Master Index of Archived Threads


Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

batmagadanleadoff Apr 21 2010 10:10 AM

metirish wrote: Pagan hitting third is the new thing now that Reyes has given his disapproval to the idea of him doing it. Lennon has Manuel all but admitting that Reyes batting third is now on the dung pile , Pagan ,Wright and Bay as the 3,4 and 5 guys. This is yet another page out of the Willie Randolph playbook. Beause up until now, I though that Wee Willie Dead Balls was the only manager that thought that the third and eighth spots in the batting order were interchangeable and could be filled by the same guy. Unless Omar's making the lineups. Or Jeffie. Anyone deemed good enough to bat third should never be batting eighth.

metirish Apr 21 2010 10:16 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

I would really like to know what Manuel's definition of a third place hitter is. I don't like the idea weather perceived or real that now that Reyes or Francoeur or whomever speaks out against Jose batting third that it's now not going to happen, Jerry should have just penciled him in there and let that be that, instead we have weeks on speculation in the media and online about it.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 21 2010 10:23 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

metirish wrote: I would really like to know what Manuel's definition of a third place hitter is. I don't like the idea weather perceived or real that now that Reyes or Francoeur or whomever speaks out against Jose batting third that it's now not going to happen, Jerry should have just penciled him in there and let that be that, instead we have weeks on speculation in the media and online about it. I agree about Reyes. Plus, I'm very skeptical about the idea that Reyes won't be batting third because of a comfort issue. I'd say that Reyes' explanation is disingenuous and that he won't bat third because of selfish and self-interest issues over his personal statistics, like runs scored and stolen bases. It's funny how you never hear about a seventh place hitter complaining about being promoted to a higher slot in the batting order. It's hard to say what Manuel's definition of a third place hitter is, or any manager's idea, really. One problem is that the lineup doesn't exist in a vaccuum; every hitter's slot should be very dependent on the identity of the other hitters starting that particular game. The third place hitter could justifiably change from game to game. Although it's hard to justify, no matter how depleted the lineup might be on a specific day, moving the eighth place hitter up to the third spot. Or demoting the third place hitter down to the eighth spot.

Edgy DC Apr 21 2010 10:43 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

I tend to think most of Willie's sins --- bunting, bullpen abuse --- Jerry has exceeded. One thing I think he has over Willie is the ability --- perhaps after weeks of EdgyDCarian frustration --- to wake up one morning and eat shit. Just look at his roster and say, "Fuck me, if I wasn't dead wrong about Angel all along. Dead wrong." I mean, yeah, an eighth place hitter and a third-place hitter are about as different as there comes, but I'd hate to have a manager who refused to bat the right hitter third because, "Damn it, I had him eighth earlier in the season and if I bat him there in June, it'll be acknowledging how wrong I was in April. Fuck that owning-up noise. I've got a rep to protect."

batmagadanleadoff Apr 21 2010 10:55 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

Edgy DC wrote: One thing I think he has over Willie is the ability --- perhaps after weeks of EdgyDCarian frustration --- to wake up one morning and eat shit. Just look at his roster and say, "Fuck me, if I wasn't dead wrong about Angel all along. Dead wrong." I mean, yeah, an eighth place hitter and a third-place hitter are about as different as there comes, but I'd hate to have a manager who refused to bat the right hitter third because, "Damn it, I had him eighth earlier in the season and if I bat him there in June, it'll be acknowledging how wrong I was in April. Fuck that owning-up noise. I've got a rep to protect." It makes one wonder just what exactly Pagan has to do to get some PT with Beltran on the DL. Up until last night's game, Pagan had less PA's than Matthews.

Edgy DC Apr 21 2010 10:57 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

I certainly think that's something he's woken up to.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 21 2010 11:07 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

Edgy DC wrote: I tend to think most of Willie's sins --- bunting, bullpen abuse --- Jerry has exceeded. One thing I think he has over Willie is the ability --- perhaps after weeks of EdgyDCarian frustration --- to wake up one morning and eat shit. Just look at his roster and say, "Fuck me, if I wasn't dead wrong about Angel all along. Dead wrong." I mean, yeah, an eighth place hitter and a third-place hitter are about as different as there comes, but I'd hate to have a manager who refused to bat the right hitter third because, "Damn it, I had him eighth earlier in the season and if I bat him there in June, it'll be acknowledging how wrong I was in April. Fuck that owning-up noise. I've got a rep to protect." Willie had him beat in the bullishness department, true. But at least there appeared to be something of a thought process-- however flawed-- behind most of those quizzical lineup/in-game decisions. Jerry's entirely either by-the-book or reactionary.

