Apr 10 2007 02:56 PM
What will you try in April?
I've been reading Comics Curmudgeon too long to have this be the first thing that comes to mind (not literally).
Master Index of Archived Threads
I'll Try Anything in April
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 10 2007 09:26 AM |
|
Of course Willie's reasoning is faulty, especially the part about Burrell having some magical ability to beat the Mets being greater than the chances that Howard hits a dinger off a guy like Burgos. And playing the percerntages it's a huge gamble. But all that said, I'd like to get beyond the stupid and/or obvious points already being argued about the Burgos-Howard Incident, and instead discuss the idea of trying crazy shit in general. In April, in the 6th inning, I'm for it. I don't think it does Burgos or Willie all that much good to manage as if he cannot be trusted, or to damn him chances off the bat due only to his body of work in the past. That's pretty much Omar's job to vet. Willie's job is to figure out what he's got and hopefully learn from what they show him. He shouldn't be required treat Boogers like a RH specialist in his very first meaningful outing, and if he is, then perhaps Burgos doesn't belong on the team: Again, Omar's call. Valentine used to take all kinds of risks in April he wouldn't in August, including bunts at unusual times, releievers in all different roles, etc etc. at least until he had a feel. Some of those moves were insane, some cost games, some might have helped down the road (can Jeromy Burnitz lay down a squeeze bunt if I ask him to?, etc) It's all part of managing for the long haul. I'd prefer all the moves work out but I got no issue with a few fuckups in the 6th inning in April.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Apr 10 2007 09:39 AM |
|
That's pretty much why I was okay with it (as expressed in the IGT). I was thinking, big situation, let's see what this guy's got. Even if Howard had a 40% chance of hitting a homer there (which is a very high estimate), Burgos still had a 60% chance of getting him out. Had I thought it through, instead of quickly throwing an "I'm okay" while following GameCast while simultaneously working at the office, I might have made a different decision. And if it was an October playoff game, I'd certainly hope that Willie would have decided differently.
|
| metirish Apr 10 2007 09:47 AM |
|
I really don't have a problem with Willie taking a good look at what he has in Smith and Borgus,and as has been pointed out there is no use keeping Borgus for mop up duty,that's what Sele is for among other things. I would not be the least surprised to see Willie put Borgus up against Howard again in a key spot,maybe not this series but down the road,and lets face it Willie gives up plenty of stuff to talk about here....
|
| RealityChuck Apr 10 2007 10:03 AM |
|
I agree. This is the time to see what your players are capable of, not October. In addition, leaving Burgos in will probably help his confidence in the future. Willie tends to look at the big picture -- not just winning individual ballgames, but in making moves that will make it easier to win games in the future. If Burgos thinks his manager has the confidence in letting him face last year's MVP, he's more likely to pitch without worrying about making mistakes. The percentages are just percentages. Replacing Burgos at that point would not have guaranteed a different result. All it would have done was allow the manager an excuse if it failed. But it's poor managing if you're making decisions solely to avoid having to justify yourself to the press afterwards.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 10:14 AM |
|
Still counts. Dumb is dumb, Clueless is clueless. A game in April count s as much as a game in September. If you don't want to burn your bullpen, then you leave Burgos out there to face Burrell and finish the inning, and if you get killed, well, it's only April and it's not as if this game counts in the standings anyway, right? He explained the move by saying that he couldn't afford to burn the pen--in other words it was a strategic decision (one having impliations beyond this one game) that he made despite the tactical drawbacks. By going back on his strategic decision he demonstrated that the strained pen was a b.s. smokescreen to begin with.
|
| dinosaur jesus Apr 10 2007 10:14 AM |
|
Howard had no more than a ten percent chance of hitting a home run. That was just bad luck. I'd probably rather have pitched to Burrell, but intentionally loading the bases is a dangerous move when your pitcher has control problems. I also think that some managers were getting a bit hysterical last year when they started walking Howard with a man on first.
|
| Centerfield Apr 10 2007 10:29 AM |
|
The problem with thinking along the lines of "let's see what this kid's got" is that success in April doesn't necessarily translate into success later on. How many times do you let him face Howard (or another LH slugger) before you have a "feel" for him? I like trying stuff to see if they can do it (can Jeromy Burnitz lay down a bunt etc.), but as far as pitching matchups, I say you play the better odds...April or October.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 10:35 AM |
|
Also we're not talking about a Burgos-Howard matchup wth a seven run lead. That's where you play hunches, not a run ahead and ducks on the pond. It was just a foolish move, that the most eloquent explanation won't make sensible, much less Willie's confused articulation of his dumb ideas.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 10 2007 10:41 AM |
|
I wouldn't be surprised to see Burgos face Howard again in this series, or next week in Philly. If it's late in the game I might be.
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 10:56 AM |
|
|
What's the bottom line ira? I always thought it was wins and losses. In that vein Willie has been a complete success since he's been here. Give the man some credit. He's been around the game for what - 30 years? Is it completely inconceivable that maybe he just might know what he's doing even if it doesn't jibe with what you think he should do?
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 11:11 AM |
|
|
Is it only me who thinks it was a foolish move? Even if it was a brilliant move (which I'd like to see someone explain to me), Willie should be able to tell us his thinking in a way that makes a modicum of baseball sense. So far, every justification for this foolishness doesn't add up. He wanted to preserve his bullpen for later in the year? Then why put Feliciano in the game immediately afterwards? He was afraid of Burrell? If you're scared, stay home--the problem was Howard, who either needed to be walked (if you're so terrified of Burrell) or pitched to with a lefthander, instead of your gopher-prone righthander. Let me ask you directly, Soupy--do YOU think leaving Burgos in to face Howard was smart baseball?
