I'll Try Anything in April

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

But by then the situation had changed.

[Guest iramets]

Burrell was at the plate, wasn't he? Feliciano was still facing him, wasn't he? there wer still the same number of outs, weren't there? Why (if Burgos had walked Howard, which I wouldn't have done) does Joe Smith come into the picture at all? Willie would have been "forced" to bring in Smith why?

[nymr83]

bringing Smith in to face Burrell (after walking Howard) seems silly to me, but its alot more defensible than what Willie actually did.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

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

Here's where I bail out of the conversation.

[nymr83]

i think a better analogy would be "i left Glavine up at the plate to bat as the tying run in the 8th inning, why'd i do it? well, he's no rey ordonez..."

[soupcan]

You guys just want to convince yourselves and prove to everyone else that you're smarter than a major league manager when it comes to in-game strategies.

You're not.

You keep harping on this one non-move as proof that he's stupid and you're smart.

That's what's dumb.

What experience do you have managing a major league game? How about a little league game?

Enough already. Whether you agree with his move or not, whether he explains it to your satisfaction or not, the guy is better suited for the job than you, knew what he was doing, whether you agree with it or not when he left Burgos in the game. It wasn't a situation that needed a rocket scientist to evaluate. He saw what you saw, he knew what you knew. For his own personal reasons he chose to play it his way.

He obviously felt that if it cost him the game than whatever he learned from it was worth it. That's his perogative because wins and losses will directly effect his job security.

[nymr83]

now i get it!
anyone who is hired is automatically qualified to be a major league manager on account of being a major league manager!
brilliant!

while i was only questioning this one move and not willie's overall intelligence i now do have to question you, under what circumstances CAN a manager's judgment be called into question? or are they immune to criticism in your fantasy world?

[Centerfield]

Isn't it pretty obvious why Willie left Burgos in the game? He had gotten himself into a jam and had just about worked out of it. By leaving Burgos in to face the reigning NL MVP, Willie probably thought it would give Burgos a huge lift in terms of confidence, get the Shea faithful on his side, and go a long way to leaving his troubles in KC behind. After all, Burgos' splitter looked sharp and Howard had been struggling, so Willie decided to give it a roll of the dice.

But since it didn't work, Willie can't give the real reason...because then the follow-up questions, and the logical conclusion, would be that since he didn't get him out, his confidence should be shattered, the fans should be on his back, and his struggles in KC have followed him here. So Willie has to make up excuses, and is stuck with lame ones.

I don't agree with the move, not because I think Willie is a moron (though I may have said so during the IGT) but because I don't think that is the right time to be taking those chances. With Ryan Howard batting, a lefty warm in the pen, and a 1-run game with 2 runners on, you go with the percentages. And you leave the confidence builders for other, less dire, situations. (One could even make a case if Howard were the tying run at the plate, but with runners on 2nd and 3rd, even a single gives up the lead.)

As to Willie's in-game moves, there have been plenty of times I've had to scratch my head. (For example, his use of Endy as the trail runner is mind-boggling. If you sub him for the trail runner, that means you are playing for the win...so why bunt? If the idea is to get the runner to third, wouldn't you want your fast guy to be in that position?) But for every manager the Mets have ever had, even Bobby from time to time, I've questioned moves and disagreed and called them idiots. It's just the nature of the game.

[Willets Point]

What will you try in April?

I've been reading Comics Curmudgeon too long to have this be the first thing that comes to mind (not literally).

[Guest iramets]

Actually, Soupy, I think there are about eight or nine guys on the CPF who have more understanding of the in-game stuff than Willie does. (I exclude myself out of modesty.) Could we actually manage? No, but because we wouldn't have the MLB cred that MLB experience gives Willie-but in a table game, like Strat-o-matic, managing players, I really don't think Willie would have an advantage over any of the CPFers I have in miind, and I suspect that as far as those moves go, they'd beat his ass in over a whole season. It's not rocket science. Many posters here have jobs that demand more intellectual ability than a MLB manager does, and they do those jobs quite well, as far as I can see.

[soupcan]

Nymr83 wrote: now i get it! anyone who is hired is automatically qualified to be a major league manager on account of being a major league manager! brilliant!

Wouldn't you say that person would be more qualified than someone who has never managed?

Nymr83 wrote: while i was only questioning this one move and not willie's overall intelligence i now do have to question you, under what circumstances CAN a manager's judgment be called into question? or are they immune to criticism in your fantasy world?

You can question them all you want about whatever you want.

