David Wright in 2005 (Split from 4/5 IGT)

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Jerry's WAY too matchup happy for my tastes, but I can guess he'd explain this by saying the veteran stood a better chance vs. Johnson; or maybe would be less likely to be overpowered into a 3-week slump anyway.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Jerry's WAY too matchup happy for my tastes, but I can guess he'd explain this by saying the veteran stood a better chance vs. Johnson; or maybe would be less likely to be overpowered into a 3-week slump anyway.[/quote:79ko8q69]

Reminds me of the guy who five years ago, kept on batting an obviously past his prime Piazza cleanup and buried Wright at the bottom of the lineup when the youngster was clearly the team's best or second best hitter and Piazza wasn't.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Gangsta-in-Chief's both matchup-happy AND tends to get said matchups wrong pretty often. It's not a winning combination.

[Ceetar]

Jerry's WAY too matchup happy for my tastes, but I can guess he'd explain this by saying the veteran stood a better chance vs. Johnson; or maybe would be less likely to be overpowered into a 3-week slump anyway.[/quote:35pihltp]

Reminds me of the guy who five years ago, kept on batting an obviously past his prime Piazza cleanup and buried Wright at the bottom of the lineup when the youngster was clearly the team's best or second best hitter and Piazza wasn't.[/quote:35pihltp]

Willie was slow to change, but he _did_ change.

I have yet to see Manuel do the same.

Regardless. 13 hours. I'm leaving in 9. Mets in 2010. Let's get this started.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Willie did not change. If he could he'd still be managing here.

[ashie62]

I see Willie & Jerry as "garbage in, garbage out" talent.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The story of David Wright's buriage is largely a myth.

Year	Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th
2003	David Wright	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2003	Mike Piazza	0	0	28	36	0	0	0	0
2004	David Wright	0	1	18	0	13	22	11	3
2004	Mike Piazza	0	0	61	61	1	0	0	0
2005	David Wright	0	3	4	3	76	34	40	0
2005	Mike Piazza	0	0	0	34	44	25	2	0

Essentially, Wright, Piazza, and Randolph shared a single season --- Randolph's first, Piazza's last, and Wright's first full one after playing 69 games as a partial-season rookie under Art Howe. The season opened with a hint that, in Willie's seemingly solid lineup, Wright would bat eighth. Fans were angry, and stayed so even after it never happened.

Wright started the season batting seventh and eventually worked his way up to a more typical lineup position of fifth, with Piazza dropping as the season progressed. When he passed Piazza in the batting order, he made a gracious statement about how Piazza was still an important part of the lineup.

[ashie62]

I liked how we did the batting order as kids in the sandlot. The best hitter bats first, second best second, right on down the line.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The story of David Wright's buriage is largely a myth.

Year	Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th
2003	David Wright	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2003	Mike Piazza	0	0	28	36	0	0	0	0
2004	David Wright	0	1	18	0	13	22	11	3
2004	Mike Piazza	0	0	61	61	1	0	0	0
2005	David Wright	0	3	4	3	76	34	40	0
2005	Mike Piazza	0	0	0	34	44	25	2	0

Essentially, Wright, Piazza, and Randolph shared a single season --- Randolph's first, Piazza's last, and Wright's first full one after playing 69 games as a partial-season rookie under Art Howe. The season opened with a hint that, in Willie's seemingly solid lineup, Wright would bat eighth. Fans were angry, and stayed so even after it never happened.

Wright started the season batting seventh and eventually worked his way up to a more typical lineup position of fifth, with Piazza dropping as the season progressed. When he passed Piazza in the batting order, he made a gracious statement about how Piazza was still an important part of the lineup.

[batmagadanleadoff]

duplicate

[batmagadanleadoff]

Willie was slow to change, but he _did_ change.

I have yet to see Manuel do the same. [/quote:1uo8kga6]

The Mets had the best record in the NL in 2008 from the day Randolph was finally fired, through season's end. What do you propose Manuel should have done in 2009 that might have made a difference? Knock Pujols over the head when no one was looking, slip a Mets uniform on him and then hope that the Cardinals wouldn't notice? And even so, the Mets still would've sucked.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Where's the myth? The team's best or second best hitter batting 6th or under for 74 games is inexcusable.

