Master Index of Archived Threads


Things I Have Disgreed With Willie About

AG/DC May 20 2008 07:54 AM

The whole no-roles attitude toward the 2007 (and, to a lesser extent, be hionest) 2008 bullpens. It seemed designed to toughen them up, but ultimately seemed to help break them down. Add your own.

Benjamin Grimm May 20 2008 07:56 AM

Too many bullpen moves. Too many guys coming in to pitch to one batter.

Gwreck May 20 2008 07:59 AM

Bunting is for losers. 1st and 3rd with 1 out and the pitcher up, I want our pitcher swinging away. Unwillingness to pinch-hit or pinch-run. Particularly frustrating when it's late and we've had one of our crappy backup catchers in the game but we haven't hit (or run) for him.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 20 2008 08:13 AM

Seemingly too tolerant of games and/or innings pissed away; insistence that "my team plays hard for me" not evident in far too many games and innings. Bunts more than I'd like.

Benjamin Grimm May 20 2008 08:26 AM

This game. This game just killed me. Feliciano, the game's fifth relief pitcher, is on the mound in the bottom of the 9th in Miami, protecting a three-run lead. (The Mets had just had a rousing four-run rally in the top of that inning.) Feliciano gives up a leadoff single. Willie, in a move that reeked of panic, immediately pulls Felicano and puts in Sosa. The sixth relief pitcher of the game. Sosa doesn't have it, but there are few remaining alternatives in the pen, so he stays in and gives up three hits and lets three runs score, tying the game. The team was playing scared in September of 2007. And worse, Willie was managing scared, even if he pretended to be cool during interviews. MARLINS 9TH: CASTRO REPLACED ANDERSON (PLAYING C ); FELICIANO REPLACED ALOU (PITCHING); GOMEZ STAYED IN GAME (PLAYING RF); CHAVEZ REPLACED GREEN (PLAYING LF); Hermida singled to center; SOSA REPLACED FELICIANO (PITCHING); Cabrera doubled to left [Hermida to third]; Amezaga grounded out (shortstop to first) [Hermida scored, Cabrera to third]; Jacobs singled to third [Cabrera scored]; ABERCROMBIE RAN FOR JACOBS; Ross singled to left [Abercrombie to third, Ross to second (on throw)]; Treanor grounded out (shortstop to first) [Abercrombie scored, Ross to third]; WOOD BATTED FOR LINDSTROM; Wood popped to first; 3 R, 4 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Mets 7, Marlins 7.

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 08:30 AM

It's so much. It's indiscriminate bunting. It's too much bunting. It's bunting without rhyme or reason. When do Randolph's Mets play for the big inning? When they're down by four with two innings left to play? Is Randolph's ideal inning supposed to be where Reyes gets pushed around the bases on outs so that Beltran could sac fly him in? Is this why the Mets lavished Beltran with so much money? It's moronic lineups, and I'm not just nit-picking about batting the cleanup hitter third or the seventh place hitter sixth. It's about sticking an eighth place hitter in the #2 spot. Or giving Reyes 700 plate appearances from the leadoff spot when it's painfully obvious that he's not deserving, not by a longshot. It's about batting Piazza cleanup for most of the season even though he stopped hitting like a Hall of Famer years before. Or burying maybe your best hitter (Wright '05) at the bottom of the lineup. Overusing the bullpen? Already mentioned. One of the characteristics of Randolph's Mets that isn't mentioned enough is that they just might be the worst base-running team in all of baseball. Last year, for instance, some SABR site ran a comprehensive study on team base-running, accounting for as much data as possible --- stolen bases and caught stealings obviously, but also getting picked off, the ability or inability of runners to take an extra base on a single, to score from first on a double, getting thrown out on the base paths, punishing teams severely for getting thrown out at home or third, etc. Only one team fared worse than the Mets. And this shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone who watches this team regularly. The Mets seemingly can't go more than two or three games without making some egregiously bad baserunning play. This stuff adds up.

AG/DC May 20 2008 08:33 AM

That's a good-em answer. I would have more generally put down "Managed scared down the stretch in 2007" or "Managed the bullpen scared down the stretch in 2007," but you nailed it.

