Willie: Brainless and Testicularly-Challenged (2006)

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

The better question Bret oughta ask is whether any manager would bench Pedro as quickly as you suggest a ball-less manager would.

Based on Julio's last 3 years, we're looking at a hard-throwing young strikeout artist.

We all know the ERA can be a poor stat to measure a relief pitcher, especially in one season alone, due to factors out of his control like whether he get bailed out more or less than a similar guy. JJ's game log shows a pretty uneven year overall, but poor especially in September and quite good early on. Was he hurt?

[Frayed Knot]

This whole thread in fact smacks a bit of deciding that mismanagement is a given so let's get a jump on things by deciding ahead of time which data fits the definition and act as if those chips are already in play.

There seems to be this notion that undeserving vets were carried all year while deserving youngsters were on the sidelines being screwed over.
Except that Mathews, Aybar, and Heredia were used sparingly and dumped early, and even DeJean (who at least had a good half Met year under his belt) never made it to mid-season. Let's also not pretend that Hernandez wasn't just a washed-up has-been himself at this point last year (he barely made the team) or that a sizeable pct of NYM fans didn't believe that Heilman was already a confirmed bust.

So before we act as if Julio's ~ 6.00 ERA from last year means he's a confirmed albatross while Bell's ~ 5.60 somehow represents that of a stud being passed over; or that Iriki - already all but labeled as dead wood - will be held onto at all costs ... even though Koo, acquired under near identical circumstances last year, got all of 23 IPs, let's see what actually happens.

[Elster88]

Maybe now would be a good time to mention that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek when I said Julio should definitely be demoted by mid-April.

I had heard of the crazy theory before that says "Evaluate the players based on performance rather than deciding what to do in early February."

[Guest KC]

>>>Does anyone disagree with my assessment of that hypothetical situation?<<<

No, because there isn't any manager who would have balls big enough to satisfy
you and your hypothetical situation. Why should ours?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

You all did get it, didn't you, that I had Pedro hypothetically getting lit up all through Spring Training, and then in his first few starts? Let's specify that first time through the rotation, he had his normal lifetime ERA, and was hitting 90+ MPH regularly, and then in the second time through, he had twice (or three times) his lifetime ERA and couldn't hit 85 MPH--in other words, clear evidence that he belonged in the bullpen--eventually. I'm asking you what Willie would consider "eventually" to be.

I'm not trying to start fights here. I admit that I'm quicker on the trigger than most anyone here. I'm not arguing that you should all join me in my quest to rid the major leagues of all veterans earning more than minimum wage. All I'm saying here is, given my hypothetical, some manangers would pull the trigger on a veteran starter quicker than others, and that WIllie would pull it last of all 30 MLB managers, given last year as evidence.

That's the view from where I am. Now, as to what sane people think...

[Guest KC]

So which managers make the cut on Brets Big Balls Manager List
and would sit Petey down?

[Willets Point]

I got big balls
Big ole balls
Big as grapefruits
Big as pumpkins
Yes sir, yes sir
And on my really good days
They swell to the size of small dogs
My balls are as big as small dogs

[metirish]

]Well I'm upper upper class high society God's gift to ballroom notoriety And I always fill my ballroom The event is never small The social pages say I've got The biggest balls of all I've got big balls I've got big balls They're such big balls And they're dirty big balls And he's got big balls And she's got big balls (But we've got the biggest balls of them all) And my balls are always bouncing My ballroom always full And everybody cums and cums again If your name is on the guest list No one can take you higher Everybody says I've got Great balls of fire I've got big balls Oh I've got big balls And they're such big balls Dirty big balls And he's got big balls And she's got big balls (But we've got the biggest balls of them all) Some balls are held for charity And some for fancy dress But when they're held for pleasure They're the balls that I like best My balls are always bouncing To the left and to the right It's my belief that my big balls Should be held every night We've got big balls We've got big balls We've got big balls Dirty big balls He's got big balls She's got big balls (But we've got the biggest balls of them all) (We've got big balls) (We've got big balls) And I'm just itching to tell you about them Oh we had such wonderful fun Seafood cocktail, crabs, crayfish (But we've got the biggest balls of them all) (Ball sucker) (Ball sucker) (Ball sucker) (Ball sucker)

