Fman99

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Well, I''m glad I stayed up now. All Molinas should pay. I couldn't do it, too tired (plus 3 beers at golf didn't exactly add to my stamina). I'm going to try and get a 5 PM nap in today so I can watch tonight's game in its entirety.

Tremendous KTE, well done sir. I hope Merkin's off this weekend.

="Benjamin Grimm":2eyfx6w2]I got to about the fourth paragraph and then thought, "Why does anyone care what Pete Rose has to say about all this?" And then I stopped reading.[/quote:2eyfx6w2] Pete Rose is a retard. That's why other retards always have Pete Rose's haircut.

I think they'll go 5-5. San Fran can't hit and LA is minus-Manny. I can only hope the Mets can put a better showing at Fenway than they did last time.

Tough stretch coming up -- four games in San Francisco, followed by 3 in LA and 3 at Fenway. These there teams are a dominating 39-12 at home this year thus far. What do you think they'll do? What would you be happy with?

Stokes 1 Feliciano 1 Rodriguez 1 Sheffield 1 Tatis 1 Castillo 1

="holychicken":2g7tig2j]="Nymr83":2g7tig2j]i dont care what the anti-booing folks say, booing is a well-deserved and appropriate responce to a player not giving 100% effort.[/quote:2g7tig2j] I am against the booing of players that don't perform well. I believe it is more than justified for players who don't give it their all.[/quote:2g7tig2j] At the game, I only boo players on the other team. The Mets don't need to hear my boos or those from the home crowd to know when they're sucking wind. At home, or in the pool, I boo Mets heartily.