Gwreck May 20 2008 08:43 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 20 2008 08:49 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Or giving Reyes 700 plate appearances from the leadoff spot when it's painfully obvious that he's not deserving, not by a longshot. If Reyes isn't leading off, who is? (And if Reyes isn't leading off, where is he batting in the order?) --- I will also note that in 2007, Reyes' .354 OBP was 3rd best among team regulars (behind Wright and Alou). Granted that it was higher in April-August and much lower in September. This year? He is currently lagging behind behind all regulars not named Delgado. But is this reason to bat Beltran leadoff? (Or Castillo?) Edits: 1 to add the 2008 comparison, 1 to fix my inability to edit properly.

AG/DC May 20 2008 08:47 AM

Yeah, I've got little problem with his lineups, outside of the much rehashed Cairo-second assignments of 2005. But his 2005 lineups seemed to be as much about the developing a team to win as winning the day, and I can roll with that.

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 08:49 AM

Gwreck wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]Or giving Reyes 700 plate appearances from the leadoff spot when it's painfully obvious that he's not deserving, not by a longshot. If Reyes isn't leading off, who is? (And if Reyes isn't leading off, where is he batting in the order?) I will also note that in 2007, Reyes' .354 OBP was 3rd best among team regulars (behind Wright and Alou). Granted that it was higher in April-August and much lower in September. I was talking about 2005. I should have made that clearer. In 2005, Reyes had no command of the strike zone, and was one of the worst everyday players in all of baseball. And his numbers didn't tell the full story. You had to see him play (and I assume you did) to appreciate how bad of a hitter, how overmatched he was at that point in his career. There's no reason why Reyes couldn't work out his difficulties from the bottom of the order.

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 08:50 AM

AG/DC wrote: Yeah, I've got little problem with his lineups, outside of the much rehashed Cairo-second assignments of 2005. But his 2005 lineups seemed to be as much about the developing a team to win as winning the day, and I can roll with that. Except that they were contending for most of 2005.

Gwreck May 20 2008 08:51 AM

I'm still not clear though on who on the 2005 Mets would have been a better leadoff hitter. Cameron, when healthy?

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 08:56 AM

Gwreck wrote: I'm still not clear though on who on the 2005 Mets would have been a better leadoff hitter. Cameron, when healthy? Maybe the better is question is "Why should Reyes (v.2005) lead off?" To me, it makes no sense to give the most at bats to the batter who is just about the most likeliest to make an out. I'd say that Cameron would've been a better choice.

Gwreck May 20 2008 09:02 AM

I don't disagree about Reyes being a subpar leadoff hitter. But if Randolph had little options, that's more of a Minaya beef than a Randolph beef. Cameron would have been a good choice when healthy, but of course was hurt for all of April '05 and then after the collision was out for the year. So there were still a lot of leadoff at-bats to go around. After Cameron, who was the second best choice to lead off? Beltran?

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 09:16 AM

Reyes was so bad that almost anybody would've been better. After Cameron's season-ending injury, why not Victor Diaz? Unorthodox, but somewhat more effective. Of course, once the Mets fell out of the race, this stuff mattered less. But I still don't see why it should've been Reyes.

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 09:18 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 20 2008 09:21 AM

Gwreck wrote: I don't disagree about Reyes being a subpar leadoff hitter. But if Randolph had little options, that's more of a Minaya beef than a Randolph beef. You're right, but Randolph still has to make the best of what he has to work with. Opening with Reyes and then Cairo/Matsui makes winning more difficult than it otherwise ought to be. (Tangent) Plus I'm sure that during those 2005 miracles when Reyes didn't make an out leading off, Randolph probably ordered the next batter to make an out on purpose.