|
| duan Apr 10 2007 11:12 AM |
|
i'm with JD & Yancy on this. I was thinking that he was mad to stay with Burgos, but then Burgos got going well against him and looked like he could put him away. If Burgos had got the out that he could of when Howard was battling we'd have praised Willie for having 'big balls". I thought it was interesting to hear Darling call for a fastball pitch high and inside when they went with the splitter that got deposited over the seats. Who do you reckon is calling those pitches - Wilie? LoDuca? Burgos or Peterson. You could see what Darling was saying, the guys struggling, just don't give him a breaking pitch that's in the zone.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 11:16 AM |
|
My sense of the CPF today is that the eventual win makes Willie's dumb move less dumb. If the game had ended with the score after Howard's HR, I think I'd have more company. If you doubt it check out pages 5 and 6 of the IGT, when you guys were going crazy at the colossal stupidlity plainly on display.
|
| metirish Apr 10 2007 11:25 AM |
|
ira,Willie is not going to admit he was wrong,he seems a stubborn fucker at times,it was a bad move and he got lucky.
|
| ABG Apr 10 2007 11:29 AM |
|
Listen, you wanna tell me your'e gonna leave him in to face an above average lefty in that spot--ok. Let him pitch to Griffey or Matt Holliday or even Utley. But you're talking about the NL MVP, the best LH bat in the league. It's an extreme circumstance and there's no reason to chance it.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 11:30 AM |
|
There seem to be some people here saying that Willie's move wasn't so dumb, irish, or that he's perfectly good justifying it as badly as he does. I think neither is true: it was a bad move, and he makes it worse by failing to acknowledge it.
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 11:32 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 10 2007 11:36 AM |
||
|
Taken by itself - nope, I wouldn't have done it but, it wasn't done in a vacuum and I'm not the guy who has 30 years worth of ML experience backing me up. I think that while the move wasn't a 'by the book' move I assume that Willie's got a bigger picture in mind - be that pumping Burgos up or finding out exactly what he had in Burgos or a combination of the two. Either way, if he's going to make high-risk moves making them in early April so he can find out exactly what he has in his team is the time to do it.
Maybe you're right but again, these moves in early April are more understandable and justifiable. And if Willie does make stupid moves over and over again and wins in spite of them, I'll take it. It's when his unorthodox ways start costing games on a consistent basis (which in the three years he's been here has not been the case) then I'll start griping.
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 11:36 AM |
|
|
The thing is that is was such an easy decision to make - we all thought that Burgos should not and would not pitch to Howard there. Do you think that Willie didn't realize that as well? Obviously he had a reason to do what he did. Say what you want but if the drunk Asian chick sitting behind me knew that Burgos shouldn't pitch to Howard then Willie knew it too and had his reasons for allowing it.
|
| metirish Apr 10 2007 11:38 AM |
|
|
Oh I think if this was done in a late season game with the Mets holding a one game lead over the Phillies then Willie gets hammered by all,not sure anyone here thinks it was a good move or not a dumb move just that it was a game in April,and I do agree that Willie's failure to acknowledge this is fucking annoying.
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 11:41 AM |
|
I think you all are assuming that the move was not made because Randolph is stupid. Really? Do you really think that the guy was clueless as to what was going on on the field? Everyone watching that game thougt Burgos was not going to be allowed to pitch to Howard. Randolph, the manager of the team, was the only guy that didn't realize that? Come on. Disagree with him but don't think the move wasn't made because he didn't have a reason for it.
|
| metirish Apr 10 2007 11:48 AM |
|
|
Ok fine,but Borgus is brutal against lefties,I hope Willie got whatever information he was looking for and that's that.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 12:15 PM |
|
|
I'm still waiting to hear a reason that makes sense. With this logic, Wilie could cut his dick off with a grapefruit knife on the mound, and you'll be saying "Do you think Willie didn't understand how unhealthy that as? Everybody knows you use a scalpel in that spot--give the man some credit." What you are saying is that it is so obviously stupid that Willie had to have his secret reasons for making this move but no one can come up with any yet.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Apr 10 2007 12:31 PM |
|
He gave reasons: 1. Howard has been struggling and he's not Barry Bonds. You may not like them, but they're reasons. And yes, Willie did bring in Feliciano one batter later. But that was AFTER the three-run homer. He was trying to get out of the inning and past Howard without using an extra pitcher. Once that failed, he saw that the plan didn't work and removed Burgos.
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 12:34 PM |
|
|
Is your main issue that he makes questionable moves or that he chooses not to explain why he makes questionable moves? Why do you care what his reasons are? If you think he's stupid then no reason he gives is going to be sufficient anyway. If you think he had a reason for it, as I do, then I'm satisfied thinking that in addition to what Yancy wrote, his reasoning had to do with seeing how Burgos would perform under pressure and also possibly giving Burgos some confidence had he succeeded in getting Howard out. Much like Willie did with Jorge Julio last year. This guy has been the manager of the team that has enjoyed a renaissance while he has been here. He's been as successful as any fan could've hoped and I think as a result of that success he should be given a longer leash when it comes to analyzing his decisions. If Randolph's 'stupid' decisions lead to consistent losses then you'll be proven correct. To date though, if anything, the opposite seems to be true..
|
| metirish Apr 10 2007 12:36 PM |
|
|
One of the dumber statements Willie has made IMO.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 12:54 PM |
|||||
|
Why do I need to choose a main issue? Both are irritating.
Just trying to give him a chance to show me what (or if) he's thinking.
And is risking a close game worth that risk? I don't think s; if Willie does, there are a lot of lot of risky moves, some not involving a grapefruit knife, that he might try.
So far, he's shown me that he doesn't understand in-game managing very well, and that any other manager, including Art Howe, could have won with this team as well. I believe in criticizing bad moves even when the team is doing well, and then I don't feel like such a bandwagoner when Willie gets fired and everyone says, "Well, we all understood he wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box all along."
|
| TheOldMole Apr 10 2007 12:55 PM |
|
The move that seemed strange at the time wasn't so much pitching to Howard (they did that earlier in the game with two men on, and it worked). It was the pinch running move. When Alou got on, we were thinking, Time to put Endy in to pinch run. Then when Green got on, he puts Endy in to run for the trailing guy. Why? But it all worked out. And I'm on the side of "you manage differently in April than in September."