[Ceetar]

Willie was slow to change, but he _did_ change.

I have yet to see Manuel do the same. [/quote:2vpb9ncj]

The Mets had the best record in the NL in 2008 from the day Randolph was finally fired, through season's end. What do you propose Manuel should have done in 2009 that might have made a difference? Knock Pujols over the head when no one was looking, slip a Mets uniform on him and then hope that the Cardinals wouldn't notice? And even so, the Mets still would've sucked.[/quote:2vpb9ncj]

Firing a guy after a slow start, and rewarding the 'new guy' (he was just as much a part of the 2007 collapse. If you're going to get a new manager, get someone untainted) when the talent on the field is what wins the game is silly. That best record was due to the players, and I still say that if a different manager managed the bullpen in 2008, the Mets would've made the playoffs. The first season Manuel had control from the get-go had the team play sloppy, unprepared baseball in the beginning and was rife with poor managerial decisions even before the injuries really took hold. Not to mention the opposite field drill, which they've shuffled off to a scape goat, but Manuel took full credit for last Spring. Manuel's a horrible manager, but we know this.

It's now Opening Day. The Players are talented enough to rise above, and actually win games in spite of the poor lineup selections and bullpen usage. I'm headed out ot the park now, looking forward to seeing Santana and one of most talented teams in the game win a ballgame.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Where's the myth? The team's best or second best hitter batting 6th or under for 74 games is inexcusable.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Davey Johnson didn't need any time to clear the Mets roster of the old and ineffective "veteran" pitchers that he otherwise would have inherited.[/quote:1eh2izx5]

The crap you reach for. Craig Swan and Dick Tidrow were released in May, but Mike Torrez was released June 22. How long did Gary Carter bat in front of a more effectvie Darryl Strawberry and Kevin McReynolds? How long did Keith Hernandez last in a batting order position he wasn't earning?

One of Johnson's immediate moves was also to remove Mookie Wilson from the leadoff spot.[/quote:1eh2izx5]
Nothing to do with anything here.

I don't know how you can defend Randolph's lineups, especially in 2005.[/quote:1eh2izx5]
I'm not. I'm presenting facts to dispel the myth of Wright being buried. He wasn't. It doesn't mean I don't have a load of disagreements with Randolph, but I'm certainly not going to fall into the trap of skewing facts to suit an agenda.

I haven't even dragged out Miguel Cairo batting second, or Jose Reyes, the worst everyday player for almost all of that year, batting leadoff and looking mighty feeble in doing so. Do you think that Johnson would've opened with Reyes and Cairo in 2005?[/quote:1eh2izx5]
Can you change the subject any more?

Yes, but meaningless to your defense of Randolph.[/quote:1eh2izx5]
It's not a defense. It's a fact check.

Nothing's changed for me, yet. I'm not going to judge Manuel on what he did during last year's lost season, managing so many games that everyone in the Mets organization had to know were meaningless from a standings perspective.[/quote:1eh2izx5]
I must be confusing you with somebody else, because I had understood you to be quite down on him.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Nothing's changed for me, yet. I'm not going to judge Manuel on what he did during last year's lost season, managing so many games that everyone in the Mets organization had to know were meaningless from a standings perspective.[/quote:2x8pb4k0]

I must be confusing you with somebody else, because I had understood you to be quite down on him.[/quote:2x8pb4k0]

Me, prolly?

(Or Ceetar?)

[DocTee]

Off to work...boo hoo.

LGM!

Have fun those in attendance and watching from the comforts of home.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nothing to do with anything here.

It has everything to do with everything. You're defending Wright batting 6th and 7th on grounds that it was reasonable for Randolph to use 74 games to asses the third baseman's skills. I'm saying that the better managers have better eyeballs.

[nymr83]

there is an inconsistency here in that, in 1994/95, it took time to "evaluate" Wright down in the lineup while one of the worst players in the national league, also young and inexperienced, was allowed to bat leadoff regularly.
are you making young hitters prove themselves or not? because if your excuse is "reyes is eventually going to leadoff so lets get him started there" then the same should apply to wright in either the 3 or 5 spot.