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

We've been over and over the fact that despite some cases where a vet was given too much rope (Ishii) there were a good many where the vet was overthrown early (the entire bullpen back half), and as said a very long time ago, I don;t think the guys who are on the team is entirely WWSB;s decision anyway.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

It's always the manager's call who to put in the rotation and who in the bullpen. You're being remarkably evasive about answering my question.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

And as usual, your hypothetical is remarkably difficult to answer due
to the fact that so much pertinent information is purposefully left out so as to re-frame it as a question of whether WIllie Randolph has balls or not and not about Pedro at all.

Why not just ask that question?

The hypothetical requires an assessment of the answers to any number of additional questions -- Where are we in the standings? How is the guy who'd replace him in the rotation doing in AAA? Are we sure he's not hurt? How does Pedro feel about it? etc etc etc --

but in general I think you give Pedro all the rope you *think* he needs.

[nymr83]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: It's always the manager's call who to put in the rotation and who in the bullpen. You're being remarkably evasive about answering my question.

your question seems pretty absurd. there is not, never has been, and never will be, a manager willing to cut bait with a starter as accomplished as pedro based on a handful of starts.
under the circumstances you are describing (he keeps gettng tired in the 3rd inning) i'd look to place him on the disabled list, because he's obviously suffering from something.
but lets take a different set of circumstances- he's struggling period. he isn't getting tired, he isn't hurt, he's just flat out sucking, how much time does he get to straighten it out? for me, assuming the other 4 starters are pitching well and you have a guy ready to step in i'd give him about 15 starts because of his amazing track record. glavine gets about 10 starts in similiar circumstances, traschel 7-8, zambrano only a handful.

[Frayed Knot]

Ignoring for a second the outcomes of such a sudden loss of effectiveness: DL, sidework, etc to find out what the problem is; that are far more likely than a banishment to the bullpen ...

How long a rope will a theoretical shaky Pedro get before such a demotion happens? -- A long one

How much rope has his decade-plus stunning career earned him? -- A long one

How much will Willie give him? -- A long one

How many managers would do the same? -- All of them

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: It's always the manager's call who to put in the rotation and who in the bullpen. You're being remarkably evasive about answering my question.

Is it always? The impression I got from Moneyball was that Billy Beane was dictating a lot of the decisions that traditionally you would think would have been Art Howe's to make. (And please don't ask for specifics; I don't remember them. All I remember is that I read one or more items in that book that made me think that in at least some respects, Art was just a puppet on a string.)

[Elster88]

]Let's specify that first time through the rotation, he had his normal lifetime ERA, and was hitting 90+ MPH regularly, and then in the second time through, he had twice (or three times) his lifetime ERA and couldn't hit 85 MPH--in other words, clear evidence that he belonged in the bullpen--eventually.

I don't think that Willie will ever put Pedro in the bullpen, no matter how much he gets lit up.

And that's a bad thing.

[Zvon]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: One of my complaints about Willie's testosterone-level has to do with his ability to recognize and fix a problem regardless of salary involved. Obviously, Matsui and Piazza got me started on this, but let's leave those aside to address a hypothetical because I don't want to fan old flames just now. Say Pedro gets off to a terrible start--gets through the lineup okay first time around, but consistently runs out of gas around the 3rd inning. All Spring Training, this goes on and on, and into the season. The other 4 starters (Glavine, Trax, Heilman, and Zambrano) are performing well, and Soler has been doing very well in a starting role in ST and in his first few starts at AAA). Soler gets promoted to MLB, does very well in a start or two at this level, while Pedro keeps gettting roughed up the second time through the lineup. The obvious solution is to take Pedro out of rotation and put Soler in. This move might not take too much brains after a while, but it definitely will take some balls to make that call. To my mind, I'd pull the trigger on that move around the middle of April. Some of you would delay longer, and risk taking more hits (literally) on Pedro's record, giving him longer to play his way off the rotation. May, maybe you'd stick with Pedro until June. I maintain that Willie would literally never make that move until Pedro publicly requested a demotion. That's where I fault him him for testosterone-deprivation. He will play big-salary over big-talent every time. Does anyone disagree with my assessment of that hypothetical situation?