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 01:03 PM |
|
Ira baby, I know that I'm not gonna convince you of my thinking and you're not gonna convince me of yours and, unfortunately, I'm really a hunt-n-peck typist so continuing these discussions takes up quite a bit of time on my end. This being said how 'bout we agree to disagree and if the Mets tank because Willie is exposed as a complete ignoramous you win and if they romp on their way to the first of 10 consecutive titles then I win. Deal?
|
| Nymr83 Apr 10 2007 01:17 PM |
|
The move was DUMB the fact that it was April doesn't change the dumbness of the move because these games count just as much as a game played in September.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 01:21 PM |
||
|
This is like saying "My dick was itching me, so I decided to cut it off" is a reason.
WHHAAAT? What happened to I didn't want to be forced to use Joe Smith to face Burrell if the inning went on? The inning did go on, and he didn't need to bring Joe Smith in to face Burrell.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 10 2007 01:26 PM |
|
But by then the situation had changed.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 01:31 PM |
|
Burrell was at the plate, wasn't he? Feliciano was still facing him, wasn't he? there wer still the same number of outs, weren't there? Why (if Burgos had walked Howard, which I wouldn't have done) does Joe Smith come into the picture at all? Willie would have been "forced" to bring in Smith why?
|
| Nymr83 Apr 10 2007 01:38 PM |
|
bringing Smith in to face Burrell (after walking Howard) seems silly to me, but its alot more defensible than what Willie actually did.
|
| Yancy Street Gang Apr 10 2007 01:40 PM |
|
|
Here's where I bail out of the conversation.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 10 2007 01:44 PM |
|
i think a better analogy would be "i left Glavine up at the plate to bat as the tying run in the 8th inning, why'd i do it? well, he's no rey ordonez..."
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 01:46 PM |
|
You guys just want to convince yourselves and prove to everyone else that you're smarter than a major league manager when it comes to in-game strategies. You're not. You keep harping on this one non-move as proof that he's stupid and you're smart. That's what's dumb. What experience do you have managing a major league game? How about a little league game? Enough already. Whether you agree with his move or not, whether he explains it to your satisfaction or not, the guy is better suited for the job than you, knew what he was doing, whether you agree with it or not when he left Burgos in the game. It wasn't a situation that needed a rocket scientist to evaluate. He saw what you saw, he knew what you knew. For his own personal reasons he chose to play it his way. He obviously felt that if it cost him the game than whatever he learned from it was worth it. That's his perogative because wins and losses will directly effect his job security.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 10 2007 02:10 PM |
|
now i get it! while i was only questioning this one move and not willie's overall intelligence i now do have to question you, under what circumstances CAN a manager's judgment be called into question? or are they immune to criticism in your fantasy world?
|
| Centerfield Apr 10 2007 02:25 PM |
|
Isn't it pretty obvious why Willie left Burgos in the game? He had gotten himself into a jam and had just about worked out of it. By leaving Burgos in to face the reigning NL MVP, Willie probably thought it would give Burgos a huge lift in terms of confidence, get the Shea faithful on his side, and go a long way to leaving his troubles in KC behind. After all, Burgos' splitter looked sharp and Howard had been struggling, so Willie decided to give it a roll of the dice. But since it didn't work, Willie can't give the real reason...because then the follow-up questions, and the logical conclusion, would be that since he didn't get him out, his confidence should be shattered, the fans should be on his back, and his struggles in KC have followed him here. So Willie has to make up excuses, and is stuck with lame ones. I don't agree with the move, not because I think Willie is a moron (though I may have said so during the IGT) but because I don't think that is the right time to be taking those chances. With Ryan Howard batting, a lefty warm in the pen, and a 1-run game with 2 runners on, you go with the percentages. And you leave the confidence builders for other, less dire, situations. (One could even make a case if Howard were the tying run at the plate, but with runners on 2nd and 3rd, even a single gives up the lead.) As to Willie's in-game moves, there have been plenty of times I've had to scratch my head. (For example, his use of Endy as the trail runner is mind-boggling. If you sub him for the trail runner, that means you are playing for the win...so why bunt? If the idea is to get the runner to third, wouldn't you want your fast guy to be in that position?) But for every manager the Mets have ever had, even Bobby from time to time, I've questioned moves and disagreed and called them idiots. It's just the nature of the game.
|
| Willets Point Apr 10 2007 02:56 PM |
|
What will you try in April? I've been reading Comics Curmudgeon too long to have this be the first thing that comes to mind (not literally).
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 04:01 PM |
|
Actually, Soupy, I think there are about eight or nine guys on the CPF who have more understanding of the in-game stuff than Willie does. (I exclude myself out of modesty.) Could we actually manage? No, but because we wouldn't have the MLB cred that MLB experience gives Willie-but in a table game, like Strat-o-matic, managing players, I really don't think Willie would have an advantage over any of the CPFers I have in miind, and I suspect that as far as those moves go, they'd beat his ass in over a whole season. It's not rocket science. Many posters here have jobs that demand more intellectual ability than a MLB manager does, and they do those jobs quite well, as far as I can see.
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 05:17 PM |
||
|
Wouldn't you say that person would be more qualified than someone who has never managed?
You can question them all you want about whatever you want. My quarrel is that you are saying that his not changing pitchers was dumb. I'm disagreeing because I think he knew exactly what he was or was not doing and chose - for whatever reason - to keep Burgos in. I think that he was not as concerned about that particular game as he was about whatever it is he was trying to accomplish by leaving Burgos in. If Randolph chooses to make something other than winning that particuar game the priority I suppose you could classify that as 'dumb', but again he is the guy that's going to suffer when it comes down to wins and losses. Perhaps at this point in the season building confidence and finding out exactly what he has in Burgos is slightly more important than that one game. I have no idea what rattles around in Willie's brain and neither do you. Based on his record though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 05:23 PM |
||
|
I highly doubt this.
I agree that its not rocket science and there are other people with greater intellect but that does not necessarily mean that if you threw these people into the dugout that they could do it. Could I fly a plane just because I'm smart, read alot of books about it and watched pilots fly? Maybe I could but would I be a better pilot than someone who has been flying for 20 plus years (or even 2 plus years)?
