!!! Benintendi, who occasionally hits singles, in the no. 2 spot. NOW!

Kevin said...

Barney, you really need to learn how to have some fun.

Hazel Motes said...

PLAGIARISM IS SO MUCH FUN! Never have so much fun as when I watch you squirm on this blog--calling you out on your made-up stats, empty posturing, fractured logic, snarling loony-boy invective, and PLAGIARISM. Having a great time, Kev! You are just SO HILARIOUS . . . but not in the way you had hoped, alas.

Hazel Motes said...

Great idea, HC! Let's put a mediocre singles hitter in the no. 2 spot, where he has a 70 percent chance of making out anyway, and thereby cost Judge a potential pivotal at-bat in a high-leverage situation later in the game so that Judge has a 0 percent chance of affecting the game when it counts most! GENIUS! Why didn't a whole generation of Ivy-League and MIT savants have this lightning bolt of insight?

AboveAverage said...

MORE PAAAAAAAAAIN!

Kevin said...

Barney, remember that first to score wins 65-70% of games. Check, and, ah, mate. 🤓

MJ said...

When do you want the best hitter in baseball at the plate, if he's on your side?

NOW!

Bat Judge second. DJ LeMahieu (second in AL runs to you know who, you know why) first. Build 3/4 and 9/8 pretty much the same. Five through seven should be for slap hitters and defensive players.

Try it for a while. Even if it's provably wrong it will at least be an interesting failure.

Hazel Motes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hazel Motes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hazel Motes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hazel Motes said...

Kevin -- Your point about "first to score" is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Judge bats second or third, as I have already explained. The first to score can be in the first inning, the second inning, the third, and so on--or in the thirteenth, as was the case on Tuesday night. So your point has no bearing on this issue of 2nd vs. 3rd spot in the batting order. As you well know, this issue of 2nd or 3rd has a bearing only on the first inning--after that, the batting order is scrambled. So if your point is that you maximize your chances of scoring first by batting Judge 3rd rather than second, that just makes no sense. First of all, if you're at home, the visiting team might score in the top half of the inning--so according to your calculus, the Yanks are likely doomed at that point no matter what happens in the bottom half, because THEY WEREN'T THE FIRST TO SCORE. Second, even if the Yankes are on the road and batting first, or at home and the visitors did not score in the top half of the inning, the Yankees' chances of scoring AT ALL--namely, even one run--are not enhanced by batting Judge 3rd rather than 2nd. If you believe his chance of hitting a three-run homer--vs. a one- or two-run homer--in the first inning are enhanced by having him bat third rather than second--which is a statistical illusion--then this also has no bearing on your argument, because this pertains to the NUMBER of runs scored in the first inning, NOT who is scoring at least one run FIRST. And what if the first run to score happens in the second inning or later, as is just as likely as it happening in the first inning? Then Judge’s batting second or third certainly has no bearing on that occurrence—at least not in the sense that you think it would, with the first and second batters reliably preceding his plate appearance—which seldom would happen after the first inning. And of course, Judge is no more likely to hit a homerun or drive in a run his first time up then in a subsequent PA in a later inning, which again demonstrates the irrelevancy of your “first to score” fixation on the debate over his place in the batting order.

Finally, statistical analysis through tens of thousands of computer season replays has shown defintively that teams do better with their best hitters batting second rather than third or fourth because THEY HAVE UP TO FIFTY MORE PLATE APPEARANCES over the course of a season. Batting Judge third rather than second thus increases the likelihood of his losing a PA later in the game in a high-leverage situation, where it would have the most impact; nearly always the first inning of a game does not present high-leverage situations.

All these considerations, of course, trump your fixation of the "first to score" issue and demonstrate its bizarre irrelevancy to this debate; your reiteration of this blatant irrelevancy is further testimony to the fact that you are a hopeless moron. And I can assure you that this is WAY more time than I am used to spending on the dribblings of people as hopelessly dumb as you are.

Now you can go back to plagiarizing other people's jokes to convince yourself that you're some kind of dashing wit.

Kevin said...

You really are dense, I had was a been thinking that it was a gag. If my inconvenient truth is real, then the tedious work that you vomit is largely, not completely, irrelevant. Why, you scream in fury. Because it proves that players are not just parts of an equation. The reason being, born out in a simple, but large data set is that players are affected by stress, by their own dataset of how they have performed in similar situations. The effects of neurochemicals can't be predicted in ANY FUTURE, only compilations of past results.. Need more? Baseball can be predicted with reasonable accuracy when the parameters are simple, i.e. the team who scores first. But putting a player in late innings cannot be compared to the early game, the extra neurochemicals being dumped into the body from stress tightens muscles, over stimulates neurons, changes visual acuity in unpredictable ways. The math can only tell what has happened IN THE PAST, but if you truly believe in the research, take up a gambling habit and please let us all know.

Put simply, baseball is so fucking hard that just being down by one run early severely lowers your chance of winning. So it behooves the manager to optimize his lineup to score first. It's why ideally you want a batter who has great base-running skills to lead off, the two hole batter who can bunt or hit to right field, the third hole goes to the batter who can drive the ball through the power alleys to or over the wall, and then the aptly named "clean-up" hitter. If the new found analytics are just so groovy, why aren't teams scoring a thousand runs a year? You have enough to chew on.


Celerino Sanchez said...

If Len had only stuck around a few more years, he probably would have been traded to Cleveland for either Chambliss of Nettles. The Indians loved our farm system.

HoraceClarke66 said...

Indeed, Celerino.

So which is worse? Being Len Boehmer and knowing that, despite giving it a 10-year try, you were not QUITE good enough to start in the majors?

Or being Joe Pepitone, and knowing that you threw away a boatload of talent?

I think it would be worse to be Pepi.

Hazel Motes said...

Kevin dribbles: "So it behooves the manager to optimize his lineup to score first." There are two problems with this crackpot thesis:

1. You imply that putting your best hitter third rather than second in the lineup somehow conduces to winning more games. But I have cited elaborate statistical and empirical analysis that shows the contrary--that you win more games by batting him second. And I have provided links to those studies, from authoritative sources. You, as usual, furnish no sources or links to your ridiculous assertions to the contrary. As usual, you're just blowing smoke out of your ass.

2. You can't cite a single statistical or empirical study of any kind that shows that placing your best hitter third rather than second in the lineup is conducive to either (a) scoring first or (b) winning the game. If you have one, please cite it and provide a link to it. If not, please just STFU already. Your chronic obtuseness has now progressed from hilarity to repetitive, mind-numbing boredom. Sources to studies confirming your deranged, idiotic claims, a-hole, with links--let's have them now . . . or slink off in your usual ignominious defeat.

3. You can't possible have any such citations or sources to confirm your claims that placing your best hitter third rather than second in the lineup helps you to win more games, since none exist. And don't bother repeating your unsourced claim about who wins more often when scoring first--that, as I pointed out, is an irrelevancy. I want hard data confirming your point that (a) batting your best hitter third makes you more likely to score first, and (b) that doing so in general helps you to win more games--for that or any other reason. Let's have it, you mangy mutt, or just stop babbling like a lunatic and admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hazel Motes said...

Here's all the data anyone could need to demonstrate that Kevin is an ignorant blowhard who has no idea what he's talking about--from fivethirtyeight.com, the renowned political/sports analytical firm founded by Nate Silver. But of course Kevin, with the idiotic assertions he pulls out of his ass, is so much smarter and more reliable than the most advanced minds and most rigorous empirical studies on the subject of batting order placement--LOL!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-spot-in-mlb-lineups-where-managers-are-still-ignoring-sabermetrics/