No way do they give up on Pedro in April, unless he says he's hurt.
You say big salary over big talent,..but come on. Pedro is huge talent, experience and smarts.
Lets face it, if Pedro falters this soon in his Mets career the team is in trouble. The run for the pennant in 2006 is as well.
Because they will stick with him until

1)He says he cant do the job
or
2)If he continues to fail thru June towards the AllStar break.
(even then I dont think sending him to the bullpen will be an option-
but his rotation spot would be in jeopardy.)

As we've seen with Glavine, good pitchers in flux are given every opportunity to come around. If he loses velocity like that, he will have to make adjustments in later innings. Pedro will be given time to work things out if he should find himself in such a situation.

It dont take balls, or lack there of, to respect a man whos done his job, and done it well for a long time.

[nymr83]

Bret- if you want to have a serious discussion about salary vs. talent why not use an example of a player without such an amazing track record... i'll give one:

it's April 30th, 2006. Nady and Diaz have been splitting time in Right Field and have both been tearing the cover off the ball to the tune of .325/.375/.550 in roughly equal playing time. Meanwhile, Cliff Floyd, much more highly paid, is hitting .240/.280/.380 in full-time duty and does not appear hurt. How soon do you pull the plug on Floyd here?

[Guest KC]

It's debateable whether a discussion of a baseball managers testosterone
level can be called serious regardless of what players you insert into Brets
cleverly-arranged-read-this-and-refute-it-even-if-the challenge-(and his follow-ups)-
are-worded-so-that-no-matter-what-you-reply-he'll-never-be-satisfied-that-you solved-
the-puzzle excersise in baseball (master)debating.

And if someone gets close, then he breaks out the emotional stuff.

[Zvon]

Nymr83 wrote: Bret- if you want to have a serious discussion about salary vs. talent why not use an example of a player without such an amazing track record... i'll give one: it's April 30th, 2006. Nady and Diaz have been splitting time in Right Field and have both been tearing the cover off the ball to the tune of .325/.375/.550 in roughly equal playing time. Meanwhile, Cliff Floyd, much more highly paid, is hitting .240/.280/.380 in full-time duty and does not appear hurt. How soon do you pull the plug on Floyd here?

This is a tougher one, especially after what Floyd accomplished last year.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Nymr83 wrote: Bret- if you want to have a serious discussion about salary vs. talent why not use an example of a player without such an amazing track record... i'll give one: it's April 30th, 2006. Nady and Diaz have been splitting time in Right Field and have both been tearing the cover off the ball to the tune of .325/.375/.550 in roughly equal playing time. Meanwhile, Cliff Floyd, much more highly paid, is hitting .240/.280/.380 in full-time duty and does not appear hurt. How soon do you pull the plug on Floyd here?

A while. Because first you'd have to see what the two half-time players do with more than what, 50 or at 60 plate appearances at most they'd have by then. I believe it's basically been proven that anybody can hit anything in 75 at-bats --- 100 is better and 150 seems like a reasonable get from guys you have questions about. In the meantime, drop Floyd in the order if you have to but let him get his 150 too.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I just don't get where this is a tricky or complicated question. It's a very simple one, which you are painting as devious or agenda-driven in order to avoid answering it.

What I'm saying is: assume Pedro comes into camp feeling healthy, wanting to start, but he ain't got much. He can throw okay for a handful of batters, but everyone--you, Willie, me, Stevie Wonder--everyone can see he's not going to cut it as a starting pitcher in the NL anymore unless something seriously changes, and nothing is changing. He's no good in Spring Training, he's no good in April, he shows zero positive signs of turning it around and everyone on the planet agrees that he's got nothing, outside of the back of his baseball card, to recommend him. This isn't open to debate: Pedro's toast.