="Edgy DC":2o1v6d4w]And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule.[/quote:2o1v6d4w] How true. Betcha didn't know that Stokes got four outs yesterday on all of NINE PITCHES. They should've left him in for another inning, he was cruising. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:41 AM I should have noted that in his grading. smg58 May 14 2009 03:37 PM Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork. Edgy DC May 14 2009 06:35 PM Every day, that "part" grows in my thinking. 2007, also. Elster88 May 15 2009 11:53 PM Ugh, the first casualty to pen overuse. Should they really overdo protecting Santana just to blow out the guys they got to protect his wins? Maybe they should so he can go nine in September, but I'm worried that this Torre-style bullpen use will end up with all our guys getting Tommy John surgery. Ashie62 May 16 2009 09:08 AM J.J. is a Putz Benjamin Grimm May 16 2009 09:50 AM It's funny because that's his name! OlerudOwned May 16 2009 10:06 AM Sigh. soupcan May 17 2009 09:25 AM ="smg58":9h0j2e51]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:9h0j2e51] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 17 2009 10:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 17 2009 12:51 PM ="soupcan":2k7waus1]="smg58":2k7waus1]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2k7waus1] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?[/quote:2k7waus1] Yes, but does it follow that one must overwork the pen--largely, by overusing the alphas-- to get there? [That's like saying, "We'll need plenty of electric light to do this job," and always using the same 2 fixtures, without changing the bulbs.] smg58 May 17 2009 11:11 AM Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help. Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.) Mendoza Line May 17 2009 01:17 PM Manuel's use of pitchers so far: PitcherInnings to DateProjection for SeasonCareer HighExpectationMaine40.33181.49191190Pelfrey35157.5201190Santana53238.5234230Hernandez38.67174.02255150Perez21.6797.5219690Figueroa6279350Redding0017625Rodriguez18.6784.028680Putz2194.57865Parnell17.3377.99 - 85Feliciano15.6770.526470Green15.3368.997950Stokes16726270Takahashi731.5 - 80Others17.6779.52 - 30Total323.331455 - 1455 The projection for the season is simply the innings pitched multiplied by 9/2, as we're 2/9 through the season as of now. I didn't do anything to account for injuries/missed starts. The expectation is my expectation of how many innings we could reasonably expect to get out of each pitcher this season. The 1455 inning projection is roughly in line with the number of innings the Mets have played per season over the past few seasons. This is going to be tight. I really don't want to see another 35 innings of Sean Green, and 48 more innings of an effective Takahashi is optimistic. And I'm counting on no major injuries to any key pitchers (except for Livan, who figures to miss a few starts). It looks like Manuel is doing a decent job of managing the starters - Pelfrey's innings are low because he was injured at the start of the season. But, yeah, Putz is getting a little too much work right now if you believe this table. I wouldn't mind seeing Manuel throw a few more eighth-inning appearances Takahashi's way, just to see how he'd perform. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 17 2009 01:49 PM What would be telling is a breakdown of games in which Putz has already appeared, and how many of them were in games the Mets were losing and/or comfortably ahead. Strike those, do the projection over, and I'd bet he'd be in normal range. Edgy DC May 17 2009 01:51 PM No, I don't know that the Mets would have made it as far as they did hadn't they rode the bullpen as hard as they did. I know that they didn't make it to the playoffs either year and, and the end of them, several of their relievers were among the league leaders in appearances, even as their late-season breakdowns left them with statitistics that wouldn't suggest they should be pitched every day. Regarding those projections, they're a little deceptive. Johan Santana may have never thrown over 234 innings, but I'd wager he's never gotten half through May with a 1.36 ERA before, suggesting he's pitching to significantly fewer batters per inning. In short, usage isn't best measured in innings, but in pitches. For relievers, appearances is also a key measure. smg58 Jun 02 2009 07:37 AM ="smg58":2w5w8d0z]Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2w5w8d0z] Even with recording no outs yesterday, Putz is on a 90-inning pace. Putz never broke 80 in his years with Seattle. And it couldn't be more obvious his arm is not 100% back. We have guys (Stokes for sure, probably Parnell and Takahashi too) who can take on more work. Manuel is not doing Putz or the team any favors sending him out this often. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:14 AM I kept going over last night in my head. For what it's worth, J.J. didn't walk his way into trouble, but got Baltimore chopped to death. (Keith, you really don't know what that means? Grab a book.) Four seasons hop into my head --- the last two, 1985, and 1973. In the first three of these, the manager had a struggling righthanded reliever (last year, there were two), who was a big part of the team's plans going into the season. The manager in each case would find himself torn between the game at hand and the season at large. In order to win the game, you don't want to put it in the hands of a struggling pitcher. But in order to save the season, you want to redeem that struggling pitcher. So, rather than bury the guy, they downgrade him for one or two appearances before returning him to high-leverage situations. But I think that can be stubborn adherence to The Plan. And you can miss that a new --- perhaps better --- plan is emerging right before you. Davey Johnson in 1985 bounced Doug Sisk below Roger McDowell, but as the season wore on, McDowell was wearing down, and Sisk was still needed (and failing) in big situations. According to Bats, Frank Cashen had a deal on the table to move some prospects (it's never said which ones) to re-acquire Tom Seaver, which would have allowed him to move Rick Aguilera to the pen, where he had flourished in his few appearances and where he would eventually star. What's most bothersome to this day was that Johnson didn't want to move Aguilera because he didn't want to break with the plan, not only for 1985, but 1986, to which he was already looking ahead. The presence of Seaver would force him to rework his rotation, as if somebody (most likely Seaver) wouldn't get hurt and give Aguilera another chance at starting. In 2007, Willie Randolph always trying to redeem Guillermo Mota. He'd downgrade him for a few games and then return him to the mix. Granted, there were no obvious alternatives, but it took a while to even give Joe Smith more trust. Last year, the redemption of Heilman and Sanchez was continually stillborn while other alternatives fell by the wayside. The Mets have real alternatives here in Stokes and Parnell. I like working for redemption. The redemption of Tug McGraw (effected, it seems, by giving him two starts after all else had failed) was the story of 1973. But how about not returning Green and Putz to big moments until they show success after 10 appearances in the back of the pen, rather than two? And if some Eddie Kunz looks like he can move in there, give him a real crack at it. Adapt, baby! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2009 08:28 AM It's plainly obvious they are leaning way too heavily on Putz and I am convinced it is in the service of creating an illusion of a "lock-down pen" as overcompensation for 2008's failures. I'd give him Takahashi's role for a few weeks, slide Parnell and Stokes up a notch and score more fucking runs. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:35 AM Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night. OlerudOwned Jun 02 2009 01:26 PM We could certainly benefit a lot from Sean Green turning things around. He's walking too many batters, his GB% is down 8 notches from last year, his FB% is up 10, and a nutty 16.7% of those fly balls are homers. Doesn't look like any physical problems, so hopefully he can work through it. Give him some innings at home, maybe. The flyballs can turn into outs instead of homers, and hopefully confidence would beget a return to form. Anything to lessen the load on Putz, because his arm is clearly not all there. Fman99 Jun 02 2009 01:41 PM ="Edgy DC":6cnbj2zu]Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.[/quote:6cnbj2zu] Not only that, that save was the one punctuated by two tremendous plays on defense, on balls that were hit hard and turned into outs by Castillo/Wright and Ramon Martinez. Benjamin Grimm Jun 02 2009 01:49 PM Yeah. I took the Schaefer point I'd normally give for a one-inning save and divided it among Wright, Castillo, and Martinez.