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 05:50 PM |
|
I'd find your reasoning more persuasive if you could explain WHAT Willie's logic was, rather than just asserting that he must have had some. CF (who's definitely one of the CPFers I consider over-qualified to manage a MLB game) provides some plausible reasoning, although as he notes it explains more what was totally screwed up in Willie's thinking than what was sensible. Willie himself often just glibly tells reporters "I played a hunch," which is an explanation but a totally self-contained, utterly unanswerable one that doesn't even try to explain his reasoning. You're 100% right, his job depends on his success, and he'll keep his job as long as his luck holds out and his players keep scoring 11 runs a game. Of course, if CF had the job, and the offense kept scoring 11 runs a game every time he screwed up, he'd keep the job for a long time too.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 10 2007 05:52 PM |
||
|
yes, thats dumb. we as fans suffer when our team loses and we have every right to criticize the team/mangement/whoever for not doing its best to win
I 100% disagree with that statement. First of all a win in April has the same value as a win in September, if you're unwilling to accept that very basic premise go find me some evidence that proves that September W's count twice. So the "at this point in the season" part is simply wrong. As for finding out what he has, the time and place to do that are either in spring training, in the minor leagues, or in a blowout.
|
| metsmarathon Apr 10 2007 06:52 PM |
|
so you don't believe in risking a win in april so as to improve your chances of winning in september? how is a manager supposed to learn the abilities and limits of his roster if he is not to test and experiment with his players? players respond differently to real games than they do in spring training, and its important to know how burgos can a) handle pressure and b) handle failure. the time to find out is now, in april, rather than in september, when you have no choice, and no margin for error.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 10 2007 07:10 PM |
|
your "margin for error" is less in October than it is now, but it is the same now as it is in September. i don't think risking a win in april in this way does elevate your chances of winning in september by any measurable degree, i do think that before that AB the Mets had something like an 80% chance to win the game and after that AB their chances were under 20%. i don't think that even if "knowing something" about burgos was worth say .1% in every game the rest of the year that that would add up to the huge drop-off in your chances of winning this game. on edit- while you don't gain much insight into Burgos from 1 AB, you DO gain significant insight into the thought process (or lack therof) of the manager, because while random chance and a million other factors will affect the outcome of the AB, nothig is affecting the "input", that is willie's decision.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 10 2007 07:52 PM |
|
As a manager, Willie should understand the limitations of his staff, and work around them to maximize his staff's effectiveness. When you've got a left-handed hitter up who historically rakes righties, and you leave your right-handed pitcher, who is historically atrocious against lefties, in the game, you're pretty obviously not doing that. Now, there might be a valid reason for it--it's a blow-out, you have no one left in the pen, etc.--but in this case, it was a close game, we had plenty of arms left in the pen, and first base was open with two outs and a righty on deck. It should have been a no-brainer to take out Burgos, and I think it's absolutely fair to call Willie out for not doing it. That being said, it's not the end of the world, and IMO, Willie has improved by leaps and bounds over the last year in terms of managing his bullpen. Most notably his use of Bradford last season, and his willingness to keep Heilman in there against lefties. And a random observation: I thought Burgos looked pretty damn tough when I watched the encore yesterday. I mean, the dude looked sharp aside from the hanging splitter--even though he gave up the home run, I thought it was a pretty encouraging outing.
|
| metsmarathon Apr 10 2007 08:16 PM |
|
so there's nothing about burgos' makeup that willie could possibly have learned yesterday? nothing? there's no way he could have learned how burgos steps up to a challenge, or how he responds to adversity or failure? there's no way willie could have learned whether or not he can use burgos in a big spot down the road, not based on the results of his one bad pitch, but his approach and demeanor and reaction before and afterwards? there's no way he could have learned whether or not burgos has the temperament to shake that off and maybe approach the next challenging situation willingly? there's no way willie could have learned whether or not burgos hides from failure, and there's no way willie could possibly learn from how burgos responds in his next outing? there's just no way? really? i'd like to think that the manager can learn more from his players than simply whether or not a certain pitch got by a batter, and whether or not that pitch got deposited over an outfield wall. not just willie, but any manager. i'd like to think that a manager can continually assess his personnel throughout the season and incorporate that knowledge into future wins and losses. and yes, mathematically, april games are just as important as september games. but in september, the loss of one game could swing a season, and really, it doesn't matter whether that one loss is in september, or if it came all the way back on april 7th. the difference is that in april, your team has time to recover from that loss, to learn from it, to play better, and to hopefully win enough future games so as to negate the ill effects of that one april loss. in september, you have far fewer future games. much like teams can overcome giving up runs in the first inning far more easily than they can in the ninth, teams can overcome april losses far more easily than they can september losses.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 10 2007 08:27 PM |
|
|
Sure, he might have learned something about his makeup, but he wasn't going to learn anything about whether or not he could reliably get lefties out. There is NO WAY Burgos should be left in to face a tough lefty when it's close and late. In 53 innings pitched, lefties are batting .322 against him, and he's walked 34, giving up 13 HR. That's a pretty darn open-and-shut case right there, even BEFORE you look at Howard's splits (.770 OPS against lefties, 1.116 OPS against righties). So basically, I don't think whatever it was that Willie learned was at all relevant. If he wanted to see how Burgos handled a pressure situation, he should have tried a close and late situation against a tough right-handed batter. If he wanted to see how Burgos handled failure, he should have left him in against a tough lefty with no one on base and us leading by a couple runs. Willie set Burgos up to fail, and that's just not good managing, period.
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 10 2007 08:36 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 10 2007 08:37 PM |
|
I hope Willy is having a nice thick juicy steak right now and sharing a bottle Jeez, it's fun to read, but it's all over the map. The place mighta gone and im-
|
| metirish Apr 10 2007 08:37 PM |
|
That's what happens when the Mets have an off day....
|
| RealityChuck Apr 10 2007 08:51 PM |
|
|
But players have egos. And by showing confidence in a player who has had very little confidence shown in him lately, it's going to give him a better attitude. Will it make a difference? No way to tell. Burgos just may not have the ability. But if he's borderline, isn't it better to show confidence in him than to pull him? If he has confidence, and isn't tentative and looking over his shoulder, then he's going to be a better pitcher, because he won't be overthinking.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 10 2007 09:14 PM |
||
|
It was the 6th inning. That's been a key consideration from the start.
