41 of the Last 59

[Guest Edgy DC]

Games lost by the Mets.

That's a bad finish. I still await what kind of historic ranking this second half gets, but they could finish under .300 over the last 62 games. Bad SHaMs! Bad!

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yes, I am waiting for the final figures to come in, but the initial SHaMs post ( mbtn.net/lets-go-shams ) speculated the Mets needed 50 wins in the second half to make the playoffs, and they've gone and lost more than 50. Incredible!

[Guest The Second Spitter]

They went 7-8 in July - which means they've gone 17 under since then. In two months.

[G-Fafif]

39-71 from June 1 on. That's more than two-thirds of a season played at a clip that would produce a full-year record of 57-105.

With adversity, we became the Washington Nationals. (No offense to the Washington Nationals who are four games better than us these past four months.)

[bmfc1]

http://www.newsday.com/columnists/ken-davidoff/maybe-mets-should-start-by-firing-manuel-1.1490341

I agree.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Except I disagree with the 3 candidates he proposes. With extreme prejudice. Fuck me, if the Mets hire La Russa I'd seriously consider giving it all away.

[bmfc1]

I agree on Acta. As a manager, he's a fine 3B coach.

[Guest attgig]

wow. the 2nd 1/2 records are pretty disappointing. we have just as many losses as the pirates. not sure about any other teams....

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I like the idea of a managerial move.

Just wondering, though... if, say, Bobby V is in the captain's chair for this season (and assuming things played out exactly as they did in the first, say, two months), how do you think things play out in the second half? How do you think the handling of the team/media changes?

[TransMonk]

wow. the 2nd 1/2 records are pretty disappointing. we have just as many losses as the pirates. not sure about any other teams....[/quote:1y0ckf0i]

Since the break, only Baltimore has more losses with 50. Pittsburgh and the Shams have 47 losses apiece.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I like think we'd have seen (1) less reliever abuse early in the season, (2) less bunting in the middle of the season, and (3) less lineup rehashings at the end of the season.

Would all that have added up to even six more wins? I don't know. Maybe I also fancy that he'd provide some leadership on dealing with the injuries as realistically as possible. I don't know that anything could have been done, but waiting for the help that was never going to come seemed to have killed the team's spirit and Jerry's as well.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Don't get me wrong, I think Bobby Valentine is great, and I'd be delighted if he came back. But it it were up to me, the Restoration that I'd prefer would be Davey Johnson. As long as he hasn't mellowed (and I don't know if this is the case or not) I think he'd be the ideal guy to bring in right now.

They need a smart guy, and a no-nonsense guy. Both Davey and Bobby qualify on the first count, but I think Davey better fits that second criteria.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think Davey must have mellowed. His management of his World Baseball Classic team was as political as it was competitive. Very much a nonsense-tolerating performance, I'm afraid.

[Guest attgig]

wow. the 2nd 1/2 records are pretty disappointing. we have just as many losses as the pirates. not sure about any other teams....

[Guest The Second Spitter]

Don't get me wrong, I think Bobby Valentine is great, and I'd be delighted if he came back. [/quote:2byeps1z]

You know, I'm probably going to end-up regretting asking this, but nevertheless; why do you all think Valentine is so great?

[Guest themetfairy]

I think that those of us who have met him in person will agree that he is amazingly charismatic.

[Valadius]

I think we could have used:

1. More home runs
2. Fewer walks by pitchers
3. Fewer basepath blunders

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

why do you all think Valentine is so great?

1. Rarely if ever got outmanaged by the other guy. This doesn't mean they won games every night because they outsmarted the compettion, but that they almost never lost a game because the skipper did something retarded or got outmaneuvered. I almost never have that feeling that won't happen today. That is a constant and I think it pays off over the long season.

2. He's a strong personality who's good with the media. This is pretty much the entire argument for Jerry, and I think we're already seeing the limits of this benefit.

3. Valentine though took it it a step further and helped to fuse the Mets with an identity. He embodied the role of Mets manager like no one since.

4. Tactically I think he was pretty good. He managed the bullpen very well. He got all 25 guys into the picture in one role or another. He advocated fopr help on the field when he needed it. He called out the douchebags when it was time to call out the douchebags.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

why do you all think Valentine is so great?

1. Rarely if ever got outmanaged by the other guy. This doesn't mean they won games every night because they outsmarted the compettion, but that they almost never lost a game because the skipper did something retarded or got outmaneuvered. I almost never have that feeling that won't happen today. That is a constant and I think it pays off over the long season.

2. He's a strong personality who's good with the media. This is pretty much the entire argument for Jerry, and I think we're already seeing the limits of this benefit.

3. Valentine though took it it a step further and helped to fuse the Mets with an identity. He embodied the role of Mets manager like no one since.

4. Tactically I think he was pretty good. He managed the bullpen very well. He got all 25 guys into the picture in one role or another. He advocated fopr help on the field when he needed it. He called out the douchebags when it was time to call out the douchebags.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I think 1 and 4 were separate points.

1 means he was rarely a liability when running the club: He rarely missed anything, got a rule interpretation wrong, got outsmarted by the other manager, etc. I'm saying he was as prepared to manage all the weird things in a game as anyone, and that paid off over the long season.

Your contention that there are 7 better tactical managers opposes point 4, and I'm not going to argue that strongly, except to say I don't think tactics between the very good tactical managers, if you think there are 7 of them, tend to matter so much as the differences between the top 7 and bottom 7.

[Guest The Second Spitter]

I think 1 and 4 were separate points.

1 means he was rarely a liability when running the club: He rarely missed anything, got a rule interpretation wrong, got outsmarted by the other manager, etc. I'm saying he was as prepared to manage all the weird things in a game as anyone, and that paid off over the long season.
.[/quote:30y3zqdm]

Fair enough, I don't dispute the three subsequent managers to Valentine displayed a proclivity to fuck things up on the field, but that's an indictment of whoever hired them. It's certainly not a virtue that makes me want to go out and re-hire Valentine. But if it's out-of-the-box thinkers you want, maybe they should be chasing somebody like Maddon, who doesn't come with half of Valentine's baggage.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm not a Valentine advocate inasmuch as I don;t think hiring him is realistic from the Mets POV and don't want to waste energy hoping for it. I'd also be happy with a guy like Maddon but unless Omar goes too, I don't think it happens either.

I actually think going out there everyday knowing your team isn't going to lose because your manager isn't prepared, or hired a dummy to coach third base, or whatever, is a great attribute in a manager.