AG/DC May 20 2008 09:19 AM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="AG/DC"]Yeah, I've got little problem with his lineups, outside of the much rehashed Cairo-second assignments of 2005. But his 2005 lineups seemed to be as much about the developing a team to win as winning the day, and I can roll with that. Except that they were contending for most of 2005. That's not how I remember it. I recall them being within two games of .500 for about three months before finally putting together a small streak the last week to close at .512 and seven games out. Double checking, they only looked like contenders in late July when the made a run from ten games out to 3.5, but they were otherwise over five games out the entire second half. I think the organization had established Reyes as the leadoff hitter before Willie came and he saw more merit in working with Reyes where he was than in demoting him and starting over. Wright wasn't established, so Willie had him earn his way up. But you disagree with Willie about that, which is what this thread is for.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 20 2008 09:20 AM

I think there's prolly an argument for 2005 being managed the way it was so as to steel the team for its future. Reyes would eventually prove to be an excellent leadoff guy. As said above: ]But his 2005 lineups seemed to be as much about the developing a team to win as winning the day, and I can roll with that.

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 09:24 AM

AG/DC wrote: I think the organization had established Reyes as the leadoff hitter before Willie came and he saw more merit in working with Reyes where he was than in demoting him and starting over. .... But you disagree with Willie about that, which is what this thread is for. Actually, I agree with you. I believe that this is a significant reason for Reyes batting leadoff. He was being groomed. That decision was probably as much organizational as Randolph's.

Gwreck May 20 2008 09:31 AM

AG/DC wrote: That's not how I remember it. I recall them being within two games of .500 for about three months before finally putting together a small streak the last week to close at .512 and seven games out. Double checking, they only looked like contenders in late July when the made a run from ten games out to 3.5, but they were otherwise over five games out the entire second half. The peak was in August; they went 16-12 that month, and on August 30, they beat the Phillies (the Ramon Castro game) to bring them a half-game out of the wild card. Then they proceeded to go 2-13 in their next 15 games to drop them out of the race. Once out of it, they went on a 12-3 run in the final 15 games of the season.

AG/DC May 20 2008 09:33 AM

Yeah, stupid me, I didn't even check their wild card position. Certainly fair then to call them contenders most of the season, even if they played like mediocrities.

Gwreck May 20 2008 09:36 AM

I think in our minds we all knew better but damn if that August run wasn't extremely exciting.

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 09:36 AM

AG/DC wrote: That's not how I remember it. I recall them being within two games of .500 for about three months before finally putting together a small streak the last week to close at .512 and seven games out. Double checking, they only looked like contenders in late July when the made a run from ten games out to 3.5, but they were otherwise over five games out the entire second half. They were Wild Card contenders for most of the season.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 20 2008 09:38 AM

The Mets could have really contended in 2005 if they'd only traded for Ray Durham like I told them to. We wasted so many ABs on Cairo that year.

batmagadanleadoff May 20 2008 09:38 AM

Gwreck wrote: I think in our minds we all knew better but damn if that August run wasn't extremely exciting. Wasn't that when Mike Jacobs hit like a HR every other game for a few weeks and the Mets annihilated the D-Backs in Arizona?

Gwreck May 20 2008 09:41 AM

Yes, exactly.

Benjamin Grimm May 20 2008 09:41 AM

I don't even remember an exciting August run. I wonder, am I growing forgetful? Or was I not all that excited?

AG/DC May 20 2008 09:44 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 20 2008 09:49 AM

During that stretch, he batted Matsui second eleven times and Cairo there four times. This wasn't really a platoon. Matsui was still nursing some injury of his and couldn't answer the bell every day. But he was hitting at this time of the year. Cairo was a different story, and Wright or Diaz would have made a much prettier choice, and Willie certainly was wrong there. This speaks also to my complaint about his stubborn-ness. I llike that he doesn't yield to fans or the media. I don't like that he doesn't yield to apparent facts. Cairo2005 being chronically unproductive=apparent fact. So, that's two chips-down races he can be said to have managed poorly during. Ouch.

John Cougar Lunchbucket May 20 2008 09:44 AM

AG/DC May 20 2008 09:51 AM

Yankee-loving Met Fans chanting for Cairoo early in the season while Matsui was still healthy. There's a painful memory.

