batmagadanleadoff

G-Fafif wrote: Puts me in mind of the ads I saw at LIRR stations in '82 of how Kingman, Foster and Ellis Valentine were going to form a metaphorical utility and light up New York with all their power. Timing is everything. There was also a companion subway ad from that season promising Met fans all sorts of wonderful things that Swan, Falcone, Zachry and Scott were gonna do to the rest of the league. Now if only Davey Johnson coulda had Scott instead of Heep....

The Nilly Willies.

The Silly Willies.

="Valadius"]I've never heard the word "larrup" before. It's an ass-whuppin'. Larrup's the verb.

SteveJRogers wrote: Maybe they figure since Hernandez only wore 17 with the Mets for just 5 years, and some change with the Indians, and actually wore 37 for a longer period of time (1977-6/15/1983), hence it really is a bigger deal on the local level. That's what I thought, too. But SI gave #35 to Rickey Henderson, even acknowledging that Rickey only wore that number at the beginning of his career. Dizzy Dean's a good choice. But no honorable mention of Keith? That ain't right. SI also gave #57 to Francisco Rodriguez over Johan Santana.

Bob Klapisch on ESPN.com: "One person familiar with the thinking of owners Fred and Jeff Wilpon said 'the honeymoon is over' for both Minaya and manager Willie Randolph. After failing to win the pennant for the past two years, Mets ownership is giving the GM only one more month to establish control over a weak National League East. If the club is still a middle-of-the-pack team on June 1, Minaya will be asked to assess whether Randolph is getting the most out of his players and if he's the right man for the job. Fair question: Since May 18 of last year, the Mets are just three games over .500."

It's about as bullshit of an apology as one can make. Clemens seems to be apologizing while simultaneously continuing to deny all the negative recent reports about him. It's an apology about nothing.

Gotcha as in "got it", "I get it", "I understand you". Not as in "I caught you".

Gotcha again. ="AG/DC"]This seems much simpler than the way you're framing the logic. Castillo's assets offset his defecits, to my thinking, so issues of Castillo cancel each other out. I didn't say it was about Castillo. I'm saying Castillo is a neutral factor. But it seems that it was about Castillo. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Gotcha.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Pick one and go with it. Me personally, I like the idea that Willie was setting up Castillo for the grounder that might get through a drawn in infield. Or maybe we would've seen a squeeze play but for the intentional walk. Castillo is a terrific contact hitter, putting aside the quality of his contacts. But how can you say that the infield was in on Castillo when he was intentionally walked?

And you also wrote ="AG/DC"]if that strategy is right or wrong has little to do with Castillo coming up. It can't be about Castillo and not about Castillo simultaneously. Pick one and go with it.

AG/DC wrote: I'm sticking to my guns. If that strategy is right or wrong has little to do with Castillo coming up. How can you say that? Context is everything. Would it be the same to have Wright sac bunting for Beltran to come up with one out/second and third?

Centerfield wrote: I was thinking when watching this that we'll be ok with Willie Randolph so long as the opposing manager is even worse. Could be. Or maybe Willie anticipated the intentional walk to Castillo. I doubt this to be the case and so refuse to give Randolph that benefit of the doubt. Of course, this is just my hunch, nothing more. Maybe, with the go-ahead run already having been delivered prior to Castillo's at-bat, Willie sac bunted mainly to reduce the douple play risk. I'm stretching here and of course, this then questions Randolph's use of Castillo as the #2 hitter earlier this season with such a hypothetically meager vote of confidence.

Frayed Knot wrote: ="TheOldMole"]I think a bunt with no out and runners on first and second is often a good idea. As do I, particularly if it's late in the game and you're dying for just 1 or 2 runs. It's just that doing it into Castillo virtually removes the option of scoring a run via a productive out. The IF would be in killing the ground ball RBI and batting LH he's not likely to hit a long-enough fly ball. Oh well, it worked out for the best. Successfully bunting a runner who is on second base with nobody out over to third base is the only instance where, on average, you increase your chances of scoring one run - but only one run in the inning. As you already noted, this strategy is more effective in the very late innings of a tie game because with less innings remaining, a small lead is that much more insurmountable, especially for the Mets these days because Wagner has been unhittable all season long. The problem with Randolph's use of that tactic yesterday was, as you also noted, the part about leaving it to Luis Castillo to deliver the big one out productive out. With one out and runners on second and third, Randolph was clearly hoping for at least a fly-out hit deep enough to allow the lead runner to tag up and score. But ironically, Castillo might be the worst player in all of baseball suited to that task, of course not including pitchers. Castillo is a notorious gropund ball hitter, more so than almost every other player in baseball, and is therefore one of the least likeliest to hit a fly ball - let alone a fly ball deep enough to get the run in (It's Castillo we're discussing). This season, for example, Castillo has the fourth highest ground ball to fly ball ratio in the Majors, and the three players ranked above him are significantly better at not making an out in the first place. If we were able to watch Castillo hit under those exact circumstances over and over again, the same way we could flip the same coin over and over again, Castillo would likely waste an out without delivering the desired run more often than is tolerable. I wonder what Willie was thinking when he sac bunted before Castillo's at-bat, what Willie knew that we didn't know if anything, and what Willie did not consider - intentionally or from ignorance? In other words, just how informed was Willie's decision to sac bunt in that inning. Of course, Castillo was then walked intentionally and Marlon Anderson then followed with a run producing single, bailing the Mets, and possibly Willie, too. So ultimately, things worked out for the best for the Mets. Maybe in spite of Willie Randolph.

