Willie: Brainless and Testicularly-Challenged (2006)

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Johnson and Herzog didn't deal generally with guys who had no-trade clauses.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Neither did Weaver.

But none of them ever tolerated losing because of anything under his control, either.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Actually, Weaver is a great example of what I'm talking about. He said of Mike Cuellar "I gave him more chances than I gave my ex-wife," yet in reality in 1976, he gave Cuellar only a half season of disastrous starts before relegating him to the bullpen, and plainly faulted himself for all sorts of foolish soft-hearted and sentimental behavior. I'm betting Willie wouldn't even start regretting playing an awful Pedro until his contract was almost all finished.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Cuellar's another example of a former Cy Young winner, Seawolf, who just suddenly and completely lost the ability to pitch. Not nearly as unprecedented as you claim.

Others could include Jim Bunning (HOFer who suddenly went from stardom to a 4-14 record, followed by a career-ending 28-37 record.)

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Or Whitey Ford who went from 24 wins to 17 to 16, and then ended his career suddenly with 2-4 and 2-5 seasons.

You're also being a little disingenuous by specifying that in my scenario Pedro must exhibit zero signs of injury, considering that he's been pitching with a constantly injured, strained, troublesome arm for half-a-decade or more now. All that I'm calling for is for him to feel well enough to take his turn.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Warren Spahn.

Went from 23-7 to 6-13, and then 7-16 and out.

You need more, or will this do?

[Guest KC]

BS: >>>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.<<<

This is better than going to the movies. Someone make some popcorn.

Randolph is no Weaver, Davey, or Herzog. Got it.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I'm not sure that he can even fill Art Howe's jockstrap, or Jeff Torborg's.

[seawolf17]

Bret, you're killing your own argument.

Whitey Ford:
Ralph Houk, a managers with a pretty solid career record, gave Ford seven starts in 1967. He went 2-4, yes, but his ERA was under 2, and his WHIP was 1.11. I'm assuming there was some sort of injury that ended his career; but either way, Ford was 38.

Spahn:
Got 30 starts in 1965, from Gil Hodges and Herman Franks. At age 44.

Cuellar:
Went 4-13 when Earl Weaver gave him 19 starts in 1976 at age 39.

Bunning:
Maybe. His 4-14 in '68 was in 26 starts; was an injury at play there? I don't know. Either way, he finished 13-10 with two teams the following season, with good peripherals. In 1970, he was 10-15 in a full season; in '71, 5-12 with 16 starts (and 13 relief appearances), at age 39.

Carlton:
Was in his 40s when his career fell apart, and bounced from team to team his last few years.

Pedro:
Is 34 this year, still a few years younger than all those guys.
Had his best WHIP in '05 since '02, when he won 20 games.
Had a 148 ERA+, which although not his best, was still fifth in the NL.
Is the active major league leader in ERA, WHIP, and K/BB.

I still don't see how letting Pedro work out his problems makes Willie Randolph a bad manager.

[Guest KC]

sw17: >>>I still don't see how letting Pedro work out his problems makes Willie Randolph a bad manager.<<<

Or one with undersized cajones either, for that matter.

[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.

Jesus Christ on a pogostick.

You say nothing--not one single friggen syllable-- about age in the above post, just a dismissive challenge to come up with HOF pitchers with no discernable injuries who fall off the table, and when I find you example after example, your post sudddenly becomes exclusively obsessed with age as a criterion.

Why not challenge me to find you a pitcher with Pedro's social security number and fingerprints while you're at it? Better yet, why not offer to hold your breath until you turn blue unless I stop posting hypotheticals (which, by definition, have never happened)?

[Elster88]

]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.

I think that his handling of Matsui clearly shows his ability to play who he thinks is better regardless of contract size.

He did everything he could to keep Cairo in the starting lineup over Matsui, and Matsui obviously makes a shitload more money.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Let's take a look at Davey Johnson's testicles:

On June 24, 1984, when the Mets were in a pennant race (tied for first place with the Phillies, a half game ahead of the Cubs), George Foster was batting .217.

http://leaptoad.com/mets/gamedetail.php?gameno=3589&tabno=C

Danny Heep, nine years younger, was hitting .323, with about one fourth as many at bats as Foster.

Did Davey bench the highly-paid Foster for the more productive Heep?

Nope.

In July of that year, Foster had 95 at bats. And Heep had 40. (And Foster, incidently, hit .337 in July 1984 while heep hit .250.)

