soupcan

Yup. Martin won but he burned his teams out.

="iramets"]Those of you who are cool with this move, just imagine please if Howard's HR was the final score of the game: we'd be equating Burgos with Benitez, excoriating Willie, blablabla--and he had no way of knowing that the Mets would score big in the late innings. (If he did, I'd like to hear about it.) This place would be going nuts, and rightly so.Absolutely it would've sucked if the Mets lost that game but how about the fact that it was the 6th and not the 8th or 9th, that the Mets were getting into the Phillie bullpen, that the manager knows his team and maybe he had a feel (not that he knew, but knew that the possibility would increase) for how his team might respond in the next few innings. Maybe he thought it was a good time to take a risk. Looking back on it, it was.

="Nymr83"]soupcan: wow. if this guy batted rey ordonez 4th would you still defend him because "well he's been in the game forever so he must know what he's doing." this was as bad an in-game management decision as i've seen. it deserves criticism.Careful NYM, I think cooby and I are the two biggest Rey-Rey fans out there. The manager can do whatever he wants to do whether or not it makes sense to me or not as long as the team wins on a consistent basis. And, no, I don't mean barely over .500 I mean win at the clip they did last year. This team is built to be a championship contender and as long as they reach that goal, he can bat Ordonez fourth if he wants to. Willie's record as a manager in the 2 years he's been with the Mets has been a winning one, as a result he will continue to get the benefit of the doubt from me. I may not understand why he makes a particular move or disagree with a move he makes but I'll stop short of calling him dumb or thinking he's an idiot simply because he's proven that he is a more than capable ML manager. It's when his questionable moves start costing the team games, again on a consistent basis, that I would then begin to have a problem with them and him. To date though, that's not the case with Randolph.

What we're debating here is what is best for a baseball team over the course of a 162 game regular season in order to put that team in the best possible position to win in the postseason. Again I bring up the fact that Willie Randolph has been a player, coach and manager in the major leagues for 32 years. He's had great personal success and has been on teams that have had great success. I find it odd that despite this resume people doubt that he knows what it takes to become a winning team. I understand if you simply don't like him or question an in-game move here and there but making claims that a lay person could manage a major league team just as well (if not better!) than a guy with that kind of experience is silly. Anyone can point to percentages and statistics and make claims that because of whatever numbers they come up with this call should have been made on that play. This player should have been in the game instead of that one. Do you really think its that easy? How did that work out for the Red Sox a few years back when the grand Poobah of statistics deemed that a closer by committee would, based on statistics, be just as effective as one top-notch closer? The point is that baseball is a game of intangibles as well as numbers. A guy that's been around the game for 32 years is in a much better place to understand that than someone that just hasn't. If Willie Randolph thinks that having Burgos pitch to Howard with runners on base in a close game in the 6th inning of the 7th game of the season will somehow benefit the team at some point in the season then I'm good with that. I've been watching this game for about 32 years myself and I know a bit about it but I would never assume that I know more about it than a guy like Randolph. I don't think that there is any substitute for experience. If you don't like his explanations for why he does or doesn't do what you think he should or shouldn't do then I don't know what to tell you. It's obviously part of his managing style to not explain hinmself for whatever reason. I'd love to know the answers too but I'm not going to assume he's an idiot because he's not forthcoming with the press. One more time - the bottom line is his won-loss record, and any Met fan who has a problem with that is being unreasonable with their expectations. Saying that 'anyone can manage this team' or that they win in spite of the manager is being unfair. The guy is doing what he was hired to do the way he wants to do it and he's succeeding.

iramets wrote: Actually, Soupy, I think there are about eight or nine guys on the CPF who have more understanding of the in-game stuff than Willie does. I highly doubt this. iramets wrote: It's not rocket science. Many posters here have jobs that demand more intellectual ability than a MLB manager does, and they do those jobs quite well, as far as I can see.I agree that its not rocket science and there are other people with greater intellect but that does not necessarily mean that if you threw these people into the dugout that they could do it. Could I fly a plane just because I'm smart, read alot of books about it and watched pilots fly? Maybe I could but would I be a better pilot than someone who has been flying for 20 plus years (or even 2 plus years)?