I thought the consensus on Burgos' MLB performance to date was that it needed some mental adjustment for his being rushed into the big leagues and the developmental corners cut in Kansas City. The friggin guy is younger than Joe Smith after all (a few weeks anyway). I'm not saying you pretend those numbers don't exist, but it doesn't mean you have to obey them. I'm saying, flaunt them. It's April. Willie's still seeing what he has. If a guy's not good enough to pitch in the 6th inning in April aren't you really saying this guy isn't good enough to be on the team? This then is a beef with Omar and not Willie.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 10:03 PM |
|
|
I'm saying this guy has shown that he's not ready to face the top left-handed slugger in the league with a one-run lead and runners on base in a game against your division competition. What's hard to get about that? If he wants to see what Burgos can do, pitch him against tough lefty sluggers in blowouts. Again, is this a subtle point or something? As to Chuck's point about "showing confidence in a player," how self-confident do you think Burgos is feeling about now? He'll be overthinking for a month. He's been waking up screaming "Ryan Howard!!!" the past two nights--what sort of good do you suppose that's doing his confidence? If he was tentative before, he's terrified now. If he was terrified before, he's positively hystrionic now. Thanks, Willie. Good move.
|
| Elster88 Apr 10 2007 10:14 PM |
|
I'm with Iramander on this one. The idea of trying to "see what a player can do" only works under one condition: there has to be a chance that the situation could happen again. And is there a chance in hell that Burgos will be left in to pitch to a lefty near Howard's level in a situation like yesterday's? The way Willie manages his bullpen in the postseason? Especially in a game in September or October, which people apparently think Willie used yesterday to train Burgos for? I say the odds are about 200 to 1 against. So what's the point of seeing how Burgos reacts to the situation when it'll never come up in a game that means something? (And this is buying that yesterday's game meant nothing, which I don't agree with) To me the argument that makes more sense is trying to rest the pen. (Did anyone else read that Heilman has tendonitis in his elbow?!?!)
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 10 2007 10:19 PM |
|
You're acknowledging Heilman may be injured and saying the fact that a 22 year old with 100mph stuff already in the organization taking a similar role or at least stepping up is a 200-1 shot?
|
| metirish Apr 10 2007 10:23 PM |
|
Heilman has had the tendonitis since last season,hasn't he?...
|
| metsmarathon Apr 10 2007 10:38 PM |
|
i dont think the situation is specifically "6th inning of tight game against one of the best lefty power hitters in the game" but rather "men on base, close game, scary batter" and if burgos crumbles as a result of having failed under this pressure situation, then we know not to use him in the future. do we know that he's crumbeld? or has he responded well? i'd like to think that we're in a particularly disadvantaged position to evaluate it, right now. does burgos want the ball again next time out, or is he afraid to pitch anymore? does he carry yesterdays at bat with him to the mound, or is it already behind him? if he bounces back, then we know that he can be resillient in the future, and that one failure may not snowball into multiple. if he doesn't, then we know that willie has to baby him throughout the season. and that should affect how he manages from here on. and if he is able to manage effectively based on what he learns of burgos, then he can improve his chances of winning in the future. and the win expectancy went from 0.699 to 0.268 after howard finished circling the bases. now, i'd like to use this to make a point about april versus september! its the same absolute margin, but earlier in the game, there's time to come back - because the margin of error is greater. later in the game, there's no time to make up thos two runs, so the margin of error is smaller. its the same thing with april wins & losses, and september wins & losses.
|
| Elster88 Apr 10 2007 10:42 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 10 2007 10:44 PM |
|
|
No that's not what I said. I didn't say any of those things were a 200-1 shot (FYI the oddsmaking was rhetoric), I said "the chance of him being used in the type of spot he was yesterday in a stretch game" is a 200-1 shot. C'mon leave the strawman at home.
|
| iramets Apr 10 2007 10:44 PM |
|
Besides which, you're confusing this one small issue with large, nebulous, un-knowable issues: bring Feliciano in one batter sooner than he did, not whether Heilman is hurt or Pedro is healing quickly or Willie was bounced on his head as a small child. It's pretty simple: should Willie have left a young, unconfident righhander who's given up more HRs in a short career than Bayer has aspirin pills to face the premier lefty slugger in the league, or brought in the lefthander whom, it turned out, he did bring in anyway? It's not a complicated question, though you're trying your best to make it appear to be so.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 10 2007 10:47 PM |
|
|
Sorry Elster didn;t mean to use a strawman. I knew your example was rhetorical but as I read it was thinking, "but what if heilman's truly hurt?" That's fodder for another whole thread.
Is that published in a handly online chart somewhere?
|
| metsmarathon Apr 10 2007 11:09 PM |
|
sorry. forgot my reference: http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search
|
| soupcan Apr 10 2007 11:21 PM |
|
What we're debating here is what is best for a baseball team over the course of a 162 game regular season in order to put that team in the best possible position to win in the postseason. Again I bring up the fact that Willie Randolph has been a player, coach and manager in the major leagues for 32 years. He's had great personal success and has been on teams that have had great success. I find it odd that despite this resume people doubt that he knows what it takes to become a winning team. I understand if you simply don't like him or question an in-game move here and there but making claims that a lay person could manage a major league team just as well (if not better!) than a guy with that kind of experience is silly. Anyone can point to percentages and statistics and make claims that because of whatever numbers they come up with this call should have been made on that play. This player should have been in the game instead of that one. Do you really think its that easy? How did that work out for the Red Sox a few years back when the grand Poobah of statistics deemed that a closer by committee would, based on statistics, be just as effective as one top-notch closer? The point is that baseball is a game of intangibles as well as numbers. A guy that's been around the game for 32 years is in a much better place to understand that than someone that just hasn't. If Willie Randolph thinks that having Burgos pitch to Howard with runners on base in a close game in the 6th inning of the 7th game of the season will somehow benefit the team at some point in the season then I'm good with that. I've been watching this game for about 32 years myself and I know a bit about it but I would never assume that I know more about it than a guy like Randolph. I don't think that there is any substitute for experience. If you don't like his explanations for why he does or doesn't do what you think he should or shouldn't do then I don't know what to tell you. It's obviously part of his managing style to not explain hinmself for whatever reason. I'd love to know the answers too but I'm not going to assume he's an idiot because he's not forthcoming with the press. One more time - the bottom line is his won-loss record, and any Met fan who has a problem with that is being unreasonable with their expectations. Saying that 'anyone can manage this team' or that they win in spite of the manager is being unfair. The guy is doing what he was hired to do the way he wants to do it and he's succeeding.