Edgy DC Apr 21 2010 11:11 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

And sometimes a poorly read transcript of the book, also. Don't get me wrong, because I'm not saying that Jerry's the superior fox. I'm giving him this particular bit of credit over Willie, but not necessarily over the standard manager.

metirish Apr 21 2010 11:12 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

But Jerry didn't start out that way did he?. I remember him as a straight talking breath of fresh air, much like Governor Paterson actually .

Edgy DC Apr 21 2010 11:13 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

I'll give him that, also. He's not as churlish as Willie.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 21 2010 11:21 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

Edgy DC wrote: I'll give him that, also. He's not as churlish as Willie. Well, he's been run, like, twice in a year and a half, right? Apparently umpires still find him charming (or at least, innocuous).

holychicken Apr 21 2010 11:50 AM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

Is there any evidence that moving someone around in the batting order hurts their ability to hit? I have my money on the fact that Manuel does stupid stuff like this because he is preparing the lineup for when Beltran comes back. He doesn't want to shift other players that "matter" around in the BO, so that when Beltran comes back he just slides him into the 3 hole and everyone else is already comfortable in their BO position. I would like to see a manager throw out a different lineup almost everyday, I just don't know if that is a terrible thing to do to the players.

metsmarathon Apr 21 2010 12:04 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

only in that moving in the batting order could affect a player's approach at the plate, and by changing that approach, they may make themselves either more or less effective than they might otherwise have been.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 21 2010 12:26 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

holychicken wrote: I would like to see a manager throw out a different lineup almost everyday, I just don't know if that is a terrible thing to do to the players. It would really sort out the guys who are paying close attention from the guys that aren't-- the out-of-order penalties would pile up for the guys who tend to run on autopilot.

holychicken Apr 21 2010 12:39 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

Okay, shifting them around all the time would probably not be ideal. It is a bit of an extreme stance. I guess I am really talking about a situation where you shift Wright into cleanup and Bay into the 5th spot. Then every other week you shift them back and forth. Does anything really change for Wright? I could understand if his protection changed or he was batting at an extreme of the lineup. But is batting 3rd as opposed to 4th really going to affect a hitter? I can't imagine it, in-and-of-itself, having a big impact.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 21 2010 01:33 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation) Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 21 2010 02:26 PM

holychicken wrote: Okay, shifting them around all the time would probably not be ideal. It is a bit of an extreme stance. I guess I am really talking about a situation where you shift Wright into cleanup and Bay into the 5th spot. Then every other week you shift them back and forth. Does anything really change for Wright? I could understand if his protection changed or he was batting at an extreme of the lineup. But is batting 3rd as opposed to 4th really going to affect a hitter? I can't imagine it, in-and-of-itself, having a big impact. I don't think there's much difference; it's mostly a myth. Every hitter's job, ideally, is to not make an out and to resist the urge to swing at bad pitches. And I never bought into this business about protecting the hitter, either. If Bay is deemed sufficiently effective as a hitter and worthy of protecting Wright, well then who's protecting Bay? And then who protects the guy that's good enough to protect Bay?

Edgy DC Apr 21 2010 01:41 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

David Hasselhoff.

Edgy DC Apr 21 2010 02:56 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

Jerry would make a nice impression on me if he gives Murphy a chance to hop around the diamond a little, being availalbe to play first, second, third, left, and right, as needed.

Centerfield Apr 21 2010 03:10 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

I think both Jerry and Willie lacked the acumen to do a great job as manager. The difference is, I like Jerry, even though he's kind of dumb, because he seems like a likeable guy. I thought Willie was a dick. So I hated him.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 21 2010 03:18 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

Jerry's tactics drive me crazier than Willie's ever did. But I think Willie did less with more than Jerry, who's doing less with less. Jerry I'd guess is about a million times better as a leader than Willie, who seemed uncomfotable, paranoid and suspicious despite being protected by Bill Madden and Big Media all through that rotten 2007 year.

Centerfield Apr 21 2010 03:34 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

I remember one incident regarding Jerry and Willie. Willie used to infuriate me by not going out and arguing a call for his players. Baseball is not basketball, you can go out there and raise hell and have no effect on the game. Willie used to dance around the issue like he was trying to avoid a technical foul. In one incident, Willie kept his calm, "too cool for school" approach after a particularly bad call. Manuel, on the other hand, lost it and got booted from the dugout. I realize arguing calls doesn't amount to a whole lot except making the fans feel better about getting screwed, but it can show the team that you've got their back. Show some fire and maybe the team will understand how important this is to the manager. In any case, after the game, smug Willie said something to the effect of "[Umpire] left it dangling, and I guess Jerry took the bait." No you ass, Jerry stuck up for a member of his team you insecure cocksucker. The rags went crazy about how he was mistreated by getting fired at 3:30 in the morning. If left to me, he would have paid his own ticket back to NY.

Gwreck Apr 21 2010 03:47 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

That was the game at the House of Evil where Bob Davidson overruled the closer umpire who had correctly ruled a ball Delgado hit as a homer.

