Master Index of Archived Threads


Torches and Pitchforks (spit from IGT 4/24)

Grote15 Apr 24 2008 08:26 PM

Can one..just one person agree with me that Willie Randolph needs to go. Geez..I started thinking if Frank thomas could play first base...Now we have AA catching. Less spark than 9/2007 As Otter siad. "This is ridiculous" Where have you gone paul loduca our lonely eyes turn to you Oh for heilman. I dont like you, and I never liked you..But we're stuck with you..Sosa can be dispensed with..like..now?

mario25 Apr 24 2008 08:31 PM

Call Piazza...he will catch...then let him end his career as a Rh hitter /spot starter off the bench....

Triple Dee Apr 24 2008 08:32 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 24 2008 08:50 PM

Grote15 wrote: Can one..just one person agree with me that Willie Randolph needs to go. Me, and I've been it saying since last September. Willie's a nice guy, but a good baseball manager, he is not.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 24 2008 08:36 PM

Grote15 wrote: Can one..just one person agree with me that Willie Randolph needs to go I was calling for him to go by about Memorial Day of 2005. I thought for for sure that he wouldn't survive last season's finish when the season ended.

mario25 Apr 24 2008 08:37 PM

He can go in my book but who takes over???? Hojo? Wally Backaman??? Just wondering who fans would like in there.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 24 2008 08:40 PM

mario25 wrote: He can go in my book but who takes over???? Hojo? Wally Backaman??? Just wondering who fans would like in there. I'd give it to Rickey Henderson just to stick it to that Camera guy.

mario25 Apr 24 2008 08:42 PM

Jerry Manuel has managed previously

OlerudOwned Apr 24 2008 08:45 PM

Switch Willie with Acta in the dead of night and skip town.

Triple Dee Apr 24 2008 08:48 PM

mario25 wrote: Jerry Manuel has managed previously That's the first sensible suggestion I've heard.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 09:57 AM

So, let's take inventory here, what is Willie appearing to fail at and what can be improved, either by him or by a replacement. Answers I like: He's over-using Aaron Heilman. He's mis-using Aaron Heilman. He's not clear with Aaron Heilman about Heilman's role. Answers I dis-like: He's using Aaron Heilman!

metirish Apr 25 2008 10:13 AM

I don't much care for Randolph but I would not be rushing to Jerry Manuel , I think this team needs a big shake up and cutting Delgado might do that , not going to happen though.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 10:15 AM

What will cutting Delgado do? I can't see that teaching other players not to get old and decline.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 25 2008 10:36 AM

Cutting Delgado would shake up the team. It wouldn't by any means improve it, but it would shake it up. You don't (and can't) cut Delgado until and unless you have someone to replace him with. And the Mets simply don't.

metirish Apr 25 2008 10:38 AM

AG/DC wrote: What will cutting Delgado do? I can't see that teaching other players not to get old and decline. Fair point , it's not his fault he is getting old and declining , still I would cut him .

seawolf17 Apr 25 2008 10:41 AM

Batty31 Apr 25 2008 10:53 AM

I couldn't resist posting this after seawolf's post.... Bobby in Disguise (To the tune of Judy in Disguise) Bobby in disguise Well that's how you stayed Trying to hide, yeah Beneath a pair of shades But you were spied By the TV guys Bobby in disguise -- with glasses Black tape for a mustache And a non-Mets cap Then the league said "Bobby, your pay is zapped." Stayin' in the clubhouse would have been wise Bobby in disguise -- with glasses You couldn't stay out of sight You couldn't stay out of sight You made the umpire uptight By questioning his calls that night Bobby in disguise Well that's how you stayed Trying to hide, yeah Beneath a pair of shades But you were spied By the TV guys Bobby in disguise -- with glasses (instrumental interlude) You couldn't stay out of sight You couldn't stay out of sight You made the umpire uptight By questioning his calls that night Bobby in disguise You gotta work real hard To win the East division, yeah Or get a wild card Before your whole system crashes I guess I'll just take your glasses

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 25 2008 10:55 AM

Torches & pitchforks? Look, we don't have poison the well on both ends here. I am thinking the reason to fire a manager is not when results are bad, necessarily, but when the players stop playing hard for him and he loses whatever ability he possesses to get something from them. The Mets seem to have resumed the uninspired ball they played for much of last year. But in the intrerest of fairness I will give Wilie at least the first one-third of the year to show the team can accomplish inspired ball under his watch and assess then. That's about twice what we've played already, or 55 games. Sound fair?

