I'll Try Anything in April

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Of course Willie's reasoning is faulty, especially the part about Burrell having some magical ability to beat the Mets being greater than the chances that Howard hits a dinger off a guy like Burgos. And playing the percerntages it's a huge gamble.

But all that said, I'd like to get beyond the stupid and/or obvious points already being argued about the Burgos-Howard Incident, and instead discuss the idea of trying crazy shit in general.

In April, in the 6th inning, I'm for it. I don't think it does Burgos or Willie all that much good to manage as if he cannot be trusted, or to damn him chances off the bat due only to his body of work in the past. That's pretty much Omar's job to vet. Willie's job is to figure out what he's got and hopefully learn from what they show him. He shouldn't be required treat Boogers like a RH specialist in his very first meaningful outing, and if he is, then perhaps Burgos doesn't belong on the team: Again, Omar's call.

Valentine used to take all kinds of risks in April he wouldn't in August, including bunts at unusual times, releievers in all different roles, etc etc. at least until he had a feel. Some of those moves were insane, some cost games, some might have helped down the road (can Jeromy Burnitz lay down a squeeze bunt if I ask him to?, etc) It's all part of managing for the long haul.

I'd prefer all the moves work out but I got no issue with a few fuckups in the 6th inning in April.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

That's pretty much why I was okay with it (as expressed in the IGT).

I was thinking, big situation, let's see what this guy's got.

Even if Howard had a 40% chance of hitting a homer there (which is a very high estimate), Burgos still had a 60% chance of getting him out.

Had I thought it through, instead of quickly throwing an "I'm okay" while following GameCast while simultaneously working at the office, I might have made a different decision.

And if it was an October playoff game, I'd certainly hope that Willie would have decided differently.

[metirish]

I really don't have a problem with Willie taking a good look at what he has in Smith and Borgus,and as has been pointed out there is no use keeping Borgus for mop up duty,that's what Sele is for among other things.

I would not be the least surprised to see Willie put Borgus up against Howard again in a key spot,maybe not this series but down the road,and lets face it Willie gives up plenty of stuff to talk about here....

[RealityChuck]

I agree. This is the time to see what your players are capable of, not October. In addition, leaving Burgos in will probably help his confidence in the future. Willie tends to look at the big picture -- not just winning individual ballgames, but in making moves that will make it easier to win games in the future. If Burgos thinks his manager has the confidence in letting him face last year's MVP, he's more likely to pitch without worrying about making mistakes.

The percentages are just percentages. Replacing Burgos at that point would not have guaranteed a different result. All it would have done was allow the manager an excuse if it failed. But it's poor managing if you're making decisions solely to avoid having to justify yourself to the press afterwards.

[Guest iramets]

Still counts. Dumb is dumb, Clueless is clueless. A game in April count s as much as a game in September.

If you don't want to burn your bullpen, then you leave Burgos out there to face Burrell and finish the inning, and if you get killed, well, it's only April and it's not as if this game counts in the standings anyway, right? He explained the move by saying that he couldn't afford to burn the pen--in other words it was a strategic decision (one having impliations beyond this one game) that he made despite the tactical drawbacks. By going back on his strategic decision he demonstrated that the strained pen was a b.s. smokescreen to begin with.

[dinosaur jesus]

Howard had no more than a ten percent chance of hitting a home run. That was just bad luck. I'd probably rather have pitched to Burrell, but intentionally loading the bases is a dangerous move when your pitcher has control problems. I also think that some managers were getting a bit hysterical last year when they started walking Howard with a man on first.

[Centerfield]

The problem with thinking along the lines of "let's see what this kid's got" is that success in April doesn't necessarily translate into success later on. How many times do you let him face Howard (or another LH slugger) before you have a "feel" for him?

I like trying stuff to see if they can do it (can Jeromy Burnitz lay down a bunt etc.), but as far as pitching matchups, I say you play the better odds...April or October.