AG/DC May 20 2008 08:42 PM

They have no walks tonight, and they haven't walked enough on his watch.

mario25 May 21 2008 05:35 AM

This last doubleheader against the Braves was a disgrace after the Yankees series. The team has stopped playing for Willie and his decisions are bad. Why would you play Schneider against the lefty in the first game and Castro against the righty the second game?? Why not sit Delgado against Glavine the first game? He can barely hit righties now and he is awful against lefties. They bunt too much and that really bugs me. I would pull the trigger today. He is done in my book.

Benjamin Grimm May 21 2008 07:39 AM

mario25 wrote: Why would you play Schneider against the lefty in the first game and Castro against the righty the second game?? Maybe he was looking at his catchers as catchers, and not as hitters. (I don't know; just speculating.) Willie might have preferred Schneider with Maine and Castro with Vargas. mario25 wrote: Why not sit Delgado against Glavine the first game? He can barely hit righties now and he is awful against lefties. Delgado does have a good track record against Glavine, but of course, the last time Delgado faced Glavine he was still in his prime.

bmfc1 May 21 2008 08:05 AM

mario25 wrote: Why would you play Schneider against the lefty in the first game and Castro against the righty the second game?? Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maybe he was looking at his catchers as catchers, and not as hitters. (I don't know; just speculating.) Willie might have preferred Schneider with Maine and Castro with Vargas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I raised mario25's point to John Delcos after he posted the lineups. The response was as BG speculated. I don't agree but a manager would say that he has more information than the public when making a decision.

AG/DC May 21 2008 08:12 AM

Willie's just got be contrary, doesn't he?

AG/DC May 21 2008 09:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 28 2008 07:58 PM

Willie has seemed to like a bench full of former starting middle infielders, seeming to think they can fill in anywhere. But it leaves him typically with an underpowerful bench. (Nothing personal, Damion.) When an injury replacement gets him a raker on his bench --- Brian Daubach or Fernando Tatis, for instance --- he hasn't found plate appearances. (Tatis got one at-bat in 18 innings yesterday as the offense sputtered.) It took inappropriate (but necessary) interference by Pedro Martinez to give Mike Jacobs an opportunity. In fact, I don't like his sub-Valentine ability to find spots for his players, no matter what their skill sets.

AG/DC May 28 2008 07:56 PM

I get Wagner up here and pitch him even if we don't get the lead. Willie will save him for the save.

AG/DC May 28 2008 08:01 PM

I am DEAD wrong.

AG/DC May 28 2008 08:02 PM

Because, we're at home anyhow.

metirish May 28 2008 08:03 PM

You're allowed to be wrong once in a while.

AG/DC May 28 2008 08:07 PM

Having trouble keeping two thoughts in my head. The missus is showing me our potential future houses on the other computer. I'm unable to convince her that the Mets need me to help save their season. Priorities, baby.

themetfairy May 28 2008 08:12 PM

Is she officially your missus?

AG/DC May 28 2008 08:14 PM

Not yet. She's studying up for the Baltimore Colts test.

themetfairy May 28 2008 08:38 PM

I am so telling her the Alan Ameche answer!

Elster88 May 28 2008 09:18 PM

="AG/DC"]Having trouble keeping two thoughts in my head. The missus is showing me our potential future houses on the other computer. I'm unable to convince her that the Mets need me to help save their season. Priorities, baby. [url]http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1273732[/url] 11:09: Mark Grace gets his third hit of the game to start the ninth. Big hit. Dave Dellucci runs for Grace. Of course, the Sports Gal comes downstairs at this EXACT MOMENT, asking "Who won?" and telling me about tonight's Emmy's telecast. Note: My buddy Gus calls this sequence "Pulling a Jackie," in honor of his wife, who has an uncanny knack for entering the room and starting up conversations during pivotal moments in any sporting event or video game, usually in the ninth innings or with two minutes to go in any third period or fourth quarter, and almost always with disastrous consequences. (This phenomenon is right up there with the Bermuda Triangle, the Loch Ness Monster and Breckin Meyer's career -- I don't know anyone who can explain it, yet I have at least a dozen male friends with girlfriends/spouses who consistently keep "Pulling a Jackie." It's like some silent radar signal goes off -- important game happening, big moment, must inadvertently sabotage, must fluster my boyfriend ...)