Grote15 Apr 25 2008 10:59 AM

AG/DC wrote: So, let's take inventory here, what is Willie appearing to fail at and what can be improved, either by him or by a replacement. Answers I like: He's over-using Aaron Heilman. He's mis-using Aaron Heilman. He's not clear with Aaron Heilman about Heilman's role. Answers I dis-like: He's using Aaron Heilman! Aaron Heilman is not the issue..The Mets in my opinion have been lethargic since Willie took over..Never more so than 2007-2008..I believe a manager is responsible for getting the most from what he has..not just making the same annoyed face when fundamental after fundamental are botched. For God's sake Reyes looks like he's in a coma and almost afraid of playing..Delgado? We all get old if we're lucky..The Mets gambled and as of now its' not a winning bet. I would replace him with Bobby V..he fought for his players..ever seen Willie do that? But since Bobby V wont happen I think Jerry Manuel or Howard Johnson would be a worthy choice

Benjamin Grimm Apr 25 2008 11:10 AM

metirish wrote: Fair point , it's not his fault he is getting old and declining , still I would cut him . And who's your everyday first baseman? Marlon Anderson?

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 11:11 AM

I have no problem with giving him the first third. I just want to be clear on what we're looking for. More inspired play? Yup. More focused play certainly. The problem with hunch management is it leaves players, I think, less than confident with what values govern the team. What they'll get praised for vs. What the'll get ripped for. I would have liked to rip them for going down on 15 pitches the last two innings in Chicago.

TheOldMole Apr 25 2008 11:14 AM

I'm not ready to jump ship on Willie yet. Can't one of their outfielders move to first? Outfielders move to first all the time. They have four guys, when Alou comes back, who are credible starters in the outfield -- more credible as starters than Delgado at this point.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 11:33 AM

Outfielders do move to first all the time. It's just that he weakest one --- Moises --- has never played there, and experimenting is less common at his age. None of them have played there.

sharpie Apr 25 2008 11:38 AM

I'm also for giving him the first third of the season. As to replacements, I think the Bobby Valentine ship has sailed. There are surely other smart fellows around. Moises comes back in a few days which should be a real boon to the offense. Let Delgado bat seventh for a while in the hopes that he regains his stroke and stops grounding out to first all of the time. I was pleased that the other night Sanchez was in the role that Heilman would have been in before.

TransMonk Apr 25 2008 11:43 AM

mario25 wrote: Jerry Manuel has managed previously And didn't do much better than Willie...a whole bunch of second place finishes with some pretty talented teams. The one time he did win the division he got outmanaged and swept by Lou Pinella playing small ball. You can put me down for thinking that Manuel may be part of the problem. If there is a shake-up, may it start with him. How many here think the 1999 shake up of coaches had an effect on the outcome of that season?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 25 2008 11:49 AM

Well, we tried the whack-the-coach shakeup at the ASB last year when Rickey came in and Down went down. Didn't do nothin. I'm not say Willie is the reason the team plays like shit half the time, but the team is playing like shit half the time.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 11:56 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Torches & pitchforks? Look, we don't have poison the well on both ends here. Is that a real metaphor? Sorry, just trying to capture the tone of the early posts. I can't always be relied on this capacity. Mid-season coach-whacks more typically go after instructors (pitching and batting coaches) than braintrusters (bench and thirdbase coaches), don't they?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 25 2008 12:06 PM

OK. But the image kinda makes the idea of holding WWSB responsible for this mess as crazy and irrational and rooting for it. What do you think about the manager?

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 12:36 PM Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Apr 25 2008 12:43 PM

Well, some of it is irrational. Blood in the water and sharks circling and such. Twenty games into the season, and I want an answer, not just a corpse. I know they can do better than Willie. I don't see him righting this ship. I wrote above that I think the whole hunch thing leaves players at sea when adversity hits. I think the best managers instill core values, and try and get core players to embody those, so the other players feel that, if they're not hitting, as long as they walk the manager's walk, they'll be fine. I think Willie lets on that he is pushing core values --- "Winners don't do that" and such --- but he's not. I think he's philosphically ambiguous and his players sense there's nothing but an insecure man behind the curtain of Oz. The thing is, I kind of see Omar the same way. I think he's smart and a good judge of talent, but philosophically, he's just back and forth. I think Marty Noble was right about the Bannister trade. They say they want guys who know how to pitch and then go out and trade one for a raw talent and assume Peterson and staff can shape him. The Seo trade worked, let's try and repeat that. Oh, that didn't work. Let's never do that again. I'm glad Willie's not a hotheaded showboat like Pinella or Bowa. That stuff embarrasses me. Once upon a time, I think, players respected him and felt he was fighting for them in his own way. Since the second half last year, though, I think they just think he's a pushover and they're on their own. Who would I like? Stearns intrigues me. That's when the time comes. Now, I just want Willie to find himself and them never to ever lose again ever. That makes me the irrational one.