JJ is quite good... at sucking ass! HIYO! Tip your wait staff folks, they're working hard tonight. Seriously, he is either a) dinged and unable to bring the heat, or a malcontent who is pouting because he's now only the second coolest kid in class. Well he should therefore a) figure himself out, medically, DL, rest, what have you, or drive himself headlong into a bridge abutment.

="metirish":36xsojw7]With a speedy Reyes on second and Castillo hitting very well I thought it was a bad move , either way we got to get him home and we didn't.[/quote:36xsojw7] I don't like the bunt in the 12th. Give your team one more chance to plate the run with an actual hit. Nymr83 May 14 2009 07:37 AM ]and Endy Chavez well he played LF as often as he did RF, maybe Noble counts him there? metsmarathon May 14 2009 07:58 AM mike cameron was a pretty good defensive rf Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 08:04 AM So was Darryl Strawberry. If only he'd keep his head in the game. Edgy DC May 14 2009 09:06 AM ="metirish":158ikj2b]Bunting with Castillo there was like playing for the tie at home , with no outs and Reyes on second you sacrifice him to third?....I didn't like that at all.[/quote:158ikj2b] Well, the book says you play for the tie at home. ="smg58":158ikj2b]I'd much rather have three chances to bring Reyes home from second than two chances to bring him home from third. [/quote:158ikj2b] ="Fman":158ikj2b]Give your team one more chance to plate the run with an actual hit.[/quote:158ikj2b] Yeah, but one of those chances was to bring him home with an out, which are a lot more common than hits. ="smg58":158ikj2b]If Castillo walks, the winning run is on base with nobody out. Why wouldn't that play into the picture?[/quote:158ikj2b] You're right and it does, but it also doesn't advance the runner, and sets up the force, and I'm (as seen above) thinking in terms of the tie. ="Nymr":158ikj2b]well he played LF as often as he did RF, maybe Noble counts him there?[/quote:158ikj2b] I'm guessing Endy didn't see enough time there to make an impression on the Noble one, or to be counted as such. ="Nymr":158ikj2b]mike cameron was a pretty good defensive rf[/quote:158ikj2b] And I suppose Noble would say he didn't play there long enough (before breaking his head) to add polish to his game in right. As Noble is on record declairing Elliot Maddox as (or near) the best defensive centerfielder (pre-Beltran?) the Mets have ever had, I think his thoughts --- while valid and important to consider --- are pretty peculiar in this area, and I'd like to talk further with him. Suffice to say, that if Marty thinks you're the best defensive rightfielder the Mets have ever had, you're probably very good. Ceetar May 14 2009 09:39 AM ="Fman99":54u0pcb2]="metirish":54u0pcb2]With a speedy Reyes on second and Castillo hitting very well I thought it was a bad move , either way we got to get him home and we didn't.[/quote:54u0pcb2] I don't like the bunt in the 12th. Give your team one more chance to plate the run with an actual hit.[/quote:54u0pcb2] I agree, when you've only got three outs to spare, don't give them away for anything. Even if the pitchers spot was up, I'd probably have Santana swing away than bunt. To me, Manuel shows no confidence in his team to get a hit, or have big innings, by giving these outs away. But tell me this, why'd he pinch hit Castillo needing a sac fly on Tuesday, but not let him try to advance the running himself via grounder to the right side, sac fly, etc on Wednesday. Reyes was on second, I'd rather three chances to get a hit to likely tie it, than one shot to hit a fly ball. I have the same problem with intentionally walking guys to face the pitcher. You can make a case for it with guys like Niese, but like when Santana IBB'd Alfredo Amezega (no career AB against Santana) twice in the same game, that's ridiculous. I only like walks if it's setting up a double play with 1 out an a runner on third. I really don't like Manuel, He's one of the worst managers I've ever watched. I thought they should've ditched him at the same time they ditched Willie. (Although a hitting/pitching coaching change would've probably been good enough, and we probably could use that now. Warthen looks outclassed too) Elster88 May 15 2009 11:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 15 2009 11:05 PM 1st and 2nd, no out in the top of the 9th, Jerry calls for the bunt with a bad bunter (Church) up. Sheffield would've been out by 15 feet if not for the pitcher throwing it into left field. Oh yeah, and Church had two hits coming into that at-bat, and Santos hitting behind him was 0-3 with 3 strikeouts and a sacrifice fly. The fact that Santos had a sac fly already this game means nothing to me since he struck out three times. Edit: Grade N/A, since Manuel was not managing at the time. Elster88 May 15 2009 11:03 PM And Santos hits the sac fly anyway. I dunno. Ceetar May 15 2009 11:07 PM I agree. I know conventional 'logic' says bunt the go ahead run to third, but a sac fly can get the run to third, as can a grounder to the right side. Not like it's Cy Young pitching and you won't have a chance to score. At least tied it's understandable, I _hate_ giving away outs when you have a limited amount, such as Wednesday down 1 in the bot 12. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 03:47 PM It ain't a letter grade, but "Torborgian?" OUCH. From a BP chat earlier today: ]Dave (NJ): Starts Jermey Reed at 1b and Daniel Murphy in LF and Gary Sheffield in RF (go get 'em Carlos!) as Ryan Church sits the bench. Starts Gary Sheffield in RF at bats him 4th. Omir Santos starts again! Sacrifice bunts with no one out and a runner on second IN THE FIRST INNING. Pinch hits for Daniel Murphy with Angel F. Pagan with the bases loaded and one out in the 8th inning down by two. These are all things Jerry Manuel did JUST LAST NIGHT. Was he this bad in Chicago? BTW- Mets didn't score in the first (or ever for that matter.) Pagan grounded into a double play. Sheffield went 0 for 4 and left 4 on base. Christina Kahrl: He was, and he will be. That the Mets were impressed with him was proof they didn't remember that this was what happened last time around: Manuel aced his interview, says all the right things in a conference room, and then handicapped his ballclub with his fascination with ways of insinuating himself into the ballgame. I know it means something to Mets fans if I label the man "Torborgian," but that's what you're working with, with a dash of braggadocio to spice things up a bit. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 18 2009 04:09 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]It ain't a letter grade, but "Torborgian?" OUCH. From a BP chat earlier today: ]Dave (NJ): Starts Jermey Reed at 1b and Daniel Murphy in LF and Gary Sheffield in RF (go get 'em Carlos!) as Ryan Church sits the bench. Starts Gary Sheffield in RF at bats him 4th. Omir Santos starts again! Sacrifice bunts with no one out and a runner on second IN THE FIRST INNING. Pinch hits for Daniel Murphy with Angel F. Pagan with the bases loaded and one out in the 8th inning down by two. These are all things Jerry Manuel did JUST LAST NIGHT. Was he this bad in Chicago? BTW- Mets didn't score in the first (or ever for that matter.) Pagan grounded into a double play. Sheffield went 0 for 4 and left 4 on base. Christina Kahrl: He was, and he will be. That the Mets were impressed with him was proof they didn't remember that this was what happened last time around: Manuel aced his interview, says all the right things in a conference room, and then handicapped his ballclub with his fascination with ways of insinuating himself into the ballgame. I know it means something to Mets fans if I label the man "Torborgian," but that's what you're working with, with a dash of braggadocio to spice things up a bit. Yeah not for nothing,, I don't need a newstyled know-it-all sabersnark criticizing Manuel. We can do that ourselves with more precision. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 06:21 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2nw4wncc] Yeah not for nothing,, I don't need a newstyled know-it-all sabersnark criticizing Manuel. We can do that ourselves with more precision.[/quote:2nw4wncc] Kahrl's one of the driving forces behind the perennially kickass annuals for which BP gained initial renown and generally not given to undeserved sniping. But yeah, "braggadocio" might have been a but much. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 18 2009 06:24 PM Yeah I know. And the manhands and stuff. "They can't treat our pledges like that. Only WE can treat our pledges like that!" LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 18 2009 06:30 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Yeah I know. And the manhands and stuff. "They can't treat our pledges like that. Only WE can treat our pledges like that!" Elster88 May 18 2009 10:25 PM Batting Pagan leadoff today looks like an A so far. Three hits, one double, scores the tieing run in the top of the eighth from second on a ball that barely gets out of the infield. (second baseman playing way over behind second, a seeing eye single by Sheff, second baseman gets there and throws it in, Pagan just beats the throw) Ashie62 May 19 2009 12:03 AM I still pine for Bobby V Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 08:18 AM Ryan Church is actually fourth on the team in at bats. Only Beltran, Wright, and Reyes have more. Edgy DC May 19 2009 08:30 AM ="Elster88":3n11mbmf]Batting Pagan leadoff today looks like an A so far. Three hits, one double, scores the tieing run in the top of the eighth from second on a ball that barely gets out of the infield. (second baseman playing way over behind second, a seeing eye single by Sheff, second baseman gets there and throws it in, Pagan just beats the throw)[/quote:3n11mbmf] True, but it's fair to judge these things based on our view of his apparent thinking going in, rather than the outcome. Ceetar May 19 2009 09:01 AM Here's my rant on why we need to fire this bum. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/05/fire-jerry-manuel/ Easily the worst manager we've had in at least 15 years. Vic Sage May 19 2009 09:21 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1vr4gym4] Yeah not for nothing,, I don't need a newstyled know-it-all sabersnark criticizing Manuel. We can do that ourselves with more precision.[/quote:1vr4gym4] sabersnark? Bullet of cool, jonny. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 19 2009 09:25 AM ="Ceetar":2cpinc1g]Here's my rant on why we need to fire this bum. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/05/fire-jerry-manuel/ Easily the worst manager we've had in at least 15 years.[/quote:2cpinc1g] Managers rarely get fired for making dumb game decisions. It's when the players tune him out that he has to go. Edgy DC May 19 2009 09:32 AM Grady Little excepted. Ceetar May 19 2009 10:28 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2tdcmpvy]="Ceetar":2tdcmpvy]Here's my rant on why we need to fire this bum. http://www.ceetar.com/optimisticmetsfan/2009/05/fire-jerry-manuel/ Easily the worst manager we've had in at least 15 years.[/quote:2tdcmpvy] Managers rarely get fired for making dumb game decisions. It's when the players tune him out that he has to go.[/quote:2tdcmpvy] That's only a matter of time. I'd hard to think Murphy and Church, and even Reed and Reyes think he's a good manager. Gwreck May 19 2009 10:47 AM History tells us otherwise. It took an awful long time for Randolph to get fired and he wasn't exactly a master strategist. (And, of course, he wasn't really fired for his game decisions, either). LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 19 2009 12:42 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1cp3q3jf]Ryan Church is actually fourth on the team in at bats. Only Beltran, Wright, and Reyes have more.[/quote:1cp3q3jf] Everyone but Beltran, Wright and Reyes has been hurt, 40 years old, or Daniel Murphy. Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 12:51 PM True, but it's kind of hard to argue that he's been buried when only one outfielder has had more playing time than he has. Edgy DC May 19 2009 12:59 PM Nah, I don't think so. He played a lot the first three weeks before the trend began. Since the trend began, he's been (1) frequently bumped in lieu of his apparent lessers, (2) seemingly drawn more lefthanders while Murphy and Reed draw the righties, and (3) slid down the batting order. Gwreck May 19 2009 01:03 PM April ABs Beltran 80 Murphy 68 Church 67 Sheffield 30 Tatis 23 Reed 11 May ABs Beltran 67 Church 49 Tatis 47 Sheffield 40 Murphy 40 Reed 18 Benjamin Grimm May 19 2009 01:03 PM Okay, but in May, he's fifth in at bats: Carlos Beltran 67 David Wright 63 Luis Castillo 54 Jos� Reyes 53 Ryan Church 49 Fernando Tatis 47 Gary Sheffield 40 Daniel Murphy 40 Ramon Castro 37 Alex Cora 30 Elster88 May 19 2009 08:27 PM Pagan had four hits yesterday. Reed threw a ball from the first base position to the backstop. So naturally Manuel starts Murphy in left and Reed at first. Seriously what the fuck is wrong with him? If you have to play Reed and Murphy (and sit Pagan) than at least switch the positions. And as I'm typing this I see Murphy commits a two-base error in left. This is comical. Ashie62 May 19 2009 08:38 PM Jerry Manuel...I think he's probably not much better or worse than anyone else out there. In game managing doesn't get people hired or fired. 41-41 at the break could be a breaking point Personally C- Edgy DC May 20 2009 11:15 PM Letting Murphy start at first. A-. The team was desperate for this. I'd give it a higher grade, but it's so overdue. Pinch-hitting for Churchie, but not Murphy. D+. If you want to pull one of your lefties, pull the first one, because then Torre can't change pitchers. Sending Tatis up there instead of Sheffield. D+. Tatis is your last shortstop in a game where pinch-hitting for your struggling current shortstop needs to remain an option and would eventually happen. Sheffield's position is a hitter, and we needed one of those. Lifting Livan. C-. I suppose it's defensible. But good God. Just once, let a starter at least hint at losing it. Edgy DC May 21 2009 08:25 AM And to clarify, pinching Tatis (the mnorst versatile guy left on the bench) in for Church doesn't have to be a problem, except that he was then double switched out. Why, oh why, do managers persist in double switching when they have seemingly no intention of letting their relievers pitch beyond the one inning? Benjamin Grimm May 21 2009 08:35 AM This push-button managing gets frustrating to watch. I