|
| metirish Apr 10 2007 11:29 PM |
|
Burgos pitched to Utley,a good left handed hitter,so I suppose I might ask why Willie didn't bring in Feliciano right there to face him,I'll take solace in the fact that Burgos got to a 2-2 count on Howard and that Howard hit a good pitch over the fence.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 11 2007 01:25 AM |
|
|
of course, if resting the pen is your excuse (and its a valid one) you've left open the question of why you didn't walk howard to face burrell. soupcan: wow. if this guy batted rey ordonez 4th would you still defend him because "well he's been in the game forever so he must know what he's doing." this was as bad an in-game management decision as i've seen. it deserves criticism.
|
| duan Apr 11 2007 06:02 AM |
|
|
I'm with that except for the good pitch. It was a terrible pitch; in a terrible location.
|
| iramets Apr 11 2007 06:21 AM |
|
|
BTW dont sell yourself short, Soupcan. Before he took this gift from Fred Wilpon, you had exactly as much managerial experience as Willie, and probably a good deal of sounder judgment and general knowledge.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 11 2007 07:41 AM |
||
|
Truer words have never been spoken. Imagine the bloodshed if we'd lost! I'm just going to hope that Willie learned whatever he wanted to learn and he'll never ever do it again.
Well, his mental problem only seemed to be against lefties, since his stats against righties are pretty good: 86 IP, 7.53 K/9, 3.45 BB/9, 2.181 K/BB, .231 BAA, 1.05 HR/9 The HRs are a little high, as is his walk rate, and his K rate is a little low, but overall, that's pretty darn effective. Compared to lefties: 54 IP, 11.5 K/9, 5.83 BB/9, 1.97 K/BB, .322 BAA, 2.16 HR/9 And damn, I hadn't noticed the K rate against lefties until now! Still, he's obviously all or nothing against them, and mostly nothing. 2.16 HR/9 is amazingly bad, as is his walk rate and BAA--he's allowing exactly 2 baserunners per inning, which is atrocious. Anyway, the biggest thing that jumps out at me when looking at his splits overall is why on earth he was left in to face so many lefties.
|
| iramets Apr 11 2007 08:11 AM |
||
|
That's kinda my point. Those of you who are cool with this move, just imagine please if Howard's HR was the final score of the game: we'd be equating Burgos with Benitez, excoriating Willie, blablabla--and he had no way of knowing that the Mets would score big in the late innings. (If he did, I'd like to hear about it.) This place would be going nuts, and rightly so.
|
| soupcan Apr 11 2007 09:16 AM |
|
|
Careful NYM, I think cooby and I are the two biggest Rey-Rey fans out there. The manager can do whatever he wants to do whether or not it makes sense to me or not as long as the team wins on a consistent basis. And, no, I don't mean barely over .500 I mean win at the clip they did last year. This team is built to be a championship contender and as long as they reach that goal, he can bat Ordonez fourth if he wants to. Willie's record as a manager in the 2 years he's been with the Mets has been a winning one, as a result he will continue to get the benefit of the doubt from me. I may not understand why he makes a particular move or disagree with a move he makes but I'll stop short of calling him dumb or thinking he's an idiot simply because he's proven that he is a more than capable ML manager. It's when his questionable moves start costing the team games, again on a consistent basis, that I would then begin to have a problem with them and him. To date though, that's not the case with Randolph.
|
| soupcan Apr 11 2007 09:22 AM |
|
|
Absolutely it would've sucked if the Mets lost that game but how about the fact that it was the 6th and not the 8th or 9th, that the Mets were getting into the Phillie bullpen, that the manager knows his team and maybe he had a feel (not that he knew, but knew that the possibility would increase) for how his team might respond in the next few innings. Maybe he thought it was a good time to take a risk. Looking back on it, it was.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 11 2007 09:59 AM |
|
|
Do you think we'll ever get around to suggesting the offense bears some responsibility? Opportunities already thrown away by the O in that game could have Burgos-proofed that inning from the start. And, will we stop pretending the 6th inning is akin to the 8th or 9th?
|
| Yancy Street Gang Apr 11 2007 10:04 AM |
|
And the thought that April is the same as September is equally bogus. Yes, all games count equally in the standings. But you can't manage 162 games as if your team's back is to the wall. Would we all freak out if Easley got a start at third base next week? Of course not. But if he got a start in a game against Atlanta on September 30 with Wright healthy and the Mets tied for first with the Braves, we'd think Willie was nuts. (Or stupid.)
|
| TheOldMole Apr 11 2007 10:09 AM |
|
|
That's how Billy Martin managed. And he had some success. but generally did more harm than good to the teams he managed.
|
| soupcan Apr 11 2007 10:30 AM |
|
Yup. Martin won but he burned his teams out.
|
| cooby Apr 11 2007 10:39 AM |
|
|
|
| iramets Apr 11 2007 10:57 AM |
|
He's available, you know. Maybe we could upgrade by dropping the lazy slob we've got at ss and get Rey-Rey back.
|
| soupcan Apr 11 2007 10:58 AM |
|
If Willie thinks its the right thing to do.....
|
| Yancy Street Gang Apr 11 2007 11:00 AM |
|
The best thing I can say about Rey Ordonez is that he never raised my blood pressure.
|
| metirish Apr 11 2007 11:06 AM |
|
I'm done with this thread,thankfully there is a game tonight,I didn't like the move but I certainly don't think Randolph is an idiot or not worthy of being a MLB manager ,he's a bit stubborn though.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 11 2007 11:35 AM |
|
|
I totally agree with all of that, Irish. Not the end of the world, and like I said earlier, I think Willie's gotten much better at managing the bullpen in general. Overall, I think he's a an above average manager at this point. In terms of tactical ability, I'd put him at below average, but in terms of managing his players, I think he's excellent--he really does seem to have their respect and is able to motivate them effectively. And given that he's shown the ability to grow in the tactical department, I think the dude's got a pretty high ceiling. I mean, you can learn the tactical stuff, but to be able to walk into the clubhouse and command respect right off the bat--that's a gift, and one I think is extremely useful for a manager. Oh, and I totally forgot it was the 6th inning--in my head it was the 7th, so y'all can rachet back my righteous indignation by a factor of, oh, let's say 3.
|
| duan Apr 11 2007 12:19 PM the thing is |
|
what i've liked about how the mets have played so far is that they've They haven't been outplayed significantly in ANY game. Any one they've lost has been nip & tuck.