Fman99 Apr 25 2008 12:39 PM

I think the best guy to replace Willie is anyone who is not Willie Randolph. Sometimes the change itself is the impetus, and not the change from a type A guy to a type B guy. I think the time to do it was last November. :sigh:

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 12:47 PM

The more I think about about it, I think most successful managers have that player they mold and embody their philosphy in. I think Casey's player was Berra. I think Hodges' was Seaver. I think Valentine's was Alfonzo. And I think Willie's is supposed to be Reyes. And if Reyes is confused about how to carry himself, maybe that's the bad sign we should be picking up on. Delgado has been mentoring Reyes recently. Hey, maybe he's the manager we need.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 25 2008 12:53 PM

I was thinking about Stearns too. I remember in 2000, when Dude was a coach with the Mets, I was thinking it would be nice if Stearns was Bobby's eventual replacement. (Not that I was looking to get rid of Bobby, of course.) Most of all, though, I'd like somebody who's smart. I don't think Willie's dumb, but his intelligence doesn't appear to be at all above average. Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine are the smartest managers the Mets ever had, and the two I enjoyed most. I don't really know of anyone who would fit that bill, but from where I am, it's not always easy to know which candidates are smart and which ones aren't. Tim Teufel has been paying his dues. Is he big league manager material? I really can't say. I'm not sold on HoJo either. Bud Harrelson's Mets resume is tarnished by his time as manager, but that was such a short stint and such a long time ago now that it's mostly forgotten. I'd hate to see HoJo endure something similar. I don't want Gary Carter's name in the mix either. I think he'd be an awful manager.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 25 2008 12:57 PM

I'll throw out a weird one -- Ken Oberkfell. I know he's a former eeemy, but he's been with the org for awhile now and well thought of. Wears No. 0, which would be cool.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 12:58 PM

Oh, I think Oberkfell is definitely on the radar. I just wonder how entwined Willie and Omar are.

metsguyinmichigan Apr 25 2008 01:23 PM

Gary Carter. It seemed like they were grooming him for a while. Did well at the low level he was at, which I realize is not the majors, but still. He'd certainly bring some fire, and draw attention away from the struggling players.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 25 2008 01:27 PM

I'm afraid that hiring Gary Carter would be a lot like hiring Rosie O'Donnell. It would all be about him. There are good distractions, and there are bad distractions. I think Gary would be a bad distraction. (Although it would be fun to hear Keith Hernandez criticize and second guess him from the booth.)

metirish Apr 25 2008 01:27 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ="metirish"]Fair point , it's not his fault he is getting old and declining , still I would cut him . And who's your everyday first baseman? Marlon Anderson? Tatis , Abreu at AAA , can they be any worse , I am sure Minaya could pick a first baseman up .

Benjamin Grimm Apr 25 2008 01:30 PM

There's no way I cut Carlos Delgado and give the everyday first base job to Michel Abreu in a year in which I hope to win the pennant. I don't see how Tatis or Abreu's upside is a whole lot more than Delgado's downside. I'll grant that it's more, but I'd still rather take a chance on Delgado improving. Not to a 38-homer season; I think those days are done. But I think there's a reasonable chance that he can hit 15 to 20. And if he does that from the 7-hole, it's not horrible.

AG/DC Apr 25 2008 01:37 PM

I'm certain they can be worse. I don't get the zeal to cut. If they give somebody else some at-bats and they start performing, then that person have an opportunity to win the job. Releasing a guy out of spite and then just hoping that somebody slides in there doesn't hedge bets at all.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 25 2008 03:50 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm afraid that hiring Gary Carter would be a lot like hiring Rosie O'Donnell. Rosie O'Donnell. I wish I thought of that one. Funny.

metirish Apr 25 2008 04:14 PM

Delgado sits tonight and Anderson plays first , per the FAN.

TheOldMole Apr 25 2008 06:27 PM

]I think the best guy to replace Willie is anyone who is not Willie Randolph. In that case, I'll take the job.

DocTee Apr 25 2008 07:20 PM

This performance would test the patience of Job. Gotta think about making a change.