yearn for a manager with above-average intelligence. I think the Mets have only had two guys who fit that description: Davey Johnson and Bobby Valentine. If I was hiring a manager I'd look for a smart guy who dared to be unorthodox. Edgy DC May 21 2009 09:20 AM The problem is that so many of them present as such. And because they are mostly old middle infielders and catchers, they supposedly have a broader understanding of the game. And as unconventional as they may fancy themselves, they end up under siege and paranoid from day one --- ripped if they do something out of the ordinary and it doesn't work, despite the fact that most moves dont' work and most games are won or lost by players no matter what the manager does. They get one tenth the salaries of their stars and maybe one third the contract length, they are utterly disposeable. In the end, they all end up like Willie --- acting inperturbable and above it all while inside you're clearly terrified. You bunt like crazy because you know you're one blown rally away from getting fired. Here's a crazy thought: If I found the guy who fit your description --- smart and daring enough to trust his smarts --- I'd pay him as much as I pay my richest player. Hopefully, knowing that it would be as hard for me to part with him as with Beltran --- harder, actually, as he would have no trade value --- he would be unafraid to act outside the box or discipline his players. Of course, then I might get a Tony LaRussa situation --- a detached freak who wears sunglasses at night, moves his pitchers up in the order, and drives drunk after the game. Benjamin Grimm May 21 2009 09:32 AM Yeah, I thought of LaRussa too. As the ugly downside of a guy who, at first glance, might appear to fit my description of the ideal manager. metirish May 21 2009 09:50 AM I'm not liking Jerry a lot this week , that as always is subject to change. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 21 2009 09:54 AM The thing that bothered me most was going to Putz like a kneejerk. Turns out he had a stiff neck ("the elbow is fine" he lied). I've about had it with Putz and with Jerry leaning on him like he has when it's obvious there may be better choices to be made. Nymr83 May 21 2009 09:59 AM ]Sending Tatis up there instead of Sheffield. D+. Tatis is your last shortstop in a game where pinch-hitting for your struggling current shortstop needs to remain an option and would eventually happen. Sheffield's position is a hitter, and we needed one of those Although i wanted him up there for Muphy, no Church, i have no problem using Tatis over Sheff. Tatis is the better hitter to me, especially a pinch-hitter (if the numbers dont back me up on that then maybe i'm wrong, this is just based on my perception) Edgy DC May 21 2009 10:24 AM I understand lifting Murph istead of Church (he could have lifted 'em both), but I'm trying not to make a deal over C decisions. It's spending his most versatile player that slayed us. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 21 2009 12:22 PM ="Nymr83":1fs6xos9] Although i wanted him up there for Muphy, no Church, i have no problem using Tatis over Sheff. Tatis is the better hitter to me, especially a pinch-hitter (if the numbers dont back me up on that then maybe i'm wrong, this is just based on my perception)[/quote:1fs6xos9] Sadly, the numbers seem to do great violence to you on that (although Tatis, in a teeny-tiny sample size, is doing a touch better, and putting the ball in play more): Tatis: 2009: 8 PA, 2 H, 1 BB, 2 R, 2 RBI .400a/.500ob/.400ops, 6 balls in play Career: 57 PA, 49 AB, 5 R, 5 RBI, 1 XBH, .204a/.281ob/.224ops Sheffield: 2009: 17 PA, 1 H (HR), 6 BB, 3 R, 1 RBI .091/.412/.364, 9 balls in play Career: 51 PA, 36 AB, 10 R, 11 RBI, 3 XBH, .278/.471/.444

It was Timotastic.

Fuck.

Blerch. Strikes out on 3 pitches. Two down for Sheff.

Wayne Hagin's voice actually cracked on that one. Leadoff double for Reyes.

="metsguyinmichigan"]="Benjamin Grimm"]="metsguyinmichigan"]Damn. Would need an epic comeback here. But at least it's the top of the order. Epic? They're only one run down. Good call. I meant in terms of battling back twice already. Gonzalez is very "get-em-back"-able as a closer.

Dang.

Edgy DC wrote: Nobody on. Let Feliciano hit. He could go up there and "lean into one," a la Rudy in Bad News Bears.

Pedro settles in and gets it done. And on we go!

It does if it's after the fact. Like this. Yuniel is Spanish for "fuckpickle."

LOBs and DPs suck.

Wright doinked by a pitch and now it's 1st/2nd, one out for Fernando McMashalot.

I have an idea, let's let the Braves version of Sean Green load em up again due to his incompetence. I am OK with this plan.

Feliciano! Gets two outs on two pitches. I love it.

Feliciano in and gets a quick force at 2nd. Two outs, runner on 1st for McCann.

Walk = boo. Jerry smartly going and getting Green out of there.