Master Index of Archived Threads


Memories of Willie Randolph

Elster88 Jun 17 2008 07:13 AM

He really managed the heck out of Game 1 of the 2006 NLDS. He really fucked up Game 2 of the 2006 NLCS. So long Willie. I feel bad that they did you this way, but maybe it had to be done.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 17 2008 07:19 AM

I didn't have much of an opinion on him at all until the rumor circus asked you choose a side, then I went with him because I wanted him to tell management to go suck a fat one. His virtue, patience, drove you crazy. He could be churlish and stubborn and difficult to warm to: I never got the sense, after 2006, that the guys would expressly play hard for him.

metirish Jun 17 2008 07:28 AM

I'll remember his gut the most .

Valadius Jun 17 2008 07:29 AM

Something needed to be done. I dunno if this will end up being the right move though.

AG/DC Jun 17 2008 07:29 AM

His defensiveness with the media probably really undercut him more than he'd like to admit. If you wanted him to continue doing things a certain way, just criticize him for it, and he'd keep to doing just to show you he couldn't be easily deterred. Ben Grimm compared him to Geoge W., and that's not fair in many ways, but like GW, his sticktoitiveness was a flaw that he seemed certain was a virtue. By all counts, he had loosened up with the media the last week as he realized the comic ridiulousness of his predicament, and I hoped his newfound sense of irony would be the lifeline that would save him. Not to be. A few weeks ago, I noted at my lone Shea visit this year, that he kept his hands in his pockets when confronting an umpire, unless he had to push one of his players out of the way. I had read that Gil Hodges always kept his hands in his back pockets so he didn't inadvertantaly bump an umpire, and I got the idea he took this idea directly from the Quiet Man, and thatt was cool. He was a gentleman beginning to end, and I think more of him for that because I think it was self-conscious, rather than natural. He had a strong interest in black baseball history, and he carried himself well out of respect for the men that came before him, and to better lay groundwork for the men that would follow him. He knew his opportunity was bigger than himself, and that made him bigger in my eyes.

G-Fafif Jun 17 2008 07:34 AM

That he'd always been a winner. That yes, Joe, it was toasted. That the double-switch at first flummoxed him. That he rarely congratulated starters after complete games. That he loved to bunt but hated to squeeze. That he sprayed Champagne in L.A. like it was the last time he would do it. That he never lost confidence in a team that didn't deserve it. That it was great that a kid who grew up loving the Mets got to manage the Mets. That it never felt 100% right that a Yankee demi-icon was managing the Mets, even if it didn't really matter. That hug he gave Cliff Floyd after the single most exciting game of his tenure, ironically against the Angels. That he didn't manage all that well but will now look really good because the Mets breakup with him was so incredibly bad.

AG/DC Jun 17 2008 07:39 AM

G-Fafif wrote: That it never felt 100% right that a Yankee demi-icon was managing the Mets, even if it didn't really matter. See, to me, leaving his Yankee number behind was all he had to do. He had me at 12. I'll add that he kept himself in great shape, and that his playing tenure with the Mets was similar, in that he gave it an honest effort and more, but we were asking more of him than he had to give.

