Isn't it pretty obvious why Willie left Burgos in the game? He had gotten himself into a jam and had just about worked out of it. By leaving Burgos in to face the reigning NL MVP, Willie probably thought it would give Burgos a huge lift in terms of confidence, get the Shea faithful on his side, and go a long way to leaving his troubles in KC behind. After all, Burgos' splitter looked sharp and Howard had been struggling, so Willie decided to give it a roll of the dice. But since it didn't work, Willie can't give the real reason...because then the follow-up questions, and the logical conclusion, would be that since he didn't get him out, his confidence should be shattered, the fans should be on his back, and his struggles in KC have followed him here. So Willie has to make up excuses, and is stuck with lame ones. I don't agree with the move, not because I think Willie is a moron (though I may have said so during the IGT) but because I don't think that is the right time to be taking those chances. With Ryan Howard batting, a lefty warm in the pen, and a 1-run game with 2 runners on, you go with the percentages. And you leave the confidence builders for other, less dire, situations. (One could even make a case if Howard were the tying run at the plate, but with runners on 2nd and 3rd, even a single gives up the lead.) As to Willie's in-game moves, there have been plenty of times I've had to scratch my head. (For example, his use of Endy as the trail runner is mind-boggling. If you sub him for the trail runner, that means you are playing for the win...so why bunt? If the idea is to get the runner to third, wouldn't you want your fast guy to be in that position?) But for every manager the Mets have ever had, even Bobby from time to time, I've questioned moves and disagreed and called them idiots. It's just the nature of the game.