Master Index of Archived Threads


Willie Needs to Grow a Pair

Centerfield May 25 2007 07:44 AM

Not that I'm blaming Willie for last night's loss (ok, maybe a little bit) but last night's game kind of sums up most of my problems with Willie. First of all, there have been a bunch of calls that have gone against the Mets in this series, the "catch" at second, the pickoff last night, Wright's checkswing...Willie didn't get tossed in any of them. I realize arguing with the ump isn't going to get a call reversed, but maybe making a big deal out of it leads to makeup calls later on. At the very least, it shows your guys you're into the game and willing to go to the mat for them. When Wright checked his swing, Willie came out to get him, and get him only. At that point he's got to take up his argument...even if he doesn't go as far as getting tossed (and if he does, get your money's worth). If Glavine is getting squeezed, bark at him from the dugout. The umps need to know that if you squeeze the Mets, you're in for a headache. I see Willie get confrontational and snide with reporters after a game but can't get up the courage to go to bat for his players. And the bunt, you have to be absolutely fucking kidding me. Three outs left in the game and you give one away. In Game 7, even though it didn't work out, I gave Willie props for going for it...re-naming him Wild Willie Big Balls...I take that back. He is Wee Willie again. Bunting to set it up for Franco who is hitting a buck thirty. On the road too. Small and stupid. Itty bitty stupid balls.

seawolf17 May 25 2007 07:48 AM

I always wish Willie would get more fired up and get in umpires' faces also, but I've always assumed that he doesn't, just by design; it's not his way. You look at the Piniellas and the Coxes, and Bobby V stamping out the tracks after the Knoblauch double, and Chuck Cottier throwing everything he could get his hands on out onto the field (two of my favorite "crazy manager" moments I've ever seen in person)... but how much does it work? Fact is, he won 97 games without going bonkers last year. And as much as I'd love for him to show some energy, I guess that's just not his style.

metirish May 25 2007 07:50 AM

I really don't think Willie needs to show his players that he's in the game by getting tossed,maybe it shows us fans,which should mean little to Willie,do we know that there was no barking from the dugout?... I get what you're saying CF but I just don't know that it makes a jot of difference if you go all Weaver on the ump. Angel Hernandez should be fired for years of bad calls. I didn't like the bunt there,Mex did and Gary didn't.

Centerfield May 25 2007 07:58 AM

I realize that's not Willie's style...I'm saying that I wish it was. Umpires are human beings...I think they know somewhere in the back of their heads that if you call a close one against Atlanta, you're getting an earful. And maybe it only makes a difference once in a great while, but if there's no penalty for it like there is in basketball, there's no harm in doing it. (I don't see getting tossed as a penalty, it has no effect on the score/count and you can manage from the dugout) Besides, if that's not Willie's style, why argue at all? In the Washington game, I believe there were three bad calls before Willie got tossed. What's the message there? "We're ok with two bad calls, but man, if you try to push it to three, we're gonna be pissed." And the frustrating thing is, I can see Willie animated in the dugout...griping with Glavine and LoDuca that they should be strikes. Go out and defend your guy then. Give the ump an earful. Get tossed if it means you send a message. Better Willie than LoDuca.

Edgy DC May 25 2007 07:58 AM

I'm not saying there's no worth to your suggesting, I just think it's his value system, not his lack of sack.

Centerfield May 25 2007 08:06 AM

What value system could that be? To not question authority? He's a manager...it comes with the territory. He's the one guy that can get rung without changing what takes place on the field. It's part of job description. If you're saying that Willie tends to be more a gentleman and stay even keel, that's fine. He doesn't need to throw any bases or stomp out lines. Just go out there. Question the call. Look upon the ump disapprovingly. Ask your player whether they're sure. Even just standing there with your arms folded shaking your head sends a message. Don't just sit in there in the dugout.

Edgy DC May 25 2007 08:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 25 2007 08:20 AM

It's the second, I guess. I think he questions authority. I think he just doesn't see value in intentionally getting tossed doing it. Though I don't know that this is true. There are only so many pieces of the puzzle we have. He's claimed Billy Martin as a primary influence, and obviously Martin felt differently. But a front-row seat at Martin's raging-maniac act --- and it's ultimate end --- is a lesson in itself. I wonder if peeps would be less interested in tearing the umps down if there were more chicks out there. Montgomery's Billy Gardner, Jr. is ripping apart this guy, but when the female crew chief comes over, he walks back to the dugout with his tail between his legs.

