Loyalty and Deference

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's no secret that I hold the manager more responsible for the losing ways of this team than the general manager, and I think this is an actual winning unit playing losing baseball, but one thing that can be traced to both departments.* There's loyalty bordering on kowtowing, to players with some degree of status, going on and I'm terribly frustrated with it, because I think they're giving there players more loyalty than these guys are even demanding --- but which they come to expect if they keep getting it.

I realize this is the way of things these days, with managers getting a fraction of the commitment of top players, but I think the Mets are more guilty than most. I realize there's a school of though that if a top player, who "we're going to need if we're going to win this thing" is struggling, you stick with him, and hope to get that loyalty rewarded when he pays you back with later production. But this is one of those things I really loved finding when I was recently researching Mets managerial history --- Casey Stengel believed none of that. He had a horse or two maybe, but if a pitcher had two straight bad starts and somebody else was throwing well, he'd quickly yank you out of the rotation and let you try to get your shit together without hurting the team. He believed in loyalty, and he believed in expressing it by giving his players the best chance to win on a given day.

I'm certainly not lining up to release players as some are. But look at Mike Pelfrey. He had a great first half, but can there be any question he's hurting his team right now? I've defended Francoeur's place on this team, but I'm astounded to see him in the lineup every night. Can there be any doubt that Carlos Beltran belons in right and whatever flubs he may have out there are worth it for the increase coverage in the middle of the field?

I'ts there and it is what it is and it's frustrating. I certainly have cricized the Yankees and Jeter for his persistence at shortstop when the better shortstop came along and was given third. But I'm more frustrated about how this will play out going forward. Will there be a soap opera around Beltran's eventual movement to a corner spot (did they ask him right? should they care? willhe be ready?)? Wil they be willing to bench Bay when he's not hitting? Will they have to come up with a gilded plan of deference if Zach Luz's performance necessitates moving David Wright?

I really don't think it's a question of spoiled athletes, so much as management that fears spoiled athletes. I'd like to think Bobby Valentine would have none of htis, but he made a point of moving Edgardo Alfonzo from second to fifth in the batting order in exchange for him agreeing to move back to third base, as a way to get him more RBI opportunities in his walk year --- a move that turned out bad for all involved.

I thik if you manage for victory, most players will get with your program. They'll certailny look stupid if they don't.

*Obviously, anything that can traced to the manager can be traced to the GM who hired him.

[RealityChuck]

Interesting point. But, then, when Manual stops using a bullpen pitcher (other than Perez) because he's being ineffective, everyone complains that he's not utilizing that player correctly and he doesn't know how to manage a bullpen. Same thing if he goes with a pitcher that's being more effective than anyone else: he's overusing that player and he doesn't know how to manage a bullpen.

And if he rewards a hitter for a good game with another start, everyone complains that he's using a player whose numbers don't justify it.

So it's not just the manager or the athletes; it's the fans and commentary.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I don't know about everyone. I certainly don't.

And if he rewards a hitter for a good game with another start, everyone complains that he's using a player whose numbers don't justify it.

Who are we talking about here?

[metirish]

Who starts in their place though? , I suppose if you are going down the swanie it's best to try and field your perceived strongest team that way as a manager people can't be saying that you went down with them on the bench. Not saying I like it but....

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy DC wrote: Who are we talking about here?

I think that happened recently with Francoeur. He had a good day and then was rewarded with another start.


Anyway, one thing that Casey Stengel was free of was worrying a lot about contracts. He would have had a much easier time benching Jason Bay than Jerry would.

And as for Pelfrey, I think he's burned up all the equity he earned with that 10-1 start. He's been brutal for what, six weeks now? He probably should have been pulled from the rotation a while back, before the Mets position in the standings had become so grim. Didn't Davey once do something like that with Sid Fernandez?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Rewarding with another start I'm all for. Francouer has been starting regularly since Bay went down and had been until Beltran arrived. His good start was after 18 poor ones in the prior 20. That's not rewarding a guy for performance. That's staying loyal despite poor performance.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I've been on this for years. The Mets ever since the Piazza Era have tried to sell themselves as a superstar-driven team, and routinely make compromises, cut corners and endure negative side-effects in service of crafting a brand image around their players. It's a complete loser strategy that might succeed in selling season tickets but hasn't gotten them nearly enough success on the field.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Rewarding with another start I'm all for. Francouer has been starting regularly since Bay went down and had been until Beltran arrived. His good start was after 18 poor ones in the prior 20. That's not rewarding a guy for performance. That's staying loyal despite poor performance.