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 11 2007 08:24 PM |
|
Soupcan - "Careful NYM, I think cooby and I are the two biggest Rey-Rey fans out there." Not exactly something to brag about.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 11 2007 08:30 PM |
|
it is in the world of "i'll stick my fingers in my ears and avoid listening to anyone who has stats to point out to me"
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 11 2007 08:33 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 11 2007 09:07 PM |
|
iramets - "Maybe we could upgrade by dropping the lazy slob we've got at ss and get Rey-Rey back." Soupcan - "If Willie thinks its the right thing to do....."
If somehow Willie did ever chose to replace Jose Reyes at shortstop with Rey rdonez, I would seriously have to question Randolph's sanity.
|
| cooby Apr 11 2007 08:36 PM |
|
|
Also, something else you should know is that soupcan and I are also two of Jose Reyes' biggest fans...
|
| soupcan Apr 11 2007 11:13 PM |
|
|
Eat me. When did I say I ignore stats? When did I say that I agree with whatever Randolph does? I've tried every way I know how to explain my point of view and you obviously just don't get it. You strike me as a fairly intelligent guy but yet you don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 11 2007 11:28 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 12 2007 01:32 PM |
|
Even Billy Martin has been known to leave a pitcher trying to establlish himself out there in adverse conditions, knowing that it may hurt the team in the short run, but would hopefully be paid back in the long run. Davey Johnson did. Bobby Valentine did.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 12 2007 01:30 PM |
|
|
Neat toy
|
| Edgy DC Apr 12 2007 01:34 PM |
|
Fucking great toy.
|
| metirish Apr 12 2007 01:59 PM |
||
|
Soupcan and Joe Morgan, not stat guys...:) Can some one please explain how that toy works...thanks
|
| Edgy DC Apr 12 2007 02:38 PM |
|
If in 1000 games in the given time period, a home team has a runner on first in the bottom of the fifth with no outs and the score tied, the engine searches those 1000 games and finds out that the home team has won in 630 of them, giviing a user inquiring about that situation a .630 chance that the home team will win. See the thread I'm about to launch...
|
| metsmarathon Apr 12 2007 02:47 PM |
|
way way back when i first discovered that toy, i was thinking of using it in my schaefer voting somehow, but realized soon that it was an even more tedious method than i had currently employed. maybe now that i've tidied up a bit of my work, i can play, just for fun... i also think that it would greatly exaggerate late-game heroics while minimizing early game action. but it could be fun to try.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 12 2007 02:49 PM |
|
And why shouldn't late-game heroics get exaggerated?
|
| metsmarathon Apr 12 2007 04:37 PM |
|
um, i'm not sure. for the same reason that games in april are just teh same as important as games in september. oh... crap...
|
| Edgy DC Apr 12 2007 04:49 PM |
|
High leverage in late and close situations.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 13 2007 08:46 PM |
|
As i noted in the IGT tonight, Willie let Pelfrey hit with 2 ours and a runner (the tying run) on 2nd in the bottom of the 5th. Pelfrey had thrown 83 pitches.
|
| Frayed Knot Apr 13 2007 08:58 PM |
|
I wouldn't PH there based just on not wanting to miss that situation. If it's the 6th inning then maybe, beyond that almost definitely.
|
| iramets Apr 13 2007 09:03 PM |
|
For the record, Howie Rose (I think) just commended Willie for his "candor" in saying about Monday's game, "You can't manage every game like it;s the seventh game of the World Series." I.e., April games don't count as much as September games. You don't manage every game to win it? Maybe so, but if you manage to lose the game, you might find you need it (or need all of the games you managed to lose) when it counts in September. The corollary to Willie's statement is finishing three games out and then claiming that you gave it your best shot all season long and can't have any regrets about the way you managed all the games.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 13 2007 09:16 PM |
|
|
I disagree with your i.e..
|
| iramets Apr 13 2007 09:32 PM |
||
|
Would you care to to translate that into English then? Willie's chief rhetorical device seems to be hyperbole: "He's not Babe Ruth." Uh, did I claim that he was? Ryan Howard IS a formidable lefty slugger--isn't that a sufficient argument against leaving Burgos in the game? "You can't manage every game like it's the seventh game of the World Series." Uh, who says you do? But dont you try to win every game? Don't you seek to avoid making boneheaded moves in April and in September? By creating rhetorical strawmen, and then demolishing them, Willie thinks he's winning arguments. And he is, but the arguments he's winning are with himself. His real questioners just roll their eyes at this weak shit.
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 13 2007 09:35 PM |
|
Haven't opened this thread in a few days, I'm a little hurt that coobsoup
|
| Edgy DC Apr 13 2007 09:41 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 13 2007 09:56 PM |
||||
|
None of that is what we're talking about.
It's a rhetorical device.
More or less true, and the Barry Bonds thing is of little to no use, though you create rhetorical strawman also. I just disagree with your i.e., which is sort of trying to build a strawman argument also. Nobody claims "April games don't count as much as September games." Certainly not Willie.
|
| iramets Apr 13 2007 09:51 PM |
||
|
I do, though I'm usually trying to be funny when I do. Humor is not Willie's friend. He's about the most humorless, thin-skinnned, mean-spirited manager the Mets have had since Dallas Green.