G-Fafif Jun 17 2008 07:52 AM

AG/DC wrote: ="G-Fafif"]That it never felt 100% right that a Yankee demi-icon was managing the Mets, even if it didn't really matter. See, to me, leaving his Yankee number behind was all he had to do. He had me at 12. I'll add that he kept himself in great shape, and that his playing tenure with the Mets was similar, in that he gave it an honest effort and more, but we were asking more of him than he had to give. As MFYs went back in the day, I never disliked Willie with particular intensity. The Mets fan background and general non-obnoxiousness was dispensation enough (sort of like Andy Pettitte bringing his kid into the dugout in spring training in his Mets cap). Yes, referencing Ken Boswell was a beautiful thing. But he's not on the scene without his MFY background and it never quite went away. The "I've always been a winner" didn't refer to his positive outlook or his knack for pinochle. Casey and Yogi may have earned their, uh, stripes there, but as a kid, I never knew them as anything but Mets. Dallas Green's cross to bear was the Phillies, not the Yankees. But with Willie, he was associated with not one, but two suffocating dynasties, both of which bloomed while we floundered. Willie Randolph was succeeding in 1977 and 1978 and 1996 and so on. He was a walking advertisement for bad memories. The only thing I dreaded as it became apparent this would happen sooner or later (other than the Mets would do it in absolutely embarrassing fashion in the middle of the night on the West Coast...and that seemed too absurd to contemplate) was that all the former MFY beat writers who became national baseball columnists would flood the zone with "Willie the great Yankee was too good for the Mets" martyrdom. I'm sure we're due a spate of those any minute now. Saddest part is I don't have the zest to take umbrage at anti-Mets diatribes like I used to.

TransMonk Jun 17 2008 07:58 AM

He looked younger than his age when hired at 50, but now looks older than 53

AG/DC Jun 17 2008 08:06 AM

TransMonk wrote: He looked younger than his age when hired at 50, but now looks older than 53 Also like W.

Vince Coleman Firecracker Jun 17 2008 08:58 AM Re: Memories of Willie Randolph

Elster88 wrote: He really managed the heck out of Game 1 of the 2006 NLDS. Agreed. I had so much confidence in Willie and this team after that game. The future was so promising. The Mets' sun was just beginning to peak over the eastern horizon, banishing the long, navy blue MFY night. Ugh. Did anybody gas up the Way-Back machine?

Frayed Knot Jun 17 2008 09:17 AM

I honestly think he always had - and always would have unless a World Championship (or three) intervened - a certain portion of the Met fans against him on account of the Yanqui roots. Those feelings might go underground during the good times but they were never far from the surface and easily recalled at the first perceived slight or faux-pas. It's like there was always a glass ceiling on the height of his popularity but a bottomless pit for the critics. His rant of a few weeks ago - the one which seemed to have started this ball rolling downhill - showed a remarkable lack of savvy especially for a native New Yorker who should have known better. The guy who cares too much about what others are saying about him probably is a bit short in the CAHNfidence department the job requires. As far as in-game strategy ... Eh. Never particularly bad - just never particularly inspired even if not nearly as bad as his critics portrayed. A few too many bunts for my taste - but there were at least as many complaints from others that he didn't bunt enough. A bit of a quick hook w/his starters - but mostly had a staff which needed it and the "mismanaged the pen" charges can be hung on just about anyone for almost any reason and are as often as not code for, 'the guy he brought in gave up runs'.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 17 2008 09:29 AM

My "mismanaged the pen" charges against him are more specific than "he brought in a guy who sucked." I think he made too many moves with the pen; he overmanaged and often left himself with too few choices later on in the game. Here's a "memory" of Willie Randolph that I meant to post over the winter when it occurred, but I somehow neglected to. Willie was a guest panelist on SNY's Mets Hot Stove Report, along with Marty Noble. Kevin Burkhardt asked Willie about how the team will get past the collapse, and Willie confidently said, "Once we get back on the field, it will be all behind us." Marty Noble didn't buy it for a second. He said that whenever the team loses three games in a row, it will come back up. If they're a few games out of first place, or if they have a lead that begins to slip, it will come up again. Willie, at first, nodded, and then started getting annoyed. Burkhardt gave him a chance to respond, and he reiterated that once the guys got back on the field, they'd be fine. But Marty was relentless. He finally got to a point where he was pointing his finger at Willie Randolph and saying, "Gene Mauch took the 1964 collapse to his grave! He never got over it." Marty Noble was like the Ghost of Christmas Future, pointing at Willie and damning him to an inexorable fate. Of course, Scrooge had a way to change his future, and so did Willie. (And so did Gene Mauch.) I think a Mets World Championship in 2008 would have put the 2007 collapse solidly in the past. For the Mets, as a team, to put it behind them, they do still need a World Series win, the sooner the better. (If the next win doesn't come until 2040, then 2007 will be a sore point for decades.) For Willie, he'll have to get that redemption with another team. And woe to him if he gets another, even smaller, collapse, like Gene Mauch did in the 1986 ALCS with the Angels. Willie seems like a nice guy, and I don't want him to be haunted. But I don't know that he'll get a chance to redeem himself.