My quarrel is that you are saying that his not changing pitchers was dumb. I'm disagreeing because I think he knew exactly what he was or was not doing and chose - for whatever reason - to keep Burgos in. I think that he was not as concerned about that particular game as he was about whatever it is he was trying to accomplish by leaving Burgos in.

If Randolph chooses to make something other than winning that particuar game the priority I suppose you could classify that as 'dumb', but again he is the guy that's going to suffer when it comes down to wins and losses.

Perhaps at this point in the season building confidence and finding out exactly what he has in Burgos is slightly more important than that one game.

I have no idea what rattles around in Willie's brain and neither do you. Based on his record though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[soupcan]

iramets wrote: Actually, Soupy, I think there are about eight or nine guys on the CPF who have more understanding of the in-game stuff than Willie does.

I highly doubt this.

iramets wrote: It's not rocket science. Many posters here have jobs that demand more intellectual ability than a MLB manager does, and they do those jobs quite well, as far as I can see.

I agree that its not rocket science and there are other people with greater intellect but that does not necessarily mean that if you threw these people into the dugout that they could do it.

Could I fly a plane just because I'm smart, read alot of books about it and watched pilots fly? Maybe I could but would I be a better pilot than someone who has been flying for 20 plus years (or even 2 plus years)?

[Guest iramets]

I'd find your reasoning more persuasive if you could explain WHAT Willie's logic was, rather than just asserting that he must have had some. CF (who's definitely one of the CPFers I consider over-qualified to manage a MLB game) provides some plausible reasoning, although as he notes it explains more what was totally screwed up in Willie's thinking than what was sensible.

Willie himself often just glibly tells reporters "I played a hunch," which is an explanation but a totally self-contained, utterly unanswerable one that doesn't even try to explain his reasoning. You're 100% right, his job depends on his success, and he'll keep his job as long as his luck holds out and his players keep scoring 11 runs a game. Of course, if CF had the job, and the offense kept scoring 11 runs a game every time he screwed up, he'd keep the job for a long time too.

[nymr83]

]If Randolph chooses to make something other than winning that particuar game the priority I suppose you could classify that as 'dumb', but again he is the guy that's going to suffer when it comes down to wins and losses.

yes, thats dumb. we as fans suffer when our team loses and we have every right to criticize the team/mangement/whoever for not doing its best to win

]Perhaps at this point in the season building confidence and finding out exactly what he has in Burgos is slightly more important than that one game.

I 100% disagree with that statement. First of all a win in April has the same value as a win in September, if you're unwilling to accept that very basic premise go find me some evidence that proves that September W's count twice. So the "at this point in the season" part is simply wrong. As for finding out what he has, the time and place to do that are either in spring training, in the minor leagues, or in a blowout.
Wins are VERY VALUABLE. giving one away (or rather, significantly lessening your chances of getting one) in order to "find out exactly what" a middle reliever "has" (which, by the way, you are not going to find out from the sample size of one plate appearance) is foolish.

[metsmarathon]

so you don't believe in risking a win in april so as to improve your chances of winning in september?

how is a manager supposed to learn the abilities and limits of his roster if he is not to test and experiment with his players? players respond differently to real games than they do in spring training, and its important to know how burgos can a) handle pressure and handle failure.

the time to find out is now, in april, rather than in september, when you have no choice, and no margin for error.

[nymr83]

your "margin for error" is less in October than it is now, but it is the same now as it is in September.

i don't think risking a win in april in this way does elevate your chances of winning in september by any measurable degree, i do think that before that AB the Mets had something like an 80% chance to win the game and after that AB their chances were under 20%. i don't think that even if "knowing something" about burgos was worth say .1% in every game the rest of the year that that would add up to the huge drop-off in your chances of winning this game.
i also don't think you DO learn anything valuable about Burgos from 1 AB. If anything, you get a false impression about Burgos (he sucks because he gave up the HR, or he's great because he K'd Howard) based on this 1 AB that carries forward and messes up your thinking going forward.
the proper way to learn about a player is to look at his statistics over a sufficient sample size. Burgos' career against lefties, Howard's against righties (and against lefties and Feliciano's against lefties) should have led to the obvious (to everyone not named willie randolph) decision to pull burgos for feliciano (or walk the guy for burrell).
when, you might ask, does burgos get to build a resume that will allow you to evaluate him? when he's not facing the best lefty in the league with the tying run on 3rd and the go-ahed run on 2nd with BETTER OPTIONS available.

on edit- while you don't gain much insight into Burgos from 1 AB, you DO gain significant insight into the thought process (or lack therof) of the manager, because while random chance and a million other factors will affect the outcome of the AB, nothig is affecting the "input", that is willie's decision.
to put it more succinctly, we learned more about randolph than we did about burgos yesterday, and i dont like what i learned,

[Guest Rotblatt]

As a manager, Willie should understand the limitations of his staff, and work around them to maximize his staff's effectiveness. When you've got a left-handed hitter up who historically rakes righties, and you leave your right-handed pitcher, who is historically atrocious against lefties, in the game, you're pretty obviously not doing that.