While this may be part of the problem, I'm not sure it's all or even most of the problem.

Take Frenchy. Sure, give him another start if he has a big game, but in context. If he gets a big game winning hit off a tough lefty, after going 0-2 against the Righty starter, does that justify a start? or maybe first shot at pinch hitting when a lefty is in instead?

Manuel has given Bay a couple of days off this year. More than I expected out of him really. But then, sometimes you need to get a guy going. Take Castillo. (leaving aside his effectiveness or what you think of him or his paycheck for the moment) He was rushed back from the DL (4 games at St. Lucie) and shoved back in the lineup. Arguably he wasn't exactly going to have his timing down, and maybe a week long struggle doesn't neccesitate a day off, but actually keep playing to get into the speed of things. (They did the same thing with Castillo in 2008, only flipped. he filled out the 20 days of rehab play, but had a family emergency at the end of it , ended up sitting for like a week before being activated, and noticably struggled) Beltran sat for 4 days without games before being activated. These are things that concern me. It's a hard balance, loyalty, and I do agree for the most part the Mets have had too much of it. But I don't think it's a huge problem either.


bullpen issues aer different. i'm not sure there is ever a correct way to use guys, although it does seem likely that he burnt out Nieve, but he's burning out Feliciano and it doens't seem to make him worse. Everyone's different. Every pitcher is different. (why the 100 pitch 'rule' is silly)

It's a tough job too, balancing pushing guys versus helping them relax. The team seems to be pressing, hard, at times. Other times maybe they look too relaxed. When is it too much "staring over the shoulder" by standing on the top step for Pelfrey or threatening Maine and Perez (in April) that every start will be the last and when are you being too lax and not helping guys to push and grow?

[ashie62]

The top jockeys are the ones with the best horses.

[TransMonk]

I perceive the general rule in today's game to be: the guy who's making the most money will start on the typical day as long as he's healthy. I'm genuinely shocked that the Mets had the balls to pull Perez from the rotation this season...and I fully believe it was only from fans clamoring for it. If the Mets had been playing under .500 ball since May, I think Perez would still be starting.

Stengal's way may have been best, but this is not even close to being the same game that Casey was involved with.

[metirish]

As it happens I caught some of Ken Burns Baseball on Long Island's Channel 21 last night and a good deal of it was about Stengel and his platoon system, and how star names mattered little to him.

[Guest Edgy DC]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I've been on this for years. The Mets ever since the Piazza Era have tried to sell themselves as a superstar-driven team, and routinely make compromises, cut corners and endure negative side-effects in service of crafting a brand image around their players. It's a complete loser strategy that might succeed in selling season tickets but hasn't gotten them nearly enough success on the field.

The thing is that I think they are indulging these "stars" (many lesser players as well) even beyound their demands. Worth noting: Torii Hunter just moved to right field --- in the middle of a season, with no soap opera --- and the earth didn't crack open.

If Daniel Murphy can get out of bed as an Eastern League firstbaseman and go to bed that evening as a starting big league outfielder, then Carlos Beltran can move from center with two days of prep time. And every other player on that bench can take that lesson, if Beltran puts up with a llitte sacrifice in the name of victory, then I will to. Asked about their manager, most all players will answer, "I like him --- he gives us the best chance to win."

I'm not shocked that the Mets pulled Perez, but it should have taken less struggle and less hatred to get to that point.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Ashie62 wrote: The top jockeys are the ones with the best horses.

I don't believe this. And I know that the best horse in the world would lose embarassingly if I rode him or her in the Kentucky Derby.

[metirish]

Edgy DC wrote: Ashie62 wrote: The top jockeys are the ones with the best horses. I don't believe this. And I know that the best horse in the world would lose embarassingly if I rode him or her in the Kentucky Derby.

red pants and all?