AG/DC Jun 17 2008 09:33 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 17 2008 09:45 AM

I hear what you're saying, but I'm attracted to the prospect of sticking to my guns on the pen thing. He publickly announced two years in a row that there were no roles in his pen outside of Wagner's, and demonstrated it by being somewhat averse to constantly moving his specialists away from favorable matchups once they demonstrated success in favorable matchups, until it blew up and the cycle started again. I believe in growing the job of a guy who succeeds, but, with big (and presumably dee) pens at his dispossal, Willie was over-aggressive in this regard, and put his guys in situations to fail. But here's the thing. None of this seemed present in 2006. But I'm at least partially delusional in that regard. Bradford got righties 73% of the time in 2006. Smith has gotten them 77% of the time this year. Feliciano got lefties 49% of the time; and 45% this year. Whatever. I guess they just sucked him out of a job.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 17 2008 09:39 AM

You could set your watch to Valentine's bullpen usage. He had a L-R tandem for tied/winning games; he had his pitch-from-behind guys; he had a long man; and he had a closer. They all knew their roles. With Willie you never knew who was going to come out once that door opened.

HahnSolo Jun 17 2008 09:45 AM

TransMonk wrote: He looked younger than his age when hired at 50, but now looks older than 53 Yet he still looks younger than Castillo.

Frayed Knot Jun 17 2008 10:00 AM

My main point about the pen is that, except for during blowouts, the thing fans want/demand from it is perfection and so any other result leads to questioning how things were done. - Using too many relievers is one complaint but so is; 'how can he leave Schoeneweis in against a righty when he has X in the pen?' ... or; 'why didn't he pull Y after he put the leadoff guy on?' - No (rigidly) defined roles is something fans usually claim to want and, except for Wagner, I think Willie held pretty fast to that. Sanchez, and occasionally Heilman, shared the 8th until Duaner got hurt. Heilman was great there for a year and a half then was pulled out of that role when he started failing. - Too many innings for the scrubs is usually what happens as they're the ones who generally throw several innings at a time in blow-out and mop-up situations, not because they're somehow being favored. I guess my overall point about the pen as it applies to Willie is that, while I can always find specific moves I disagreed with, I didn't find a particular pattern of use from him I found objectionable, nor did I believe that another manager would have done things much differently. Also that, like all managers, he's a victim of the guys he had in his pen, so when Sanchez took a late might taxi ride, and Mota was forced to work "naked", and Sosa's balloon burst, and the league saw Smith the 2nd time around, and Heilman suddenly turned south, and yadda, yadda, his "mis-use" became more pronounced.

AG/DC Jun 17 2008 10:07 AM

C'mon, stay away from the straw man "fans" arguments and take the ones that are posted.

Frayed Knot Jun 17 2008 10:18 AM

Too many relievers, reliever roles, and too much use for back of the pen guys were all arguemnts made right here. All I'm doing is pointing out that there are counter-arguments to be made in each of those cases.

AG/DC Jun 17 2008 10:30 AM

All I'm offering, and reading, is about the clarity of roles. No (rigidly) defined roles is something fans usually claim to want Who? Some folks would rather use the best releiver with men on in the seventh than coming in with a three-run lead in the ninth, but that doesn't mean they don't want roles, just differently constructed roles. I want clearly defined roles, not necessarily rigidly adhered to ones. I fully acknowledge that can be a byproduct of performance. But performance can also be a product of usage patterns.