Even the much-admired Davey Johnson has played an expensive non-productive veteran over a younger, cheaper, and more productive alternative. And, at least in the short term, it worked for him.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Elster88 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. I think that his handling of Matsui clearly shows his ability to play who he thinks is better regardless of contract size. He did everything he could to keep Cairo in the starting lineup over Matsui, and Matsui obviously makes a shitload more money.

Matsui pretty much started when he was healthy. He wasn't healthy much, hence Cairo's time. Not tremendous balls to bench someone on the DL.

[Elster88]

After Matsui was healthy, Cairo spent a lot of time in the starting lineup hitting .150.

I know this because I bitched about it incessantly.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Matsui was pretty much the everyday 2b-man through my birthday, June 18th, spent the next two months on the DL, while Cairo played, and then became the regular again from mid-August through mid-September. Maybe he got hurt again in mid-September? My term had started by then and I wasnt watching anymore.

http://leaptoad.com/mets/profile.php?PlayerCode=0719&tabno=4&ThisYear=2005

[Guest Rotblatt]

Here's another, vaguely more realistic hypothetical: it's Game 7 of the NLCS, Mets v Braves @ Turner Field. Smoltz starts for the Braves and we knock the crap out of him--he's given up 4 runs through 3+ innings and Cox throws Hudson in there to put out the fire, which he does.

Meanwhile, Petey's cruising--through six innings, he's only given up 1 run on an Andruw dinger--one of only 4 hits--while striking out 7. As most of us would do, Willie trotted him out there in the seventh.

Petey gets two quick outs, then gives up another Andruw HR. Pete Orr gets an infield single, then Petey gives up a solid single to Matt Diaz of all people, and all of a sudden the go-ahead run is at the plate in the form of Jeff Francouer. Tomahawk chops abound, despite the fact that Petey's struck out Francouer each of the three times he's faced him. Petey ponies up and whiffs Francouer yet again, shutting up the 10,000 rednecks who bothered to show up.

Next inning, Cox puts Hampton in there to face Delgado with 1 out, and Delgado crushes it over the fence to right, giving us a 5-2 lead. Two quick outs, and the inning is over.

Question 1: Petey's pitch count is close to 100, but he says he wants the ball. If you're Willie, do you a) give him the ball, no questions asked, give him the ball, but tell him he's on a short leash--he allows 1 runner and he's out, or c) yank him and put Heilman in there to act as a bridge to Wagner?

And what do you think Willie would do, given how he handled Petey last year?

If you answered A or B, proceed to Question 2. If you answered C, congratulations! You won the NLCS!

Question 2: Petey gets Giles to pop up to Reyes, then Chipper hits a long double to right. Brian McCann, who's having a monster year, is at the plate. Do you a) do nothing, visit the mount to give the pen more time, or c) pull Petey now?

If you answered a or b, proceed to question 3. If you answered c, congratulations! You won the NLCS!

Question 3: McCann singles in Chipper. The score is 5-3 and Edgar Renteria, who's completely bounced back from his two-year lull, represents the tying run at the plate. Do you a) do nothing, visit the mound to give the pen more time, or c) pull Petey now?

If you answered a or b, proceed to question 4. If you answered c, congratulations! You won the NLCS!

Question 4: Renteria hits a ground rule double to deep left, putting runners on 2nd and third and Andruw at the plate. Do you a) do nothing, visit the mound to give the pen more time, or c) pull Petey now?

If you answered a or b, proceed to question 5. If you answered c, congratulations! You won the NLCS!

Question 5: Andruw doubles to center, tying up the game at 5's. Do you a) do nothing, visit the mound to give the pen more time, or c) pull Petey now?

If you answered a or b, you seriously need to watch more baseball. If you answered c, congratulations! You're Grady Little!

Anyway, my roundabout question is basically, do we think Willie is a) smarter/more ballsy than Grady Little, Grady Little in blackface, or c) dumber/less ballsy than Grady Little?

Personally, I think Willie would probably have pulled Petey at Question 3 and I'm positive he'd have pulled him at Question 4.

[Elster88]

Matsui was activated 8/6. IIRC, he could've been activated even earlier. He should've been put into the lineup immediately, due to Cairo's intense suckage and because there was still a wildcard race going on. As your link kindly points out, he didn't become the regular until 8/22.

Again, IIRC, this was around the time Cairo got an owie himself.

[Frayed Knot]

This whole thing has become a really stupid exercise in hypothetical bullshit.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

Frayed Knot wrote: This whole thing has become a really stupid exercise in hypothetical bullshit.