[Guest iramets]

Also we're not talking about a Burgos-Howard matchup wth a seven run lead. That's where you play hunches, not a run ahead and ducks on the pond. It was just a foolish move, that the most eloquent explanation won't make sensible, much less Willie's confused articulation of his dumb ideas.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Burgos face Howard again in this series, or next week in Philly. If it's late in the game I might be.

[soupcan]

iramets wrote: Also we're not talking about a Burgos-Howard matchup wth a seven run lead. That's where you play hunches, not a run ahead and ducks on the pond. It was just a foolish move, that the most eloquent explanation won't make sensible, much less Willie's confused articulation of his dumb ideas.

What's the bottom line ira?

I always thought it was wins and losses. In that vein Willie has been a complete success since he's been here.

Give the man some credit. He's been around the game for what - 30 years? Is it completely inconceivable that maybe he just might know what he's doing even if it doesn't jibe with what you think he should do?

[Guest iramets]

soupcan wrote: Give the man some credit. He's been around the game for what - 30 years? Is it completely inconceivable that maybe he just might know what he's doing even if it doesn't jibe with what you think he should do?

Is it only me who thinks it was a foolish move? Even if it was a brilliant move (which I'd like to see someone explain to me), Willie should be able to tell us his thinking in a way that makes a modicum of baseball sense.

So far, every justification for this foolishness doesn't add up.

He wanted to preserve his bullpen for later in the year? Then why put Feliciano in the game immediately afterwards? He was afraid of Burrell? If you're scared, stay home--the problem was Howard, who either needed to be walked (if you're so terrified of Burrell) or pitched to with a lefthander, instead of your gopher-prone righthander.

Let me ask you directly, Soupy--do YOU think leaving Burgos in to face Howard was smart baseball?

[duan]

i'm with JD & Yancy on this.

I was thinking that he was mad to stay with Burgos, but then Burgos got going well against him and looked like he could put him away. If Burgos had got the out that he could of when Howard was battling we'd have praised Willie for having 'big balls".

I thought it was interesting to hear Darling call for a fastball pitch high and inside when they went with the splitter that got deposited over the seats. Who do you reckon is calling those pitches - Wilie? LoDuca? Burgos or Peterson.

You could see what Darling was saying, the guys struggling, just don't give him a breaking pitch that's in the zone.

[Guest iramets]

My sense of the CPF today is that the eventual win makes Willie's dumb move less dumb. If the game had ended with the score after Howard's HR, I think I'd have more company. If you doubt it check out pages 5 and 6 of the IGT, when you guys were going crazy at the colossal stupidlity plainly on display.

[metirish]

ira,Willie is not going to admit he was wrong,he seems a stubborn fucker at times,it was a bad move and he got lucky.

[Guest ABG]

Listen, you wanna tell me your'e gonna leave him in to face an above average lefty in that spot--ok. Let him pitch to Griffey or Matt Holliday or even Utley. But you're talking about the NL MVP, the best LH bat in the league.

It's an extreme circumstance and there's no reason to chance it.

[Guest iramets]

There seem to be some people here saying that Willie's move wasn't so dumb, irish, or that he's perfectly good justifying it as badly as he does. I think neither is true: it was a bad move, and he makes it worse by failing to acknowledge it.

[soupcan]

iramets wrote: Let me ask you directly, Soupy--do YOU think leaving Burgos in to face Howard was smart baseball?

Taken by itself - nope, I wouldn't have done it but, it wasn't done in a vacuum and I'm not the guy who has 30 years worth of ML experience backing me up. I think that while the move wasn't a 'by the book' move I assume that Willie's got a bigger picture in mind - be that pumping Burgos up or finding out exactly what he had in Burgos or a combination of the two.

Either way, if he's going to make high-risk moves making them in early April so he can find out exactly what he has in his team is the time to do it.

iramets wrote: My sense of the CPF today is that the eventual win makes Willie's dumb move less dumb. If the game had ended with the score after Howard's HR, I think I'd have more company. If you doubt it check out pages 5 and 6 of the IGT, when you guys were going crazy at the colossal stupidlity plainly on display.