[batmagadanleadoff]

there is an inconsistency here in that, in 1994/95, it took time to "evaluate" Wright down in the lineup while one of the worst players in the national league, also young and inexperienced, was allowed to bat leadoff regularly.
are you making young hitters prove themselves or not? because if your excuse is "reyes is eventually going to leadoff so lets get him started there" then the same should apply to wright in either the 3 or 5 spot.[/quote:2xpje4xb]

You meant 2004/2005 instead of 1994/1995 but yeah, great point.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I don't think a hard-and-fast standard like that would serve anybody well. And for god sakes he wasn't "evaluating" Wright no matter what was said; he was batting him where he did because Willie believed that Wright might benefit from this old-school jock approach where young players were expected to force their way to more prominence in the order. I didn't much like it either, but it had to take a certain amount of willful ignorance to not recognize this.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I agree that that's inconsistent. I imagine Randolph would distinguish the cases (in his mind, if not in print) with some combination of
1) Reyes was established in that position when I got here, so it would be contrary to his development to demote him after the fact.
2) He profiled as a leadoff hitter --- of which there's only one --- and we were developing him as such. Batting sixth is a little like batting fifth with is kind of like batting forth, but the thing most like batting leadoff is batting ninth.
3) He was Willie's personal project.

I disagree that he was the worst everyday player in baseball, but yeah, he should have been down the lineup and Cairo should have been out of the lineup. Please understand these are my speculations of Randolph's reasoning and not mine

Nothing to do with anything here.

It has everything to do with everything. You're defending Wright batting 6th and 7th on grounds that it was reasonable for Randolph to use 74 games to asses the third baseman's skills.

[metirish]

In 56 career games (04/05) batting 6th Wright has .344 BA - 16 - HR - 42 RBI.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I disagree that he was the worst everyday player in baseball, but yeah, he should have been down the lineup and Cairo should have been out of the lineup. Please understand these are my speculations of Randolph's reasoning and not mine[/quote:hj9rduiq]

Reyes was one of the worst everyday players (maybe the worst) for most of 2005. He moved up in that category during the last month of that season. I was specifically keeping track of that as it was happening.

... (but of course Gary Carter and Keith Hernandez are not, because we're searching through time for cherry picked data here), how about noting that Wright played 69 Major League games before 2005, and Mookie Wilson played 430 before 1984.[/quote:hj9rduiq]

You seem to be cherry picking data. And while I would agree with you that in the end Johnson overplayed Carter, no manager is perfect. Not even the better ones. What's your overall point in introducing these observations about Carter? That Randolph was Johnson's equal?

[Guest Edgy DC]

No, I don't seem to be cherry-picking data. Don't be a smart-ass.

My point is, was, and remains that the facts don't support the notion of Wright being buried.

[nymr83]

sloppy thread-split here as you have the marlins opening day lineup, my criticism of today's lineup unrelated to wright, and "lets" "go" "mets" in here... cant we just keep the thread together if we're going to lose things like that?

[batmagadanleadoff]

No, I don't seem to be cherry-picking data. Don't be a smart-ass.

My point is, was, and remains that the facts don't support the notion of Wright being buried.[/quote:3usp7pye]

So this is all about "buried"? Fine with me. Randolph didn't bury Wright in the 2005 lineup. Instead, Randolph batted him 6th and 7th instead of 3rd and 4th. This cost Wright, (the Mets best or second best hitter that year) about 30 plate appearances. Reyes, 2005's worst or near-worst, got at least 100 more plate appearances than he deserved, and 100 more PA's than any smart manager would have permitted. All this while the Mets were in contention for a Wild Card spot.

Let's bury this one, because I seem to recall that this is at least the third time we're having this same disagreement.

[Guest Edgy DC]

sloppy thread-split here as you have the marlins opening day lineup, my criticism of today's lineup unrelated to wright, and "lets" "go" "mets" in here... cant we just keep the thread together if we're going to lose things like that?[/quote:25fo8v8n]
Thanks. Fixed, I hope.