MovieChat Forums > The Bad News Bears (1976) Discussion > How could Buttermaker do this to them???...

How could Buttermaker do this to them??? (SPOILER ALERT)

posted 11 years ago by pilarp-1
5 replies | jump to latest

Just to remind you: after Engelberg scored a point in the final game, there was a 3-3 tie. At that point, how could Buttermaker decide to place his best players on a bench? What was he thinking? He couldn't be so stupid to think Ogilvy, Lupus and the likes would contribute to winning the game. I know he wanted all his players (even the worst ones) to have their chance, but why did he choose that particular moment of that particular game? There were many games before, why didn't he test them then? If he really wanted Ogilvy and Lupus to show up in the final, he could have let them play for a while in the early stage of the game, not in the last innings! I don't blame Whitewood at all for trying to persuade Buttermaker not to do what he did, Buttermaker's decision was irrational, just as if he wanted his team to deliberately lose the final game after all they've gone through.

As soon as the worst players got their chance, the score changed from 3-3 to 7-3 for Yankees and the game started to resemble their first game of the season. If it hadn't been for Lupus' lucky catch, it would've been 11-3 for Yankees. Even at 7-3 the situation was hopeless and final inning was like an agony of the Bears. I don't know what kind of miracle Buttermaker expected, but after two instant outs (Stein and Amanda-why did she even swing?) the game was practically over (you can even see the audience leave the stadium). Perhaps Buttermaker expected Kelly to save the day, but it was very unlikely that Kelly would get on the field again with one out left for Yankees to win and Ogilvy and Miguel batting. The game went on only because Yankees pitcher made 8 errors in a row throwing a ball.

My point is it wasn't Bears team that lost the game, it was Buttermaker who lost the game for them. Can you imagine a real life situation with coach making such a devastating decision against his own team?

[–] finster9 11 years ago

You're missing the entire point of the movie. Buttermaker had a "Grinch" moment when he saw what the Yankees coach did to his own son, and realized what was important. The kids he put in at that moment had hardly played all year, and the season was about to end without them getting a chance. Little League rules now state that every kid must play every game- the rules were different in 1976. Buttermaker saw himself as no better than Roy Turner until he actually realized that winning a Little League title was not life or death.
In the book (yes, there was a book), Turner and Buttermaker were friends from high school, and Buttermaker was the better player. He hit fly ball after fly ball to Turner to help him become a better outfielder so he had a chance to make the high school team. This is not mentioned in the movie.
This coaching move defined the entire movie, and helped it become a classic.

[–] pilarp-1 11 years ago

Even though your explanation makes some sense, I still claim no coach in his right mind would do what Buttermaker did to his team after a whole year of hard work. Okay, he might have come to a conclusion that winning a Little League was not that important, but was he sure his team thought the same? Why did he assume they wanted to give up the game? I'd understand his decision if the game was hopeless anyway (with a score like 10-1 for the other team). If he had nothing left to win or lose, he could let anyone play just for fun, but not at 3-3 tie
in the final game when nothing was determined yet and Bears would most likely have taken the lead considering the pressure on Yankees team after the incident with Turner's son! At that moment there was no reason for Buttermaker not to want to win. Letting Ogilvy and Lupus play at that point of the game was like a suicide. By the way, did you notice how Ogilvy and Lupus reacted to Buttermaker's idea? None of them actually wanted their "chance", so letting them watch the game from the "safe zone" would have done them no harm as that's just what they wanted! They didn't want to PLAY, they wanted to WIN AS A TEAM!

[–] jrs-8 11 years ago

But that was the point of the movie. Parents becoming too obsessed with winning. Winning meant more to them than to the kids. As soon as Buttermaker bawled them out for not hustling and making stupid plays, he ended with "Don't you want to beat those bastards?" The look on the kids faces says it all. Then when Whitewood comes down to talk to Buttermaker, he explains it and Whitewood gives himself away by showing how much more important winning is to him (and the other adults).

[–] jgroub 11 years ago

I played Little League in either 1976 or 1977 - can't remember which year. Anyway, they DID have the rule that every player had to play. I sucked. I was worse than Ogilvie, probably. But they stuck me way out in right field in the 6th inning of every game.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] indieinvestment 11 years ago

The team DID have a say. When Buttermaker admitted that it was he who told Kelly to make all of the plays he said he did it so they could be in the championship game. He said, "Well that's what you wanted wasn't it?", referring to making the championship. The kids just stared at him. That is not what they wanted. That was the beginning of Buttermaker's transformation. It came full-circle when he saw Roy Turner slap his son on the field as the other poster said.

Rule #76: No excuses. Play like a champion.