Now, there might be a valid reason for it--it's a blow-out, you have no one left in the pen, etc.--but in this case, it was a close game, we had plenty of arms left in the pen, and first base was open with two outs and a righty on deck.

It should have been a no-brainer to take out Burgos, and I think it's absolutely fair to call Willie out for not doing it.

That being said, it's not the end of the world, and IMO, Willie has improved by leaps and bounds over the last year in terms of managing his bullpen. Most notably his use of Bradford last season, and his willingness to keep Heilman in there against lefties.

And a random observation: I thought Burgos looked pretty damn tough when I watched the encore yesterday. I mean, the dude looked sharp aside from the hanging splitter--even though he gave up the home run, I thought it was a pretty encouraging outing.

[metsmarathon]

so there's nothing about burgos' makeup that willie could possibly have learned yesterday? nothing?

there's no way he could have learned how burgos steps up to a challenge, or how he responds to adversity or failure? there's no way willie could have learned whether or not he can use burgos in a big spot down the road, not based on the results of his one bad pitch, but his approach and demeanor and reaction before and afterwards?

there's no way he could have learned whether or not burgos has the temperament to shake that off and maybe approach the next challenging situation willingly?

there's no way willie could have learned whether or not burgos hides from failure, and there's no way willie could possibly learn from how burgos responds in his next outing?

there's just no way? really?

i'd like to think that the manager can learn more from his players than simply whether or not a certain pitch got by a batter, and whether or not that pitch got deposited over an outfield wall. not just willie, but any manager. i'd like to think that a manager can continually assess his personnel throughout the season and incorporate that knowledge into future wins and losses.

and yes, mathematically, april games are just as important as september games. but in september, the loss of one game could swing a season, and really, it doesn't matter whether that one loss is in september, or if it came all the way back on april 7th. the difference is that in april, your team has time to recover from that loss, to learn from it, to play better, and to hopefully win enough future games so as to negate the ill effects of that one april loss. in september, you have far fewer future games.

much like teams can overcome giving up runs in the first inning far more easily than they can in the ninth, teams can overcome april losses far more easily than they can september losses.

[Guest Rotblatt]

]so there's nothing about burgos' makeup that willie could possibly have learned yesterday? nothing?

Sure, he might have learned something about his makeup, but he wasn't going to learn anything about whether or not he could reliably get lefties out.

There is NO WAY Burgos should be left in to face a tough lefty when it's close and late.

In 53 innings pitched, lefties are batting .322 against him, and he's walked 34, giving up 13 HR.

That's a pretty darn open-and-shut case right there, even BEFORE you look at Howard's splits (.770 OPS against lefties, 1.116 OPS against righties).

So basically, I don't think whatever it was that Willie learned was at all relevant. If he wanted to see how Burgos handled a pressure situation, he should have tried a close and late situation against a tough right-handed batter. If he wanted to see how Burgos handled failure, he should have left him in against a tough lefty with no one on base and us leading by a couple runs.

Willie set Burgos up to fail, and that's just not good managing, period.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

I hope Willy is having a nice thick juicy steak right now and sharing a bottle
of wine with someone and I'm glad (at least I think, we don't really know) that
he's not as conflicted on this one little episode as the CPF is.

Jeez, it's fun to read, but it's all over the map. The place mighta gone and im-
ploded if they lost.

[metirish]

That's what happens when the Mets have an off day....

[RealityChuck]

Centerfield wrote: 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.

Nothing necessarily translates into anything. Maybe it doesn't work; maybe it does. There are no guarantees in baseball.

But players have egos. And by showing confidence in a player who has had very little confidence shown in him lately, it's going to give him a better attitude. Will it make a difference? No way to tell. Burgos just may not have the ability. But if he's borderline, isn't it better to show confidence in him than to pull him? If he has confidence, and isn't tentative and looking over his shoulder, then he's going to be a better pitcher, because he won't be overthinking.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Rotblatt wrote: [ There is NO WAY Burgos should be left in to face a tough lefty when it's close and late. .

It was the 6th inning. That's been a key consideration from the start.

]In 53 innings pitched, lefties are batting .322 against him, and he's walked 34, giving up 13 HR.