Triple Dee Apr 26 2008 04:38 AM

metirish wrote: I don't much care for Randolph but I would not be rushing to Jerry Manuel Jerry Manuel's teams are known for the playing the sort of one-dimensional baseball, that would not suit the current Mets roster. However, I was just pointing out he's a more sensible suggestion than some of the other names that have been flaunted around the traps, such as Buck Showalter , the Genius, or Lee Mazzilli.

Triple Dee Apr 26 2008 05:30 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 26 2008 06:19 AM

="Grote15"] Aaron Heilman is not the issue.. Willie's management of the bullpen has been consistently bad, and in the short time I've been posting in IGTs, I've heard people consistently question his bullpen moves. As for Heilman, I like Aaron and I believe he can be an asset to the Mets when used correctly. However, over the last 3 years his Inherited Runners Stranded percentage has been consistently below the league average at 63%. That means 37% of base runners inherited by Heilman score. By contrast, Feliciano strands 74%, and is one of the best in the league. Schoeneweis is even better, believe it or not (when I have time, I'll post a table to CPF) Anyway, from this, it's pretty obvious that Heilman has not been used properly by Willie, and by extension the rest of the bullpen. The idea that Willie couldn't figure out how to pitch the Schoeneweis to more LHB and less RHB last season, exemplifies his incompetence in this regard.

Triple Dee Apr 26 2008 05:58 AM

="Batty31"] Bobby in Disguise The Mets need the Genius, like a hole in the head, Like a hole in the head, Like a hole in the head.

Frayed Knot Apr 26 2008 06:36 AM

]... from this it's pretty obvious that Heilman has not been used properly by Willie. Meaning what, that he should never be brought in mid-inning? First of all he usually isn't - and his bad games have been a mix of full inning outings in addition to some partials. And even if he is brought in w/runners-on it's still up to him to get the job done. And the larger point is that I'm generally leery of throwing down the "mismanaging the bullpen" card as it frequently just seems to be code for either - 'the guy he brought in gave up runs', or - 'I don't like the guy he brought in and I don't want him used ever' (aka, he used Mota). I'm not trying to start a pro-Willie campaign here, but I really don't get most of the 'bullpen mismgmt' arguments - and particularly so with Heilman. If, over the first 3 weeks here, Aaron had been a fraction of what he's been over the last two seasons (ERA ~ 3.30; WHiP ~ 1.10; 1 HR/~13 IP - instead of the current 6.23; 1.69; 1/3.5) would that mean he wasn't being mis-used?

Triple Dee Apr 26 2008 07:13 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: First of all he usually isn't - and his bad games have been a mix of full inning outings in addition to some partials. And even if he is brought in w/runners-on it's still up to him to get the job done. If 37% (29/78) of inherited runners over 3 years have scored from him, wouldn't this suggest he's incapable of getting the job done? I repeat again, I have no issue with Heilman, and I believe he can be used as an effective pitcher.

AG/DC Apr 26 2008 07:20 AM

I don't know. What's the standard on inherited runners? How many of those runners were on third with no outs and how many on first with two? How many were important tying runs, and how many were less important than getting the batter?

batmagadanleadoff Apr 26 2008 07:31 AM

Triple Dee wrote: If 37% (29/78) of inherited runners over 3 years have scored from him, wouldn't this suggest he's incapable of getting the job done? If he can't get the job done, why should he pitch at all? Unless his job should be to come in at the top of the inning with an eight run lead.

Triple Dee Apr 26 2008 07:55 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 26 2008 08:51 AM

="AG/DC"]I don't know. What's the standard on inherited runners? How many of those runners were on third with no outs and how many on first with two? How many were important tying runs, and how many were less important than getting the batter? I calculated Heilman's inherited runners scored % using raw data. The rest of the Mets bullpen over the same period (3 years) were: Feliciano - 23% Sosa - 29% Sanchez - 17% (small sample) Smith - 41% (over 2 years) Wise - 33% Schoeneweis - 19% Wagner - 38% (very small sample; Wagner has only inherited 8 runners in the last 3 years) I have to admit this statistic may be unstable for two reasons (1) it is likely to be biased in favor of situational pitchers; (2) the standard actually varies according to the total amount of inherited runners faced. But I found some figures for comparison of inherited runners stranded % which measures the exact opposite (eg Heilman's would be 63%) [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/touchingbase/2007/10/top-relievers-win-inheritance.html]here[/url]

Triple Dee Apr 26 2008 08:00 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: If he can't get the job done, why should he pitch at all? Unless his job should be to come in at the top of the inning with an eight run lead. The state of play in the game (ie the lead) is not relevant to this statistic. Also, some closers have high inherited runners scored percentages, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't pitch at all.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 26 2008 08:05 AM

Triple Dee wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]If he can't get the job done, why should he pitch at all? Unless his job should be to come in at the top of the inning with an eight run lead. The state of play in the game (ie the lead) is not relevant to this statistic. Also, some closers have high inherited runners scored percentages, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't pitch at all. Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a pitcher who can get the job done. But maybe that's just me.

