Jerry Manuel

[Ceetar]

="Edgy DC":250omu6m] What's MM's right hand doing here?[/quote:250omu6m] Icon inspired by this Kurt Snibbe post and the lion's new 'fiercer' logo: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=snibbe/090421&sportCat=nfl Yeah, Carpenter probably isn't waking up with nightmares about Reyes, but my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 09:59 AM

="Ceetar"]... my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore. Actually, the way the Mets used to run the bases under Willie gave me a nightmare. It seemed as if that team couldn't go one week without having one of their own thrown out at the plate by four or five footsteps.

RealityChuck Apr 29 2009 10:09 AM

="Edgy DC":1qfj9mu7]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:1qfj9mu7] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury. Rotblatt Apr 29 2009 10:10 AM ]Lifting a starter after six with 100 or so pitches and a five-run lead just fries my butt. Totally. He's been too quick to yank starting pitchers (up to and including Johann), and while, yes, our bullpen is better this year, if we overwork our relievers, it won't stay that way. I'm not a fan of the bunting either, but I feel like he's been better than Willie on that front, and leaving his decision to stick with Green last night aside, his bullpen management has been better as well. So I'm going to go with, he's an improvement, but he could be better. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:20 AM With the way this new park looks like it's going to play , a lot of doubles and triples , it would seem to suit smart aggressive play . I would like to see Beltran and Reyes play with more abandon . Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:21 AM ="RealityChuck":3pp7aa9r] ="Edgy DC":3pp7aa9r]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:3pp7aa9r] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:3pp7aa9r] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 10:32 AM ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1] ="RealityChuck":27hreoq1] ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"] ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

[batmagadanleadoff]

="Ceetar"]... my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore.

Actually, the way the Mets used to run the bases under Willie gave me a nightmare. It seemed as if that team couldn't go one week without having one of their own thrown out at the plate by four or five footsteps.

[RealityChuck]

="Edgy DC":1qfj9mu7]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:1qfj9mu7] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.

Rotblatt Apr 29 2009 10:10 AM

]Lifting a starter after six with 100 or so pitches and a five-run lead just fries my butt. Totally. He's been too quick to yank starting pitchers (up to and including Johann), and while, yes, our bullpen is better this year, if we overwork our relievers, it won't stay that way. I'm not a fan of the bunting either, but I feel like he's been better than Willie on that front, and leaving his decision to stick with Green last night aside, his bullpen management has been better as well. So I'm going to go with, he's an improvement, but he could be better.

metirish Apr 29 2009 10:20 AM

With the way this new park looks like it's going to play , a lot of doubles and triples , it would seem to suit smart aggressive play . I would like to see Beltran and Reyes play with more abandon .

Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:21 AM

="RealityChuck":3pp7aa9r] ="Edgy DC":3pp7aa9r]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:3pp7aa9r] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:3pp7aa9r] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 10:32 AM ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1] ="RealityChuck":27hreoq1] ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"] ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

[Guest Rotblatt]

]Lifting a starter after six with 100 or so pitches and a five-run lead just fries my butt.

Totally. He's been too quick to yank starting pitchers (up to and including Johann), and while, yes, our bullpen is better this year, if we overwork our relievers, it won't stay that way.

I'm not a fan of the bunting either, but I feel like he's been better than Willie on that front, and leaving his decision to stick with Green last night aside, his bullpen management has been better as well.

So I'm going to go with, he's an improvement, but he could be better.

[metirish]

With the way this new park looks like it's going to play , a lot of doubles and triples , it would seem to suit smart aggressive play . I would like to see Beltran and Reyes play with more abandon .

[Guest Edgy DC]

="RealityChuck":3pp7aa9r] ="Edgy DC":3pp7aa9r]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:3pp7aa9r] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:3pp7aa9r] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 10:32 AM ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1] ="RealityChuck":27hreoq1] ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"] ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

[Ceetar]

="Edgy DC":27hreoq1] ="RealityChuck":27hreoq1] ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"] ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

[metirish]

We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Santana, of course.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH.

Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.

[Frayed Knot]

="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games.

Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM

I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel

HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM

Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt.

mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM

Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb.....

metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM

Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch"....

Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM

There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth.

Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM

Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K.

Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM

Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy

Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared

Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM

I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.

Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM

="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"] ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

[ashie62]

I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel

[HahnSolo]

Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt.

[Guest mario25]

Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb.....

[metirish]

Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch"....

[Benjamin Grimm]

There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth.

[Frayed Knot]

Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K.

[ashie62]

Post game conference should be a hoot

Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy

[Ceetar]

Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach.

Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself.

Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.

[Ceetar]

="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though.

metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM

] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit."

Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM

OMG, there was a thought process.

Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM

Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move.

Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM

Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM

It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention.

Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM

I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been.

duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM

[url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management.

metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM

Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM

I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."

Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM

="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"] ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

[metirish]

] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit."

[Guest Kong76]

OMG, there was a thought process.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s?

Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been.

[duan]

[url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww]

ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses.

.500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are.

However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR
and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive.

That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management.

[metirish]