Actually, I think there have been several people in this thread who have made that claim, and seemed to mean it literally.
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 13 2007 09:58 PM |
|
Thin-skinned and mean-spirited???? He's nothing of the sort.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 13 2007 10:02 PM |
|
I don't know where "mean-spirited" is coming from?
|
| Edgy DC Apr 13 2007 10:02 PM |
|
"Willie, you went with Easley at second today. Should we look for him to go against lefties regularly." "Fuck off and die." "I'm sorry. I'm not questioning your choices. Just trying to clarify what they..." "Stop talking. Don't even look at me. Can somebody get this faggot out of here?"
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 13 2007 10:07 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 13 2007 10:07 PM |
|
I thuink he means churlish. I agree with that. He's a jock at heart and probably always saw writers as the enemy or at best a necessary evil, and by barely tolerating them he's at least meeting his challenges honestly.
|
| iramets Apr 13 2007 10:07 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 13 2007 10:16 PM |
|
That's what I wrote. If you'd like elaboration, when he gets asked a standard question (such as "Willie, why did you pinch hit for soandso in the seventh?") he assumes that the reporter asking the question is his enemy, is asking him the question to show him up, doesn't know jackshit about baseball, and the resulting answer usually reflects all of that attitude. That's what I mean by thin-skinned. Listen to Joe Torre handling the same kinds of (usually innocuous) questions, and you'll see what I'm saying. It takes a lot of doing to get under Torre's skin. Mean-spirited also refers to his asssumption that the media is out to make him look bad. Understanding that the reporters have jobs to do, that their readers are curious about the whys and wherefores of the manager's decisions, that good people can hold differing views on baseball strategy without implying negative things about each other personally, that reporters may not be privy to certain bits of information that Willie has, that reporters don't write the hedlines or photo captions, that reporters sometimes make innocent mistakes on deadline, etc.--all of this would make Willie's PR relations much better, but I don't think he has it in him to be understanding about any of this. He's too mistrustful and mean-spirited, I think, as a human being. OE: mainly typoes.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 13 2007 10:11 PM |
|
I'll buy most of that. Ceraintly churlish. Pre-emptively defensive.
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 13 2007 10:21 PM |
|
I don't look for a manager to answer everything directly, and I'm not suspicious Asking to watch Joe Torre and how he handles stuff ain't exactly gonna put me on
|
| Edgy DC Apr 13 2007 10:25 PM |
|
I'm there, too.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 13 2007 10:26 PM |
|
|
i think defensive is a VERY good description of Willie with the press, we can lay off the "dumb" though.
|
| cooby Apr 13 2007 10:30 PM |
|
|
Another one scheduled for the 19th, KC. Be there or be square.
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 13 2007 10:33 PM |
|
ny: >>>i think defensive is a VERY good description of Willie with the press<<< I don't see it, I'll look for it.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 13 2007 10:34 PM |
|
Ordonez- 12 homers and a .310 SLG thats all I have to say
|
| iramets Apr 13 2007 10:38 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 13 2007 10:44 PM |
|
I'm not asking you to admire Torre. But he's much more skillful at parrying questions. If Torre had risked the Burgos-vs-Ryan matchup (I'm not sure he would have, but let's say he would have), it might have gone like this: Mad Dog (or Other Schmuck): ""Joe, I gotta ask ya. Burgos against Ryan Howard? Jeez! I mean. Come on, Joe. What's up with that?" JT: "I was gambling, Chris. I felt that Burgos's confidence would be terrific if he could get past Howard in a tough spot. Unfortunately, he got his location a little off on that one pitch, and Ryan jacked it. He's a hell of a power hitter--you've got to tip your cap sometimes." MD: "But, Joe! Aren't ya saying, you know, that now Burgos' confidence is shot? I mean, your move backfired! It blew up in your face! The kid found out how bad a pitcher he is now. Isn't he going to be useless for the rest of his career, and it 's all your fault, at this point? Jeez! That was a dumb move, don't you agree?" JT: "I don't think so, Chris. I think Amby knows how much I like him, to have used him in that spot, and I've spoken to him and told him how much respect him, so I don't think we have any long-standing issues. But Amby feels terrible about giving up that HR--anyone would. He's a great young player, and he'll have wonderful days ahead of him." MD: "But what if this one loss comes back to kill ya in September? Say if you finish a game out of the playoffs. You'll feel pretty stupid then, for sure." JT: "Maybe. But we didn't lose this game, Chris, remember? I gambled, I lost on that one decision--I was hoping to stretch out my pen a little bit, but I ended up using Feliciano in the 6th anyway, as it turned out--, but luckily my players got us back into the game. But if we finish one game out, I'm sure there will be moves I made during the season that cost us a game here or there, Chris. You always find some blame if you finish just out of the money, and I'm sure some of it would be blame that belongs to me. I just hope that doesn't happen and I'm trying to do whatever I can to see that it doesn't. Thanks for asking, though, Chris."
|
| Edgy DC Apr 13 2007 10:42 PM |
|
Jeez, I even hypothetical Russo is an idiot.
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 13 2007 10:47 PM |
|
I ain't looking for parrying, I'm looking for W's. And when we're not getting a
|
| iramets Apr 13 2007 11:02 PM |
|
|
That's good. I ain't, either. FTR, I started exactly [url=http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=6068] one [/url] thread since Monday on the subject of Willie's managing, and in it I opined that he costs the Mets about three wins per year, in my view.
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 13 2007 11:06 PM |
|
Funny how focused you become on facts when someone else exaggerates
|
| iramets Apr 13 2007 11:10 PM |
|
[this post exists purely as a basis for KC to get in the last word. I think I'm done, but am keeping this post content-free to announce that when KC posts again, the last word is his! Congrats! Good one!]
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 13 2007 11:25 PM |
|
|
| Willets Point Apr 14 2007 12:13 AM |
|
Lost in all this Willie Randolph discussion is that there is a Great Rey O Debate going on somewhere in this thread.
|
| cooby Apr 14 2007 08:50 AM |
|
For me, it's the opposite. I haven't read a word about Willie
|