Frayed Knot Apr 26 2008 09:12 AM

]If 37% (29/78) of inherited runners over 3 years have scored from him, wouldn't this suggest he's incapable of getting the job done? Not necessarily - and especially not if you're asking me to base a decision on an admittedly "unstable" stat like that which doesn't take situations into account and probably tends to vary over time. Plus, even if Heilman's pct is high, it looks like we may be talking about a half-dozen or so runs above 'normal' over a several year span. That's not something I'd avoid mid-inning usage over - and I'm still just assuming that mid-inning usage is your objection here. (btw, the one set of league-wide numbers I was able to find showed Heilman's 2007 'inherited runners allowed to score vs expected' to be virtually neutral) ]I repeat again, I have no issue with Heilman, and I believe he can be used as an effective pitcher. And how is that different from how he is being used?

TheOldMole Apr 26 2008 09:28 AM

He's currently not beig used as an effective pitcher.

Triple Dee Apr 26 2008 09:59 AM

="Frayed Knot"] Plus, even if Heilman's pct is high, it looks like we may be talking about a half-dozen or so runs above 'normal' over a several year span. From one point of view, I'm inclined to agree with you; I don't think it is that drastic of a problem -- and even if it was, the Mets do not have the luxury of using Heilman exclusively when there are no runners on base. The reason I quoted those figures was to suggest that Heilman's problem may be psychological rather than a defect in his pitching. ="Frayed Knot"]And how is that different from how he is being used? I don't have any overarching objection of bringing Heilman into a game with runners on base. However, I do think Heilman is a pitcher who struggles a lot when he's low on confidence. Willie's thought process appears to be that a pitcher who's had a rough outing should seek instant redemption. I don't necessarily agree with that because baseball is a very streaky game. While this approach may have short-term rewards (eg Heilman in the recent Phillies series), I think in the long-run it is more counter-productive. To sum-up, I would be more protective of a pitcher who has lost a key game or has given up many runs is a short space of time, etc.

metsmarathon Apr 26 2008 11:15 AM

in 2007, about 195 relievers were tasked with stranding 15 or more baserunners. these relievers stranded, on average, 69% of the baserunners they inherited. aaron heilman, in 2007, stranded 72% (21/29) of the baserunners he inherited. in 2006, about 190 relievers were tasked with stranding 15 or more baserunners. these relievers stranded, on average, 68% of the baserunners they inherited. aaron heilman, in 2006, stranded 50% (7/14) of the baserunners he inherited. in 2005, an unknown number of relievers were tasked with stranding 15 or more baserunners, as the only site i could find with a sortable list of inherited runners only had 2006 and '07. these relievers probably stranded, on average, 68-69% of the baserunners they inherited, based on the similarity of the prior two years' data. aaron heilman, in 2005, stranded 71% (20/28) of the baserunners he inherited. over the three year period, aaron heilman stranded 48 of the 71 runners he inherited, for a 67.6% stranding rate - approximately league average, if ever so slightly below it. including this year, he has stranded 50 of the 78 runners he has inherited, for a 64% stranding rate. the difference between this rate, and the league average rate of a presumed 69%, is 3.5 runners. since 2005, aaron heilman is about 3.5 inherited runners scoring off of league average pace, and those 3.5 runs all basically came in this year. does that really make the case that he is awful and should never be brought in with runners on base? not to me. granted, he has to start getting it done this year, but he's proven in the past that he can indeed get it done. (inherited runners sortable list credit sportsnet.ca - aaron heilman's career stats credit espn.com, which maddeningly does not allow one to find inherited runners in any sortable table. grr.)

AG/DC Apr 26 2008 11:17 AM

I think Heilman is low on confidence right now. I think the other pitchers, the hitters, the coaches, and the fans are low on confidence right now, and we're all struggling. Fran Healy, we cry to you.