Or maybe there really is an edict.

AG/DC wrote: Don't be that way. That was a joke. Obviously an ineffective one, but a joke nevertheless.

AG/DC wrote: I'm not talking about rights. Fine. So then you don't have the right to question my opinions. Have it your way.

AG/DC wrote: I think we're declaring a lot of things without supporting them adequately. The most mismanaged Mets team in franchise history? We? It's only my opinion and I respect your right to disagree with it, just as you can disagree with anyone else's opinions, including those that belong to persons far more knowledgeable than me. Although I don't know how far off from worst you'd improve the 2005 Mets. Again, I'm only talking tactics here. I wouldn't , for example, call Stengel's Mets tactically mismanaged; Casey was simply stuck with too many bad players. (Although he did bat McMillan second in his last season - an ineffective strategy that Westrum followed through to the end of '65).

MFS62 wrote: Here's a sportswriter who thinks it should be now: http://www2.nysun.com/article/75689Later I suppose that Marchman would join the "not soon enough" camp from this thread. Marchman continues: TimMarchman wrote: "Unless a manager is a genius, all one can ask him to do is not actively harm his team's chances. Randolph doesn't pass this test." I've always believed this, myself. A manager, except maybe a great one, couldn't coax more than a tiny number of wins from a team, over and above its' potential. Instead, a manager excels by not harming the team's chances. And this is where I think Randolph has failed. Willie debuted in 2005 ... the New Mets ... Willie's Kids ... Willie's Mets. Yet Randolph's first year legacy, now that it's all over is that the 2005 Mets, from a tactical standpoint, were probably the most mismanaged Mets team in franchise history, accounting of course for the team's ability to contend because who cares whether Salty Parker batted this guy fourth instead of that guy. It would've been more palatable, as just one example, to see Reyes hack away without a clue more than 700 times in 2005 from the leadoff spot if that team was hopeless and going nowhere. But the 2005 Mets contended. Despite Willie Randolph. And if Randolph says he was surprised by his team's competitiveness, well it was his job to know otherwise. We'll never know if the 2005 Mets would've made it to the post-season with a different manager, but they weren't better off with Randolph. In 2006, the Mets obliterated the competition, again in spite of rather than because of Randolph. One can argue that the Mets should have clinched the division even earlier than they did. And then there is last year's embarrassement where in the end, the difference between a historic collapse that will never be forgotten for the rest of all of our lives and the post-season was just one game. Willie Randolph can't get fired soon enough.

Frayed Knot wrote: Keith & Mitchell in clubhouse while '86 playoff game going on = cute, funny story because team eventually won Rickey & Bobby in clubhouse while '99 playoff game going on = not caring bastards because team eventually lost Well ... Bobby Bonilla was a goddamned bastard for playing cards in the clubhouse during that last game.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Who's that between McGraw and Ryan? That must be Al Weis as the second-to-last in the front row, but who's the last guy? Is it Doogie Howser? That's Jerry Grote again. And the other guy that-you-also-don't-know-who-he-is is also Jerry Grote. So's the mystery guy on the end. Jerry Grote.

AG/DC wrote: Well, I prefer that to my theory of "All negros to the back, please." Maybe Ed used both methods. Take another look at the picture.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Who's that between McGraw and Ryan? That must be Al Weis as the second-to-last in the front row, but who's the last guy? Is it Doogie Howser? Maybe this link'll help.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Let's see if I can name those Mets: Back row: Agee, Boswell, Grote, Charles, Clendennon, Dyer, Garrett, don't know, Gentry, Grote again. Middle row: Harrelson, don't know, Koosman, Kranepool, don't know, McGraw, don't know, Ryan, Seaver. Front row: Shamsky, Swoboda, don't know, don't know, Piggy, Rube Walker, don't know, don't know. Cal Koonce is left of Koosman. Jim McAndrew right of the Krane. Cardwell's your first Grote. Ron Taylor's right of Swoboda. Al Weis on the end. Rod Gaspar between Garrett and Gentry. Rube Walker? I thought that was Fred Mertz.