What I'm saying is, in that situation, that some managers will give him a few more starts than I would, most managers (to their shame, IMO) would give him into early June maybe, and some would ride him into the grave. I can't accept that every manager would stay with a completely ineffective Pedro Martinez forever and ever until he cries "Uncle." I think Whitey Herzog would pitch an epileptic fit in traffic, banging his skull against the yellow line as cars swerve to avoid him at top speed, rather than accept that concept. Some managers are proactive and think highly of themselves as appraisers of ability, and others pride themselves on their integrity, while still others are company men who would seek out permission of the mighty and powerful (i.e., their bosses) in order to learn how hard to wipe themselves on the ivory throne.

Are you seriously answering this hypothetical question by saying that every single manager in the world would go with an ineffective Pedro Martinez the same exact length of time, number of innings, number of starts, etc.? If so, why make a big deal over hiring one manager or another? They'd all do the same things, right? Hire Willie, hire Billy Martin, hire Art Howe, hire Jeff Torborg, hire Bobby Cox--you'll get the same exact results anyway.

Sure you will.

It's utter bullcrap to pin me down as to the elements omitted from my hypothetical-- there's no limit to the number of trivial details I could add to my already lengthy list of particulars: If I told you how many pitches Pedro threw, and that they kept 4.5 games out of first place the whole time from April 1 through April 23rd, and how the Norfolk starters were performing, and whether Rick Peterson's wife was PMSing with particular crankiness, you could always answer: "Still not enough info, Bret." This is a hypothetical, in which you must assume that any information lacking is essentially inconclusive.

My thesis is a simple one: I feel Willie would go longer, far longer, with an ineffective veteran than almost any other manager. You disagree? Fine. Tell me why.

Or keep stonewalling. Really doesn't matter much to me. I've said my piece.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: And as usual, your hypothetical is remarkably difficult to answer due to the fact that so much pertinent information is purposefully left out so as to re-frame it as a question of whether WIllie Randolph has balls or not and not about Pedro at all. Why not just ask that question? The hypothetical requires an assessment of the answers to any number of additional questions -- Where are we in the standings? How is the guy who'd replace him in the rotation doing in AAA? Are we sure he's not hurt? How does Pedro feel about it? etc etc etc -- but in general I think you give Pedro all the rope you *think* he needs.

I'm asking it in hypothetical form to get at a larger question. But I'll try to answer all your ridiculous evasions (and then you can come back with more) just to show you that you're quibbling

We're in 3rd place (in April for chrissake you're never going to be very out of or very far in first place, like you need me to tell you that.)

I already told you how Pedro's replacement is doing. Read my fucking post, if you'd be so kind, before asking me to clarify that which I've clarified at length. I'll help you out, though--his initials are A. S.

He says he's not hurt. He's just pitching very, very, very badly.

He's kind of bummed out by it. It's very bad luck to have an ERA greater than the pricetag on an aircraft carrier.

There. Did that help very much?

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Also, I find it very interesting that the subtext of what many of you are saying is that, if confronted with persuasive evidence that Pedro is circling in the vortex of the toilet bowl, you're going down with him for the ride. As I understand you, he could be 2-9 with a 11.38 ERA in July, and you're all "He's Pedro Martinez! He won umpthy-umpth Cy Young Awards! My eyes are lying to me!"

As I understand you (please correct me if I'm wrong) you would prefer to finish in fifth place, and blame the season's results on "I thought Pedro would turn it around, how was I to know, 2-9 and 11.38 wasn't a convincing bit of evidence, I needed at least a whole season of that shit, I hope he comes back big next year" to putting him the bullpen, and recognizing the emergence of Soler as a new star and winning the division. Please tell me that I'm wrong and you're not all self-destructive maniacs.

[Guest KC]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy to weed through your multi-directional,
table-twisting, finger-pointing, and circuitously-worded excercise in baseball
debate this morning. (I might change my sig line)

As far as I'm concerned, no, there are very few managers (if any) who would
handle Pedros horific start in 2006 much differently under you hypothetical
situation(s) or with bigger nads than Wee Willie Small Balls.