Okay, you measure his testicle circumference with a tiny calipers and get back to us.

[seawolf17]

I love these really stupid exercises in hypothetical bullshit sometimes, because there's no right answer. That's what discussion is all about. That's why you go to college.

You're right, Bret, I didn't mention age; but you need to compare apples to apples. Maybe Pedro's an old 34; I say he's not, because he's still effective. If he was coming off a Kris Benson 2005, then maybe Willie's rope is shorter; but he's not. Either way, it's not a good premise to base your argument on.

[Guest Rotblatt]

]I love these really stupid exercises in hypothetical bullshit sometimes, because there's no right answer.

My hypothetical bullshit had, like, 4 right answers.

[Frayed Knot]

Nothing wrong in theory with hypotheticals.
What makes the ones here bullshit is that they're not looking for answers they've started with them and are concocting whacko situations designed to "prove" their point by pretending that not only is there one and only one correct answer but that it's somehow cast-in-stone knowledge that Willie will react to it in a different manner than would any other person with even a casual knowledge of baseball.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

="Frayed Knot"]Nothing wrong in theory with hypotheticals. What makes the ones here bullshit is that they're not looking for answers they've started with them and are concocting whacko situations designed to "prove" their point by pretending that not only is there one and only one correct answer but that it's somehow cast-in-stone knowledge that Willie will react to it in a different manner than would any other person with even a casual knowledge of baseball.

Nonsense. I've already elicited the opinion that Willie would somehow do exactly what each of the other 29 ML managers would do, no more, no less, just the standard boilerplate cast-in-stone response of any manager to an unprecedented and disturbing situation, a mind-blowingly, almost psychotically defensive stance. That alone is fascinating to witness--you folks would rather invent whacky stuff I could never even imagine, rather than find fault with Willie's stones.

[nymr83]

]Brian McCann, who's having a monster year, is at the plate

stop naming all my fantasy sleepers people!

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

="Yancy Street Gang"]Let's take a look at Davey Johnson's testicles: On June 24, 1984, when the Mets were in a pennant race (tied for first place with the Phillies, a half game ahead of the Cubs), George Foster was batting .217. http://leaptoad.com/mets/gamedetail.php?gameno=3589&tabno=C Danny Heep, nine years younger, was hitting .323, with about one fourth as many at bats as Foster. Did Davey bench the highly-paid Foster for the more productive Heep? Nope. In July of that year, Foster had 95 at bats. And Heep had 40. (And Foster, incidently, hit .337 in July 1984 while heep hit .250.) Even the much-admired Davey Johnson has played an expensive non-productive veteran over a younger, cheaper, and more productive alternative. And, at least in the short term, it worked for him.

Was Davey Johnson gutless to have stuck with George Foster in late June of 1984?

[Elster88]

No because Davey Johnson reminds us of the time when the Mets were winning, so he never had a lack of guts and management gave a crap about fans and blah blah blah.

[Guest Bret Sabermetric]

I wouldn't say Davey was gutless, in the context of his many gutsy moves, but he would probably say that he wishes he'd pushed Foster out the window sooner.

He'd probably also say that he was lucky that Foster outrageous "racism" nonsense gave him a rationale for doing something that was difficult but ultimately wise for the team.

Folks, it's just my opinion, which you're free to disregard, but I don't think Willie has much backbone, much vision, much intelligence, or much of a chance to become an excellent manager with those handicaps. I'd like to turn ths one around and ask why you think, on ther basis of what you saw last year, that he IS especially wise, or perceptive, or courageous, because I must have missed it.

[Guest KC]

Dateline: February 10, 2006

Bret "The Greek" Sabermetric states Randolph lacks, "the
necessary tools to be a good manager."

[Willets Point]

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Folks, it's just my opinion, which you're free to disregard, but I don't think Willie has much backbone, much vision, much intelligence, or much of a chance to become an excellent manager with those handicaps. I'd like to turn ths one around and ask why you think, on ther basis of what you saw last year, that he IS especially wise, or perceptive, or courageous, because I must have missed it.

He isn't, its just your particular hypothetical was for a situation that wouldn't distinguish Randolph much from any other manager, thus not being very good as a basis for Randolph's particular weaknesses. That plus that in your best "caustic fucktard" manner you've been particularly hostile and pissed a lot of people off the past couple of days means that most CPF'ers really are dissuaded from arguing on merit when your basically calling us idiots.