[Guest Edgy DC]

metirish wrote: As it happens I caught some of Ken Burns Baseball on Long Island's Channel 21 last night and a good deal of it was about Stengel and his platoon system, and how star names mattered little to him.

He platooned Johnny Mize. He turned Yogi into a part-time outfielder. He routinely had as many as four "regular" middle infielders.

I haven't fit in those pants in years.

[Vic Sage]

top jockeys EARN the right to ride the best horses after they've demonstrated an ability to get more out of mediocre horses than their competitors.

As to Edgy's point... amen, brudda.

Loyalty to and from players is shown by demonstrating an ability to consistently put a team in its best possible position to win, not by playing favorites.

I forget which famed manager described it this way, but summarizing his point:
There are 3 kinds of guys on every team: those that love the manager because they are playing every day, those that hate the manager because they're not, and those who don't give a shit about the manager one way or the other... And the secret to managing is keeping the 2nd group away from the 3rd group.

[Guest Edgy DC]

A variation on this from Casey perhaps: "The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided."

[batmagadanleadoff]

But like others have already noted, Stengel was also a very powerful guy. At least until the day that his services were no longer required. Today's players are considerably cloutier. We sort of discussed this in the thread on relief pitcher usage when we considered whether today's "closer" role is as much a function of the influence players and their agents have, or whether management is mostly responsible......


Those were Casey's quotes, I believe.

OE I'm not happy that Francoueur gets as much PT as he does. But I don't know who to blame. This might be on Jerry, but it could plausibly be Omar or even the owners.

[Ceetar]

If Daniel Murphy can get out of bed as an Eastern League firstbaseman and go to bed that evening as a starting big league outfielder, then Carlos Beltran can move from center with two days of prep time. And every other player on that bench can take that lesson, if Beltran puts up with a llitte sacrifice in the name of victory, then I will to. Asked about their manager, most all players will answer, "I like him --- he gives us the best chance to win."

Couldn't you argue that the Murphy thing was a bit silly, and that maybe it shouldn't happen. I'm up in the air on the Beltran thing, and I certainly don't think it's even a contributing reason we're losing games and I'm not sure I'd mess with it just yet.

On this note, Bernazard and the Mets had a "fast track" program where they asessessd things like mental toughness and guys like Murphy who were part of it got special treatment.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm not going to argue for or against the wisdom of calling up Murphy (and Evans) to play left, though it certainly worked. What I'm arguing for is that the Mets should be willing to demand as much flexibility (far less, actually) from a veteran centerfielder as from a AA infieilder.

And I think, in the end, more players would respect them for it.

On this note, Bernazard and the Mets had a "fast track" program where they asessessd things like mental toughness and guys like Murphy who were part of it got special treatment.

You're really dancing around the subject I'm trying to bring up.

And Beltran's performance in the field has certainly contributed to the Mets losing. And their deference to him has as well.

[Guest Edgy DC]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: But like others have already noted, Stengel was also a very powerful guy. At least until the day that his services were no longer required. Today's players are considerably cloutier. We sort of discussed this in the thread on relief pitcher usage when we considered whether today's "closer" role is as much a function of the influence players and their agents have, or whether management is mostly responsible...... Those were Casey's quotes, I believe. OE I'm not happy that Francoueur gets as much PT as he does. But I don't know who to blame. This might be on Jerry, but it could plausibly be Omar or even the owners.

I certainly acknowledge the leverage that they players have that they didn't before, but they have no commitment to Francoeur (even emotionally) beyond this year. A lot may be about clout, but is this?

And again, contract clout only enters into it when the players have the moxy to play that card. I think the Mets have pre-emptively deferred to players who haven't played that card, which only gives a false sense of entitlement to all players no matter which cards they hold.

[metirish]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: But like others have already noted, Stengel was also a very powerful guy.

But he wasn't all powerful when he got the yankee job , he had a below par managerial record before that, at least that's how it was portrayed in Baseball.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

I'm surprised nobody's brought up Piazza-to-first in all this. It seems to me archetypal (if not original) among these sorts of situations (by which I mean star-moving-to-unfamiliar-position-for-good-of-team) with the modern-day Mets. Most everyone in the manager's (or GM's) chair during the last decade or so has seemed unable to have that conversation effectively or at all until the media gets in front of the issue.