Edgy DC Apr 21 2010 06:57 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

More so initially, though don't you think? I suspect all his maneuverings and their failures can wear on the team pretty bad.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 22 2010 08:39 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

Edgy DC wrote: I tend to think most of Willie's sins --- bunting, bullpen abuse --- Jerry has exceeded. No way on the bunting. Willie was a serial bunter. Jerry isn't. Willie demonstrated thoroughly that he had no clue as to how an offense worked. Willie bunted everywhere. He bunted with the pitcher. He bunted with Lo Duca. He bunted in the first inning. He bunted in the first inning of games where Reyes led off and reached second base on his own: with the fastest runner in MLB already in scoring position with nobody out and there being virtually no chance of a ground ball double play, Willie Randolph ---you guessed it!--- sac bunted Reyes to third base. In the first inning. He bunted in the first inning of road games against the Rockies. In Denver! Where every manager should assume, before a single pitch is ever thrown, that it's gonna take seven or eight runs to win the game. He bunted in the first inning of games throughout his entire managerial tenure even though the acquisition of Delgado for the 2006 season gave the Mets, arguably, the best middle of the lineup in baseball. Idiot Willie was playing one run baseball from the first pitch even though he was handed a lethal lineup that, more than any other team in the game, was capable of scoring enough runs in the first inning alone to win the game outright. I think that Willie would have sac bunted in the first inning even if he had Ruth and Gehrig. When Manuel took over in June of 2008, he eliminated the sac bunt from the Mets offense. I'm talking Salk vaccine like eradication. It paid off. Under Jerry Manuel in 2008, the Mets were the best team in the NL. You can argue that Willie's sac bunting at the top of the order was as much to blame for the Mets failure to make the playoffs in 2008 as was their horrible bullpen. I know because right after the end of that season, I personally ran the numbers. I compared run production in 2008 under Manuel and Randolph for every inning where the hitter at the top of the lineup led off the inning. (The #1 hitting slot will lead off an inning almost exactly twice as often as any other batting slot). Run production at the top of the lineup was significantly better with Manuel; if Randolph could've matched Jerry's run production with the top of the order in 2008, the Mets would've won their division comfortably, at least according to Bill James' Pythagorean Theorem. Sadly enough, the sac bunt has re-appeared as a "weapon" in the Mets arsenal following 2008. What's worse is that Jerry, like Willie before him, is using the sac bunt as an across the board tactic rather than limiting the bunt to the very bottom of the lineup and only late in the game. So what happened? Why now and not in 2008? I have a theory. Willie was a pathological bunter. Jerry didn't sac bunt in 2008 because he was able to appreciate more than Willie did, the explosiveness of the Mets top of the order ... four of the first five hitters each capable of turning in MVP caliber seasons. I think that Jerry is bunting now (and last year) because he perceives the Mets lineup as depleted and somewhat weakened as compared to the Mets offense at full strength and at its healthiest. Jerry might be thinking that the Mets need to manufacture runs in their present weakened state to compensate for Beltran's absence and Reyes not yet at full strength, hence the sac bunting. If this is true, I don't agree with the strategy. It's illogical. Sac bunting as a long term strategy is counterproductive to scoring. In the long run, it takes away more than it gives. Therefore a depleted team, like the current Mets can less afford to sac bunt than a team at full strength. (Personally, I think that sac bunting has nothing to do with the strength of the team's offense, and everything to do with the team's ability to prevent, rather than score runs. I might play for one run if, for example, I was certain that the opponent wouldn't score any runs.)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 22 2010 08:51 AM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

I don't know where to find bunt attempts but sac hits under Willie in 2005 was 69 and 77 in 2006. Jerry called for 88 last year.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 22 2010 08:56 AM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I don't know where to find bunt attempts but sac hits under Willie in 2005 was 69 and 77 in 2006. Jerry called for 88 last year. It's hard to track statistically because the manager might remove the sac bunt after one or two failed swings. Of course, the batter is then left to fend for himself with two strikes against him. But yeah, following 2008, Manuel's sac bunting too damn much for my tastes.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 22 2010 08:59 AM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

Yeah, well, it seemed that the Mets screwed up plenty of sacbunt attempts under Jerry. He bunts WAY too much. He's the buntiest bunt who ever bunted. The only difference from Wee Willie is that Jerry might, as you said, have an explanation for it. Willie would deny it was ever the case.

Edgy DC Apr 22 2010 09:07 AM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I tend to think most of Willie's sins --- bunting, bullpen abuse --- Jerry has exceeded. No way on the bunting. Willie was a serial bunter. Jerry isn't. Yes way. Jerry is a gangsta buntin' mutha fucka. At least Willie had his precious hunches to make him depart from patterns on occasion. When Jerry has gotten into what he's convinced is a bunting situation, he has flashed the bunt sign every time, sure as the sun rises over Yankee Stadium III.