Elster88 May 25 2007 08:17 AM

Are you serious? I mean, did you watch that Weaver clip? I'm glad we don't have a manager who gets in playground fights with the umpire. ("You touched me" "No I didn't" "You put your finger on my chest" "No I didn't") OTOH, I see your point about getting in an ump's head and getting a call the next time. And it DID work in the Washington game, as we got the make-up call in the ninth enabling us to tie the game. But I don't necessarily see that tactic working on an ump like Angel Hernandez. And in the end he did win 97 games last year, and I'm glad he doesn't act like a fucking buffoon out there like Pinella. (I love Bobby V, but more for the moments when he snuck back in with the glasses than the line-stomping incident)

Centerfield May 25 2007 08:31 AM

Why does it have to be Weaver or nothing? I'm not saying he has to get hysterical. There are lots of steps between Randolph and Weaver and I'm saying I wish Willie would find a spot somewhere in between. On some of these calls, Willie does nothing. On the pickoff play last night, he didn't even get out of the dugout...and that could have turned into a huge run. I'm not kidding when I say this, just standing out there with his arms crossed would probably do the trick. Make it uncomfortable. Make them send you back to the dugout. He never has to lose his cool...all he has to do is look visibly irritated. Umpires know that the longer a manager argues, the more times the play is being shown on replay. And I believe some umps know that they might have missed one...and the last thing you want to do is let it get swept under the rug.

soupcan May 25 2007 08:42 AM

I'm not sure I disagree with the bunt there. I was watching that with 4 other guys last night and none of them liked it, but it puts the tying run in scoring position with a guy who is supposed to be your #1 PH coming up. If Franco gets the hit do you still diasgree with the bunt?

Centerfield May 25 2007 09:05 AM

soupcan wrote: If Franco gets the hit do you still diasgree with the bunt? Yes. A manager cannot get results, all he can do is try to maximize the chances of success. Bunting (and giving away an out when you have only 3 left) for a guy hitting under .200 hardly qualifies as that in my book. It's the same way I agreed with letting Floyd hit away in Game 7 last year.

soupcan May 25 2007 09:25 AM

If your philosophy is different than Willie's that's cool, but you can't get on him for going for the higher percentage play

Edgy DC May 25 2007 09:34 AM

Is the bunt demonstrably the higher percentage play?

Frayed Knot May 25 2007 09:52 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Is the bunt demonstrably the higher percentage play? Generic stats show that it's more or less a wash: 1st & 2nd, 0 Outs = 16.5% chance of scoring exactly 2 runs 2nd & 3rd, 1 Out = 21.8% chance of exactly two But that's a bit misleading in that you're stealing from the "two or more" categories, not the "one or less" Odds of scoring at least two runs = 42.1% (1st & 2nd, 0 outs) vs. 41.0% with 2nd & 3rd/1 out. And the other thing to consider is that those are the odds assuming that the bunt play works. Sometimes they don't. Personally, I don't like the bunt there down by two. If it was only one run I'm more OK with it. I'm more upset by using Franco to PH when Easley was available. It's not like there's another spot coming up that you're saving him for.

G-Fafif May 25 2007 09:58 AM

Willie needs to grow a pair of dependable pinch-hitters. Can those be grown? Is there an umpires union that can be broken up again? I haven't seen such horrendous officiating again and again since the heyday of Eric Gregg. Randazzo blowing calls left and right (against both teams) in Washington...Mike Winters ejecting El Duque on absurd grounds...Carlson at second the other night...Carlson having no discernible strike zone last night...Larry Young contentedly picking wax out of his ear after demonstrating his lack of familiarity with the checked swing. The whole profession of umpiring has been set back eight years.

soupcan May 25 2007 10:00 AM

Well I guess you prove me wrong. If the higher percentage is not sacrificing then that's what I'd do as well.

Edgy DC May 25 2007 10:02 AM

Our win expectancy was 27.6% going into the bunt, and 23.9% coming out of it. We executed successfully and still lost ground.

Frayed Knot May 25 2007 04:41 PM

Well it seems that Mr. Gotay missed a couple of signs in the 9th on Thursday night. Willie apparently had the bunt sign ON for the first pitch, in part as a caution against Wickman's sinker and a possible GiDP. But he then took the bunt play off for the next (two, I think) pitches - hoping maybe for a anti-bunting fastball a la Chavez/Pettitte - but Gotay went right on bunting. WR: "Yes, he'll be fined"

iramets May 25 2007 05:05 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: WR: "Yes, he'll be fined" I keep hearing that in the aggrieved tone of "Yes, Joe, it's toasted."

Batty31 May 25 2007 05:09 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Well it seems that Mr. Gotay missed a couple of signs in the 9th on Thursday night. Willie apparently had the bunt sign ON for the first pitch, in part as a caution against Wickman's sinker and a possible GiDP. But he then took the bunt play off for the next (two, I think) pitches - hoping maybe for a anti-bunting fastball a la Chavez/Pettitte - but Gotay went right on bunting. WR: "Yes, he'll be fined" I guess you didn't see I posted about the missed signs in the IGT from last night. :(

Frayed Knot May 25 2007 05:12 PM

Posted mine prior to reading yours. Oh well.