Why I Don't Start Cal Abrams
Defying the Replay Gods
This one is sure to make the purists upset.
I’ll just come right out with it. I’m not starting Cal Abrams for the Brooklyn Dodgers.
This is pretty heretical, and I know that I run the risk of being stricken down by the vengeful gods of the replay rolls. As you may know, Abrams not only started 1949 as the Dodgers’ left fielder, but was also their leadoff hitter:
The Abrams leadoff experiment mercifully ended on April 26, after he managed a woeful 2 hits in 23 at bats (though with 7 walks).
In other words, if you’re playing a 1949 replay with real life lineups turned on, the eventual National League champions start the season with a leadoff hitter who hit .083 with a .290 on base percentage. Is that really “realistic?”
The Minors
Perhaps some context would be helpful. Abrams had an excellent minor league season in 1948, putting up a .337 batting average with the Mobile Bears of the Southern Association, including a .500 on-base percentage and a .462 slugging percentage.
Now, as you can imagine, the minor leagues of 1948 were quite a bit different than they are today. Brooklyn alone is listed as having 25 farm clubs in the 1949 Sporting News Baseball Guide (page 126):
The 12 cities marked with asterisk are listed as having a “working agreement” with the Dodgers; I’m not entirely certain if there was a practical difference between that arrangement and the Dodgers owning the team outright.
Anyway, Mobile finished 4th in the league, putting up a .500 mark at exactly 75-75. Abrams wasn’t the best player in the league by any stretch of the imagination. The Southern Association had a number of big hitters, very few of whom ever had much major league success:
Sure, you’ve got a good offensive season here. However, it’s pretty clear that the pitching in the Southern Association wasn’t all that great. Heck, George Shuba had been with Brooklyn for part of 1948 and hadn’t fared all that well – and he outhit Abrams in the Southern Association by a wide margin. Brooklyn had called Shuba up after he was flirting with .400 at the start of the season; he wound up with a .267 / .395 / .379 split in half a major league season; not bad, but clearly not .400.
Shuba was sent back down to Mobile for 1949, leaving a big hole for Brooklyn in left field – and up came Abrams.
Why Bring Abrams Up?
I’ve got to believe that Burt Shotton felt desperate for a left fielder. That’s the only way it really makes sense to me.
The 1948 Dodgers had a rotating door in left field. Shotton started out that season with veteran Arky Vaughan, a 36-year-old in his final season who was clearly underperforming. Once Shotton moved on from Vaughn, it was all hands on deck. Shuba made more starts than any other left fielder, but was set back considerably by an injury in August.
I can see why Abrams was brought up – sort of. I think there was an argument to be made for keeping Shuba on the team instead of going for another untried kid. Still, why start this kid at leadoff?
I think part of it might have to do with Shotton marking the left fielder as the leadoff hitter somewhere in his head. Marv Rackley, who was still with Brooklyn in 1949, gradually took over in left field as the 1948 season came to a close – and was doing quite well in the leadoff position. Rackley, who seems to have been more than a competent hitter on paper, was traded to Pittsburgh not long into the 1949 season – another strange move in my mind, since he sure seems in retrospect like a much better player than Abrams.
Now, I haven’t been through the 1949 Brooklyn newspapers yet to get the real scoop on what happened. I’ve got to save something for later on, after all. However, I was able to find some indications that Abrams was really impressive in spring training. Take this, from the April 20, 1949 issue of The Sporting News, for example:
The “reversible outfield” is pretty much what Brooklyn had done in 1948, too. And in 1947. In fact, from what I can tell, Brooklyn didn’t really have a steady left fielder until Andy Pafko came along in 1951.
What To Do?
I’ve simply been starting Gene Hermanski in left field.
I really think that Shotton should have done that – especially after reading this writeup in the May 4, 1949 issue of The Sporting News:
Apologies for the unclear text – that’s what doing this research is like, I’m afraid. I believe most of these Paper of Record “pages” were originally scans of microfilm, which can explain some of the blurry text and focus issues.
I don’t know why Shotton wasn’t happy with Hermanski, and I really don’t see what in the world was wrong with Rackley. The answer just might be out there somewhere, though. It’s questions like these that really make the replay come alive – and that give you a good research focus, too.
Let me know what you think in the comments. Am I a heretic?
Forum Roundup
Two more from Mark Ruckhaus – including a ball-strike argument with the umpire. I don’t remember ever hitting that roll before, Mark…
You can set your clock to these Mike Mathias replays. This time it looks like the streaking Cardinals are going to win the 1934 National League, after trailing all season long. I’ll never understand how Brooklyn got second place, though.