Frayed Knot Apr 26 2008 12:42 PM

]I don't have any overarching objection of bringing Heilman into a game with runners on base. However, I do think Heilman is a pitcher who struggles a lot when he's low on confidence. Putting AH into a group which includes ... oh just about every pitcher who's ever pitched in MLB. And if one wants to make the argument that maybe Smith should have been used the other day (the Nats game w/the GS) rather than a struggling Heilman then I'm OK with that. My overall point is that, while I can always find individual cases where I disagree with the use of a particular reliever in a specific spot, what I don't find with Willie is a pattern that points to "consistently bad" mismanagement, a viewpoint which, IMO, is one many fans are too eager to jump on whenever (and usually after) the results aren't what we want.

Triple Dee Apr 27 2008 12:46 AM Edited 4 time(s), most recently on Apr 27 2008 03:17 AM

metsmarathon wrote: in 2007, about 195 relievers were tasked with stranding 15 or more baserunners. these relievers stranded, on average, 69% of the baserunners they inherited. Where did you get the league info from ( I'm not disputing it, I just couldn't find it myself)? Also, as I mentioned before, the mean is highly sensistive according to the total amount of runners inherited (see the "here" link I provided earlier in this thread). So you'll need to calculate the average according to pitchers with a similar amount of innings to Heilman. Fwiw, I do not think Heilman will compare unfavorably to this group. I wish I had more time to devote to this. Maybe I'll return it one day. On edit: I have to say, this stat makes Schoeneweis look infinitely better than his ERA gives him credit for. However, if I dug deeper I'm sure to find he predominately (if not exclusively) faces LHB when he inherits runners.

Triple Dee Apr 27 2008 12:51 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Putting AH into a group which includes ... oh just about every pitcher who's ever pitched in MLB. Well, the point I was trying to convey is that Heilman is more vulnerable in periods of low confidence. I recall his body language and demeanor from the early part of 2007, and it looked like he still had Yadier Molina on his mind.

AG/DC Apr 27 2008 06:26 AM

And he still put together a good season, and in September was pretty much the only bullpenner we had performing.

Triple Dee Apr 27 2008 06:55 AM

Yes he did, and I have the utmost belief he'll be just as productive this season, when he gets over his current trough.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 27 2008 09:14 AM

I was wondering: what's Heilman's Confidence Rankings? And how confident is that ranking? Is the sample size big enough? I would take an educated guess that AH's Confidence Rankings are probably lower than his Heart Zone Rating, which is even lower than his Gutitude+.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 27 2008 09:19 AM

I was wondering if perhaps, AH's low Confidence Ranking isn't being offset by Willie's superduperly high Heilman Confidence-Confidence Ranking, which measures Randolph's trust in whatever particular player is being measured. Although I'm not sure what to make of it, to be honest with you. Maybe Willie can send AH to pinch-hit and throw down a sac bunt one of these games. Maybe even with nobody on base so that it wouldn't matter if AH screwed that up. That should boost the kid's confidence.

TheOldMole Apr 27 2008 04:25 PM

What you really look for in a manager is demonstrated lack of confidence in his players.

AG/DC Jun 15 2008 07:55 PM

Data isn't the plural of anecdote, but I suspect there's something about a Yankee series that suggests itself as a good time for a shakeup. Valentine's staff was gutted in the middle of a Yankee series. Chris Chambliss replaced Dave Engle on the dawn of a Yankee series. Heck maybe HoJo would've replaced Down at a Yankee game (he came during the All Star break) if there were any left. I therefore have a suspicion the the upcoming four-game set with the Yanks could bring this Willie Watch to a head.

Nymr83 Jun 15 2008 08:45 PM

i think the 7-1 win the other day and salvaging the doubleheader today were just enough to save willie again. i really get the feeling the mets keep winning just one game at the right time to prevent willie from getting the axe.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 15 2008 08:56 PM

I'm afraid that if Willie gets whacked we'll still play poorly, so I'm sorta rooting for Willie to continue dangling, for the team to take him to the brink of joblessness again and again, only to win him one brief reprieve after another, until the season finally ends. I mean, that's already the defining characteristic of the 2008 season: It's the Year Willie Barely Hung On. We may as well prepare for this kind of excitement to get us through the year because it's probably a better bet of continuing than a playoff chase at this point. Go ambiguity!

AG/DC Jun 15 2008 09:15 PM

The talk of the booth --- who mosty avoided the Willie issue on Friday night --- was how Willie is suddenly seeming more relaxed than he's seemed his entire tenure. That the amazingly resilient human animal that he is has somehow accepted living under the Sword of Damocles as his natural condition, and is determined to enjoy whatever ride he's got left.