Maybe you're right but again, these moves in early April are more understandable and justifiable. And if Willie does make stupid moves over and over again and wins in spite of them, I'll take it. It's when his unorthodox ways start costing games on a consistent basis (which in the three years he's been here has not been the case) then I'll start griping.

[soupcan]

iramets wrote: There seem to be some people here saying that Willie's move wasn't so dumb, irish, or that he's perfectly good justifying it as badly as he does. I think neither is true: it was a bad move, and he makes it worse by failing to acknowledge it.

The thing is that is was such an easy decision to make - we all thought that Burgos should not and would not pitch to Howard there. Do you think that Willie didn't realize that as well? Obviously he had a reason to do what he did. Say what you want but if the drunk Asian chick sitting behind me knew that Burgos shouldn't pitch to Howard then Willie knew it too and had his reasons for allowing it.

[metirish]

iramets wrote: There seem to be some people here saying that Willie's move wasn't so dumb, irish, or that he's perfectly good justifying it as badly as he does. I think neither is true: it was a bad move, and he makes it worse by failing to acknowledge it.

Oh I think if this was done in a late season game with the Mets holding a one game lead over the Phillies then Willie gets hammered by all,not sure anyone here thinks it was a good move or not a dumb move just that it was a game in April,and I do agree that Willie's failure to acknowledge this is fucking annoying.

[soupcan]

I think you all are assuming that the move was not made because Randolph is stupid.

Really? Do you really think that the guy was clueless as to what was going on on the field? Everyone watching that game thougt Burgos was not going to be allowed to pitch to Howard. Randolph, the manager of the team, was the only guy that didn't realize that?

Come on. Disagree with him but don't think the move wasn't made because he didn't have a reason for it.

[metirish]

soupcan wrote: Come on. Disagree with him but don't think the move wasn't made because he didn't have a reason for it.

Ok fine,but Borgus is brutal against lefties,I hope Willie got whatever information he was looking for and that's that.

[Guest iramets]

soupcan wrote: Disagree with him but don't think the move wasn't made because he didn't have a reason for it.

I'm still waiting to hear a reason that makes sense.

With this logic, Wilie could cut his dick off with a grapefruit knife on the mound, and you'll be saying "Do you think Willie didn't understand how unhealthy that as? Everybody knows you use a scalpel in that spot--give the man some credit." What you are saying is that it is so obviously stupid that Willie had to have his secret reasons for making this move but no one can come up with any yet.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

He gave reasons:

1. Howard has been struggling and he's not Barry Bonds.
2. Heilman is tired and he doesn't want to go deep into his pen too early.

You may not like them, but they're reasons.

And yes, Willie did bring in Feliciano one batter later. But that was AFTER the three-run homer.

He was trying to get out of the inning and past Howard without using an extra pitcher. Once that failed, he saw that the plan didn't work and removed Burgos.

[soupcan]

iramets wrote: I'm still waiting to hear a reason that makes sense. With this logic, Wilie could cut his dick off with a grapefruit knife on the mound, and you'll be saying "Do you think Willie didn't understand how unhealthy that as? Everybody knows you use a scalpel in that spot--give the man some credit." What you are saying is that it is so obviously stupid that Willie had to have his secret reasons for making this move but no one can come up with any yet.

Is your main issue that he makes questionable moves or that he chooses not to explain why he makes questionable moves?

Why do you care what his reasons are? If you think he's stupid then no reason he gives is going to be sufficient anyway.

If you think he had a reason for it, as I do, then I'm satisfied thinking that in addition to what Yancy wrote, his reasoning had to do with seeing how Burgos would perform under pressure and also possibly giving Burgos some confidence had he succeeded in getting Howard out. Much like Willie did with Jorge Julio last year.

This guy has been the manager of the team that has enjoyed a renaissance while he has been here. He's been as successful as any fan could've hoped and I think as a result of that success he should be given a longer leash when it comes to analyzing his decisions.

If Randolph's 'stupid' decisions lead to consistent losses then you'll be proven correct. To date though, if anything, the opposite seems to be true..