Next.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

KC wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't have the energy to weed through your multi-directional, table-twisting, finger-pointing, and circuitously-worded excercise in baseball debate this morning. (I might change my sig line) As far as I'm concerned, no, there are very few managers (if any) who would handle Pedros horific start in 2006 much differently under you hypothetical situation(s) or with bigger nads than Wee Willie Small Balls. Next.

Why don't you and JD argue it out: am I being "circuitously-worded" or am I omitting vital details? If I satisfy you, and give a simple and clear version, I'm upsetting Johnny's applecart and vexing him with my simplicity, but if I give him a complicated and detailed version, I'm way too devious and confusing for you.

Here's the simple version (JD, avert your eyes!): Pedro is awful. How long do you let him be awful? How long does Willie go with an awful Pedro? Compare the two answers.

[seawolf17]

="Bret Sabermetric"]Here's the simple version (JD, avert your eyes!): Pedro is awful. How long do you let him be awful? How long does Willie go with an awful Pedro? Compare the two answers.

1) As long as necessary.
2) This question can't be answered, because it's never happened. He's managed one season, and this situation just hasn't come up. Rather than throwing a bizarre hypothetical out there and demanding that we defend it, show me situations where this has happened:

** HoF pitcher
** Falls off the table
** No discernible injury

And show me how long they've stayed in the rotation. I don't have the time or the energy to do this research, but I don't think the question can be answered without any historical perspective.

[Guest KC]

>>>if I give him a complicated and detailed version, I'm way too devious and confusing for you<<<

Don't forget cunning.

I answered your question.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

="seawolf17"] ="Bret Sabermetric"]Here's the simple version (JD, avert your eyes!): Pedro is awful. How long do you let him be awful? How long does Willie go with an awful Pedro? Compare the two answers. 1) As long as necessary. 2) This question can't be answered, because it's never happened. He's managed one season, and this situation just hasn't come up. Rather than throwing a bizarre hypothetical out there and demanding that we defend it, show me situations where this has happened: ** HoF pitcher ** Falls off the table ** No discernible injury And show me how long they've stayed in the rotation. I don't have the time or the energy to do this research, but I don't think the question can be answered without any historical perspective.

Wolf, I'm throwing out this bizarre scenario precisely because it's so improbable. I don't want to stir up actual issues about Piazza or Matsui, because we've all got too much invested in our positions there. I'm coming up with this improbable but very troubling scenario so we can talk about Willie's bold vision (or lack thereof) in the abstract. Believe me, I admire Pedro, think he's a terrific player, perhaps a unique talent, and I wish him well for as long as he cares to pitch.

Just off the top of my head, I'd give you Carlton as a pitcher who, like Pedro, pitched below his stellar level for a while (but still acceptably) and then crashed and burned. It's really not so strange for someone to suddenly lose it. All you have to do is think of Alomar, really, not that you'll enjoy that very much.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I answered the question too. Lots of rope generally, and I don't suspect WWSB would treat him significantly differently than any guy in his spot, and I think it's a stupid question because it's hard to imagine Pedro gets to an 11+ ERA in July (I thought it was April?) without sitting himself down, taking a 14-vacation to the DL or whatever).

If you're trying to point out to us the danger of allowing Pedro to call his own shots on this team well no shit. He's got better job security than Willie.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

It's more about the money than the job security, though that may be a semantic difference.

The thing hypotheticals allow me to do is to speculate on what's in someone's heart. With real situations you can defensibly (if inanely) point out over and over again that "You can't KNOW what Willie's thoughts are!" and so dismiss the whole concept, but with a hypothetical, I can include the idea that "Willie sees that Pedro can't pitch anymore," that he's convinced in his own private thoughts that Pedro's washed-up, and (I speculate) he will continue to pitch him, because he lacks the brains and balls and will (that Weaver and Davey and Whitey have in abundance) to speak the truth to a sea of howling Mets fans and Mets brass.