Ceetar Apr 22 2010 09:08 AM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

Not trying to say Willie was a great manager, but from observation I was certainly more comfortable in him not blowing the game than Jerry. I don't recall Willie bunting as much as you say, but I know Manuel bunts too much. I remember the Delgado home run Jerry getting run from the dugout thing. And Willie was right. He argued the call but there was no reason to take the bait and get thrown out. There isn't really any value to that, even perceived. Also, that was after the fire willie watch started wasn't it? Jerry definitely made a point of saying he'd do the opposite of whatever Willie had been criticized for (however, he rarely actually did it). I dont' think he's shrewd enough to have purposely gotten thrown out in that game because he'd heard criticism of Willie for not getting thrown out, but it's a thought, especially considering how much often Willie at least walked out there and argued, compared to Jerry who rarely does more than yell from the dugout. I also contend that if Jerry had managed the bullpen even an iota better (or like Willie) they would've made the playoffs. It's not about run production from a team that didn't play well in the early months but rounded into form (see: Delgado) in the summer. Jerry's managing of the bullpen in 2008 was criminal, even after Wagner went down. He had a big bullpen, and he managed to keep them all tired in ineffective. in 2007, while Willie went to Mota way too much, he also didn't have as many other options to go back to. In the end, when Jerry didn't provide different results in 2008, he should've been let go, and the team should've looked towards the future and a change of attitude and influence and hired someone outside the organization. They failed to do so, and you can see the effects even today.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 22 2010 09:28 AM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

No way on the bunting. Willie was a serial bunter. Jerry isn't. Willie demonstrated thoroughly that he had no clue as to how an offense worked. Willie bunted everywhere. He bunted with the pitcher. He bunted with Lo Duca. He bunted in the first inning. He bunted in the first inning of games where Reyes led off and reached second base on his own: with the fastest runner in MLB already in scoring position with nobody out and there being virtually no chance of a ground ball double play, Willie Randolph ---you guessed it!--- sac bunted Reyes to third base. In the first inning. To my recollection, Jerry's done every one of these things-- and bunted ahead of both the number 7 and 8 slots-- during his slightly briefer tenure. (I was about to break out the numbers, but JCL beat me to it.) It kills me when I see him described by beat writers as an "intellectual," ostensibly because of the glasses and non sequiturs. It's like hearing people who've listened to a dullard Brit describe him as "sooooo smart, y'guys."

batmagadanleadoff Apr 22 2010 10:08 AM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

No way on the bunting. Willie was a serial bunter. Jerry isn't. Willie demonstrated thoroughly that he had no clue as to how an offense worked. Willie bunted everywhere. He bunted with the pitcher. He bunted with Lo Duca. He bunted in the first inning. He bunted in the first inning of games where Reyes led off and reached second base on his own: with the fastest runner in MLB already in scoring position with nobody out and there being virtually no chance of a ground ball double play, Willie Randolph ---you guessed it!--- sac bunted Reyes to third base. In the first inning. To my recollection, Jerry's done every one of these things-- and bunted ahead of both the number 7 and 8 slots-- during his slightly briefer tenure. (I was about to break out the numbers, but JCL beat me to it.) It kills me when I see him described by beat writers as an "intellectual," ostensibly because of the glasses and non sequiturs. It's like hearing people who've listened to a dullard Brit describe him as "sooooo smart, y'guys." I hate Manuel's current use of the sac bunt as much as you do ... as much as anybody. But this season's less than a month old. 2009 was a lost season. And Jerry didn't bunt in 2008 when he inherited the same team that Willie managed for the first two and a half months of that season. You have to account for this if you're going to compare how Jerry and Willie use the sac bunt.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 22 2010 10:15 AM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

I'm the last guy to defend Willie over Jerry but neither Delgado nor Reyes hit real well until the takeover in 08; it's hard to say whether Jerry would necessarily have bunted less had they continued to struggle but seeing how he handled "the lost season" freebie he got last year, he'd probably be just as bad.

Edgy DC Apr 22 2010 12:38 PM Re: Willie and Jerry (split from The Beltran Situation)

I suspect that Jerry Manuel is thinking about bunting right now, going over in his head times he could have bunted this week but didn't, thinking about how he'll bunt again if that situation arises, and that he might have to work the game situation to make sure the sitation arises again.

Edgy DC Apr 22 2010 08:14 PM Re: The Beltran Situation: What Next?

Edgy DC wrote: One thing I think he has over Willie is the ability --- perhaps after weeks of EdgyDCarian frustration --- to wake up one morning and eat shit. Just look at his roster and say, "Fuck me, if I wasn't dead wrong about Angel all along. Dead wrong." Maybe this is one of those days Manuel woke up, bringing in Rodriguez when he actually needed the guy.