I thought the consensus on Burgos' MLB performance to date was that it needed some mental adjustment for his being rushed into the big leagues and the developmental corners cut in Kansas City. The friggin guy is younger than Joe Smith after all (a few weeks anyway).

I'm not saying you pretend those numbers don't exist, but it doesn't mean you have to obey them. I'm saying, flaunt them. It's April. Willie's still seeing what he has.

If a guy's not good enough to pitch in the 6th inning in April aren't you really saying this guy isn't good enough to be on the team? This then is a beef with Omar and not Willie.

[Guest iramets]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: [if a guy's not good enough to pitch in the 6th inning in April aren't you really saying this guy isn't good enough to be on the team?.

I'm saying this guy has shown that he's not ready to face the top left-handed slugger in the league with a one-run lead and runners on base in a game against your division competition. What's hard to get about that? If he wants to see what Burgos can do, pitch him against tough lefty sluggers in blowouts. Again, is this a subtle point or something?

As to Chuck's point about "showing confidence in a player," how self-confident do you think Burgos is feeling about now? He'll be overthinking for a month. He's been waking up screaming "Ryan Howard!!!" the past two nights--what sort of good do you suppose that's doing his confidence? If he was tentative before, he's terrified now. If he was terrified before, he's positively hystrionic now. Thanks, Willie. Good move.

[Elster88]

I'm with Iramander on this one. The idea of trying to "see what a player can do" only works under one condition: there has to be a chance that the situation could happen again.

And is there a chance in hell that Burgos will be left in to pitch to a lefty near Howard's level in a situation like yesterday's? The way Willie manages his bullpen in the postseason? Especially in a game in September or October, which people apparently think Willie used yesterday to train Burgos for?

I say the odds are about 200 to 1 against. So what's the point of seeing how Burgos reacts to the situation when it'll never come up in a game that means something?

(And this is buying that yesterday's game meant nothing, which I don't agree with)

To me the argument that makes more sense is trying to rest the pen. (Did anyone else read that Heilman has tendonitis in his elbow?!?!)

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

You're acknowledging Heilman may be injured and saying the fact that a 22 year old with 100mph stuff already in the organization taking a similar role or at least stepping up is a 200-1 shot?

[metirish]

Heilman has had the tendonitis since last season,hasn't he?...

[metsmarathon]

i dont think the situation is specifically "6th inning of tight game against one of the best lefty power hitters in the game" but rather "men on base, close game, scary batter"

and if burgos crumbles as a result of having failed under this pressure situation, then we know not to use him in the future. do we know that he's crumbeld? or has he responded well? i'd like to think that we're in a particularly disadvantaged position to evaluate it, right now. does burgos want the ball again next time out, or is he afraid to pitch anymore? does he carry yesterdays at bat with him to the mound, or is it already behind him?

if he bounces back, then we know that he can be resillient in the future, and that one failure may not snowball into multiple. if he doesn't, then we know that willie has to baby him throughout the season.

and that should affect how he manages from here on. and if he is able to manage effectively based on what he learns of burgos, then he can improve his chances of winning in the future.

and the win expectancy went from 0.699 to 0.268 after howard finished circling the bases.

now, i'd like to use this to make a point about april versus september!
a home team that allows the visitors a two run lead with two outs in the top of the first has a 37% chance of winning the game. by the sixth inning, that scenario - two runs down, two outs, bases empty, visitors still at bat - the home team is down to a 27% chance of winning, and by the ninth, that's down to about 8%.

its the same absolute margin, but earlier in the game, there's time to come back - because the margin of error is greater. later in the game, there's no time to make up thos two runs, so the margin of error is smaller.

its the same thing with april wins & losses, and september wins & losses.

[Elster88]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: You're acknowledging Heilman may be injured and saying the fact that a 22 year old with 100mph stuff already in the organization taking a similar role or at least stepping up is a 200-1 shot?

No that's not what I said. I didn't say any of those things were a 200-1 shot (FYI the oddsmaking was rhetoric), I said "the chance of him being used in the type of spot he was yesterday in a stretch game" is a 200-1 shot.

C'mon leave the strawman at home.

[Guest iramets]

Besides which, you're confusing this one small issue with large, nebulous, un-knowable issues: bring Feliciano in one batter sooner than he did, not whether Heilman is hurt or Pedro is healing quickly or Willie was bounced on his head as a small child. It's pretty simple: should Willie have left a young, unconfident righhander who's given up more HRs in a short career than Bayer has aspirin pills to face the premier lefty slugger in the league, or brought in the lefthander whom, it turned out, he did bring in anyway? It's not a complicated question, though you're trying your best to make it appear to be so.