The one guy who seemed closest to being able to have that conversation comfortably with players was Randolph, no? Howe basically smiled like an idiot when faced with the Piazza bid'ness, and Manuel is either pitching chuckling idiocy or playing the A-Hole-Standing-on-Principle card, calling guys out for sitting out with injuries.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I certainly meant to imply it. I defintitely think that was (1) a case where the Mets were indulging beyond what he was asking for, and (2) such a soap opera that the move was disportionately minor compared to the tears and ink spilled over it.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Until Bay got hurt, anyway, I thought the Mets had overcome whatever loyalty they felt to Francoeur, especially considering how they hyped him earlier this year.

I really don't think it's image that's keeping him in the rotation now, but rather that it's probably easy to convince youself that Carter's glove vs. Frankie's represents a risk.

Anyway, I don't think Francoeur represents a very good example, as say, Beltran or even Bay would.

LWFS, I did mention it'd been "since Piazza" but examples are everywhere.

[metirish]

IIRC Piazza seemed rather embarrassed by the whole thing and the mess was mostly Howe's . I really don't feel like Beltran has the history behind him to make a fuss about moving , too many injuries. I bet this comes up in September if the Mets are buried and drags through the spring.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'm surprised nobody's brought up Piazza-to-first in all this. It seems to me archetypal (if not original) among these sorts of situations (by which I mean star-moving-to-unfamiliar-position-for-good-of-team) with the modern-day Mets. Most everyone in the manager's (or GM's) chair during the last decade or so has seemed unable to have that conversation effectively or at all until the media gets in front of the issue. The one guy who seemed closest to being able to have that conversation comfortably with players was Randolph, no? Howe basically smiled like an idiot when faced with the Piazza bid'ness, and Manuel is either pitching chuckling idiocy or playing the A-Hole-Standing-on-Principle card, calling guys out for sitting out with injuries.

I'm not sure that I understand your post. I'm confused because Piazza played 1B under Howe in 2004, and went back to catching exclusively in 2005, when Randolph took over. What am I missing?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

-- So you did, JCL. Mea culpa.

-- As far as Piazza goes, BML, I'm discussing the broaching of the issue/lack thereof more than anything on-field, really. Basically, Met management has been woeful at managing expectations/information regarding potential movement of a star (or perceived star) for the greater good.

-- Pelf could be sent down, or to the pen, but there's no room there, thanks to certain space-suckers. (Ahem.) Also, who else is starting, then? Ollie? Valdes? Gee or Antonini?

-- They may have overcome the Francoeur loyalty once, but they still REALLY want him to succeed; really, the only reason they didn't stick with him once Beltran returned is that everybody else was swingin' a baby's-arm of figurative pipe (Beltran and Bay due to salary/rep, Pagan due to his Pujolsian performance) at the time. I don't have to squint so hard to see potential for backsliding on this.

(This is almost completely off-topic, but it's been on my mind: I've seen a LOT of Francoeur t-shirts on random folks in the city-- not as many as, say, Wright, or Beltran, or Reyes, but... well... enough-- over the last few months. Was there a "Murphy Shirt Trade" night that I missed in April?)

-- I wonder whether the team's (mis)handling of Beltran's injury situation affects his willingness to move/their confidence in asking him to make a for-the-team sacrifice (especially for what he might perceive as a lame-duck regime).

[Guest Edgy DC]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: -- Pelf could be sent down, or to the pen, but there's no room there, thanks to certain space-suckers. (Ahem.) Also, who else is starting, then? Ollie? Valdes? Gee or Antonini?

Yes!

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

You did read the first two names I plugged in there, right? And the second two, as well? (Both of whom are getting hammered every second or third start-- and not in the fun, beer-hat-wearing-way-- at Buffalo.)

Ramon Ortiz would have been an interesting, Lima Lite (now with less dye, fake-boobed-spouse-age, and singing!) kind of option. But, yeah, he's gone like Tuesday. (Since, like, Monday, IIRC.)