[metirish]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: He gave reasons: 1. Howard has been struggling and he's not Barry Bonds.

One of the dumber statements Willie has made IMO.

[Guest iramets]

soupcan wrote: ="iramets"] I'm still waiting to hear a reason that makes sense. With this logic, Wilie could cut his dick off with a grapefruit knife on the mound, and you'll be saying "Do you think Willie didn't understand how unhealthy that as? Everybody knows you use a scalpel in that spot--give the man some credit." What you are saying is that it is so obviously stupid that Willie had to have his secret reasons for making this move but no one can come up with any yet. Is your main issue that he makes questionable moves or that he chooses not to explain why he makes questionable moves?..

Why do I need to choose a main issue? Both are irritating.

] Why do you care what his reasons are? If you think he's stupid then no reason he gives is going to be sufficient anyway.

Just trying to give him a chance to show me what (or if) he's thinking.

]If you think he had a reason for it, as I do, then I'm satisfied thinking that in addition to what Yancy wrote, his reasoning had to do with seeing how Burgos would perform under pressure and also possibly giving Burgos some confidence had he succeeded in getting Howard out. Much like Willie did with Jorge Julio last year.

And is risking a close game worth that risk? I don't think s; if Willie does, there are a lot of lot of risky moves, some not involving a grapefruit knife, that he might try.

]This guy has been the manager of the team that has enjoyed a renaissance while he has been here. He's been as successful as any fan could've hoped and I think as a result of that success he should be given a longer leash when it comes to analyzing his decisions. If Randolph's 'stupid' decisions lead to consistent losses then you'll be proven correct. To date though, if anything, the opposite seems to be true..

So far, he's shown me that he doesn't understand in-game managing very well, and that any other manager, including Art Howe, could have won with this team as well. I believe in criticizing bad moves even when the team is doing well, and then I don't feel like such a bandwagoner when Willie gets fired and everyone says, "Well, we all understood he wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box all along."

[Theoldmole]

The move that seemed strange at the time wasn't so much pitching to Howard (they did that earlier in the game with two men on, and it worked). It was the pinch running move. When Alou got on, we were thinking, Time to put Endy in to pinch run. Then when Green got on, he puts Endy in to run for the trailing guy. Why? But it all worked out.

And I'm on the side of "you manage differently in April than in September."

[soupcan]

Ira baby,

I know that I'm not gonna convince you of my thinking and you're not gonna convince me of yours and, unfortunately, I'm really a hunt-n-peck typist so continuing these discussions takes up quite a bit of time on my end.

This being said how 'bout we agree to disagree and if the Mets tank because Willie is exposed as a complete ignoramous you win and if they romp on their way to the first of 10 consecutive titles then I win.

Deal?

[nymr83]

The move was DUMB the fact that it was April doesn't change the dumbness of the move because these games count just as much as a game played in September.
I'd go so far as to say that this was the dumbest decision (in terms of leaving a pitcher in vs. taking him out) i've ever seen and that includes leaving in pedro when he melted down against the yankees inthe ALCS, at least he was their ace.
Willie had 2 choices (feliciano vs. howard, burgos vs. burrell) that were infinitely superior to what he chose to do. there's no 20/20 hinsight here either, i complained BEFORE the HR.

[Guest iramets]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: He gave reasons: 1. Howard has been struggling and he's not Barry Bonds. 2. Heilman is tired and he doesn't want to go deep into his pen too early. You may not like them, but they're reasons...

This is like saying "My dick was itching me, so I decided to cut it off" is a reason.

Yancy Street Gang wrote: And yes, Willie did bring in Feliciano one batter later. But that was AFTER the three-run homer. He was trying to get out of the inning and past Howard without using an extra pitcher. Once that failed, he saw that the plan didn't work and removed Burgos.

WHHAAAT? What happened to I didn't want to be forced to use Joe Smith to face Burrell if the inning went on? The inning did go on, and he didn't need to bring Joe Smith in to face Burrell.