IGT 05/19/2010 Dickey Debuts in DC; Mets vs. Nationals

[batmagadanleadoff]

Sorry, nothing personal, but I think [Jerry's] been highly counterproductive for the team, and an inability to learn from Randolph's mistakes is as frustrating as the inability to learn from his own.[/quote:3v9yrlmm]

Willie was counterproductive and because Willie had better teams, the consequences were harsher. One can argue that Willie managed playoff teams right out of contention. I'm no fan of Jerry's absurd 2010 moves, but this current Mets roster isn't going anywhere. Not when Maine and Perez are there to more than undo whatever progress Pelfrey made. Not with a third outfield platoon of Francoeur and GMJ. Not with Bay on pace to hit 4 HR's and not unless Reyes picks it up considerably. Beltran returning and playing like an All-Star wouldn't hurt. This team is a shell of the team's Willie Small Balls had.

[Guest Edgy DC]

And one can argue that Manuel has managed playoff teams out of contention, because he certainly did in 2008..

I'm still not sure why he's supposed to get slack for players getting worse on his watch. He certainly gets credit for Delgado getting better. This is one of the ways managers are historically judged --- who played better under him and who played worse. Each case is hard to make individually, but conclusions can be drawn from the net. History does that.

And his bunting and bullpen abuse were certainly not born in 2010.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

To learn from one's mistakes and to adapt in order to avoid making the same mistakes repeatedly is a sign of intelligence. Jerry is either extremely stubborn or simply not very smart, because he keeps trying the same failed stategies game after game. No matter how many times they blow up in his face and fail again, he seldom tries a different tact. He just seems incapable of trying a strategy other than the "Jerry Plan" outlined by JCL earlier in the thread.

[batmagadanleadoff]

And one can argue that Manuel has managed playoff teams out of contention, because he certainly did in 2008...[/quote:2sab9o51]

When Jerry took over in 2008, the Mets were in 4th place, 6 and a half games out of first. They were the best team in the NL over the rest of the season. Jerry eradicated Willie's dumb sac bunts that season -- specifically the Willie Randolph special sac bunt in the 1st inning of a game with the #2 hitter.

I'm not defending his recent dumb moves. But Jerry's been doing for five weeks what Randolph was doing for three and a half years.

[Guest Edgy DC]

That's completely untrue. As has been demonstrated --- and repeated --- he's been bunting all along. He's been abusing his bullpen un-neccessarily all along.

[batmagadanleadoff]

That's completely untrue. As has been demonstrated --- and repeated --- he's been bunting all along. He's been abusing his bullpen un-neccessarily all along.[/quote:2cjfp261]


Manuel rarely bunted in '08. And I can't remember one first inning sac bunt from Jerry in 2008.

OE. Manuel's Mets post the best NL record in 2008. And you blame Manuel for the Mets failure to make the playoffs?

[Guest Edgy DC]

First of all, I entered into this talking about now. His performance now.

Second of all, the team collapsed down the stretch with broken-down bullpens twice --- once in 2007 and once in 2008. I blame nobody and everybody for their general failure to make the playoffs. The bullpen collapse, though, I place on the manager's misuse.

Lastly, it's silly to pretend the bunting is new. It's not. Willie, though already christened by Vic Sage with his nickname, wasn't a big bunter in 2005 either. The totals are telling.

Yes, the team is struggling to score. You can't and won't ever be able to bunt a team out of a batting slump.

[Guest Edgy DC]

And yeah, I understand not wanting first-inning bunts.

But I'm currently frustrated by

[list:2hgpqjfg][*:2hgpqjfg]failed bunts[/*:m:2hgpqjfg]
[*:2hgpqjfg]pinch-hit bunts[/*:m:2hgpqjfg]
[*:2hgpqjfg]number-three hitter bunts[/*:m:2hgpqjfg]
[*:2hgpqjfg]bullpen abuse[/*:m:2hgpqjfg][/list:u:2hgpqjfg]

[nymr83]

I'm not buying that the Mets would be screwed with or without Jerry. The Mets are 5-10 in one run ball games, so a few bounces (or better managerial decisions) have them 22-18 instead of 19-21, its not over yet, but it will be if the Mets keep bunting and pitching Nieve/Feliciano every day

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I'm convinced finally Jerry has to go. It's not only that his strategies are counterproductive and passive it's that their constant employment seems to have created an environment where nobody can be trusted to get an out or drive in a run on their own. We are losing 3 of every 4 on the road, goodbye.

[ashie62]

I'm convinced finally Jerry has to go. It's not only that his strategies are counterproductive and passive it's that their constant employment seems to have created an environment where nobody can be trusted to get an out or drive in a run on their own. We are losing 3 of every 4 on the road, goodbye.[/quote:sr4w12re]

I could not agree more

[bmfc1]

I was at this game and the triple play came and went without mention on the scoreboard. We were never shown a replay or given the scoring. In the 9th inning highlight package, which included plays by the Mets, the triple play wasn't included.

[G-Fafif]

I was at this game and the triple play came and went without mention on the scoreboard. We were never shown a replay or given the scoring. In the 9th inning highlight package, which included plays by the Mets, the triple play wasn't included.[/quote:h1qiuea8]

Glad to know Dana Perino was able to stick around Washington and get a job that suits her unique talents for interpreting events.

[Centerfield]

Just to clarify here, there was a collapse in 2007. There was no collapse in 2008. In 2008, the Mets lost a tightly fought pennant race. Happens all the time.

[Benjamin Grimm]

What CF said.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yes, indeed, but I was speaking specifically about the bullpen.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Just to clarify here, there was a collapse in 2007. There was no collapse in 2008. In 2008, the Mets lost a tightly fought pennant race. Happens all the time.[/quote:wb47bbyh]

Well, they played like shit when they had a chance to put it away.

[G-Fafif]

I've used Collapse II and Echo Collapse as the shorthand for September 2008, but as it was beginning, the word that seemed most appropriate was deflation. They were deflating from 40-19 to 7-10. They were never as good as they looked when they won (quick! call McCarver!) and maybe it was just a matter of time before they stumbled. Being without Tatis, Easley, Wagner and Maine stretched their roster issues, even in September, and with stretching, the air came out of the balloon (if that metaphor makes any sense).

In retrospect, one can rationalize away the hard-fought losses (when I think hard fought pennant race loss, I think the 1-0 CG defeat Matlack absorbed the final Sunday of '73 when there was a nightcap and a Monday makeup twinbill still on tap), but there weren't that many of them. There was just a lot of not showing up. In the final week, Monday night against the Cubs and Friday night against the Marlins were total no-shows. Save for one big swing on Wednesday against the Cubs, they did nothing. And the final Sunday at Shea sticking in their throat speaks for itself. Win two of those games, the Mets are the 2008 Wild Card. The lifelessness of that team toward and at the end is what leaves a bad aftertaste that makes one (me, anyway) dismiss the 40-19 ride into first place as the aberration.

[Guest Edgy DC]

http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/05/20/the-dugout-angel-pagan-cannot-do-everything/

[A Boy Named Seo]

Funny.

Loved "just go out there and win if you can, but if you can't, don't worry about it."