Nymr83 wrote: now i get it! anyone who is hired is automatically qualified to be a major league manager on account of being a major league manager! brilliant!Wouldn't you say that person would be more qualified than someone who has never managed? Nymr83 wrote: while i was only questioning this one move and not willie's overall intelligence i now do have to question you, under what circumstances CAN a manager's judgment be called into question? or are they immune to criticism in your fantasy world?You can question them all you want about whatever you want. My quarrel is that you are saying that his not changing pitchers was dumb. I'm disagreeing because I think he knew exactly what he was or was not doing and chose - for whatever reason - to keep Burgos in. I think that he was not as concerned about that particular game as he was about whatever it is he was trying to accomplish by leaving Burgos in. If Randolph chooses to make something other than winning that particuar game the priority I suppose you could classify that as 'dumb', but again he is the guy that's going to suffer when it comes down to wins and losses. Perhaps at this point in the season building confidence and finding out exactly what he has in Burgos is slightly more important than that one game. I have no idea what rattles around in Willie's brain and neither do you. Based on his record though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Shea - left field bullpen windows.

You guys just want to convince yourselves and prove to everyone else that you're smarter than a major league manager when it comes to in-game strategies. You're not. You keep harping on this one non-move as proof that he's stupid and you're smart. That's what's dumb. What experience do you have managing a major league game? How about a little league game? Enough already. Whether you agree with his move or not, whether he explains it to your satisfaction or not, the guy is better suited for the job than you, knew what he was doing, whether you agree with it or not when he left Burgos in the game. It wasn't a situation that needed a rocket scientist to evaluate. He saw what you saw, he knew what you knew. For his own personal reasons he chose to play it his way. He obviously felt that if it cost him the game than whatever he learned from it was worth it. That's his perogative because wins and losses will directly effect his job security.

Ira baby, I know that I'm not gonna convince you of my thinking and you're not gonna convince me of yours and, unfortunately, I'm really a hunt-n-peck typist so continuing these discussions takes up quite a bit of time on my end. This being said how 'bout we agree to disagree and if the Mets tank because Willie is exposed as a complete ignoramous you win and if they romp on their way to the first of 10 consecutive titles then I win. Deal?

iramets wrote: I'm still waiting to hear a reason that makes sense.With this logic, Wilie could cut his dick off with a grapefruit knife on the mound, and you'll be saying "Do you think Willie didn't understand how unhealthy that as? Everybody knows you use a scalpel in that spot--give the man some credit." What you are saying is that it is so obviously stupid that Willie had to have his secret reasons for making this move but no one can come up with any yet. Is your main issue that he makes questionable moves or that he chooses not to explain why he makes questionable moves? Why do you care what his reasons are? If you think he's stupid then no reason he gives is going to be sufficient anyway. If you think he had a reason for it, as I do, then I'm satisfied thinking that in addition to what Yancy wrote, his reasoning had to do with seeing how Burgos would perform under pressure and also possibly giving Burgos some confidence had he succeeded in getting Howard out. Much like Willie did with Jorge Julio last year. This guy has been the manager of the team that has enjoyed a renaissance while he has been here. He's been as successful as any fan could've hoped and I think as a result of that success he should be given a longer leash when it comes to analyzing his decisions. If Randolph's 'stupid' decisions lead to consistent losses then you'll be proven correct. To date though, if anything, the opposite seems to be true..

I have no idea what that means.

I think you all are assuming that the move was not made because Randolph is stupid. Really? Do you really think that the guy was clueless as to what was going on on the field? Everyone watching that game thougt Burgos was not going to be allowed to pitch to Howard. Randolph, the manager of the team, was the only guy that didn't realize that? Come on. Disagree with him but don't think the move wasn't made because he didn't have a reason for it.

iramets wrote: There seem to be some people here saying that Willie's move wasn't so dumb, irish, or that he's perfectly good justifying it as badly as he does. I think neither is true: it was a bad move, and he makes it worse by failing to acknowledge it.The thing is that is was such an easy decision to make - we all thought that Burgos should not and would not pitch to Howard there. Do you think that Willie didn't realize that as well? Obviously he had a reason to do what he did. Say what you want but if the drunk Asian chick sitting behind me knew that Burgos shouldn't pitch to Howard then Willie knew it too and had his reasons for allowing it.

iramets wrote: Let me ask you directly, Soupy--do YOU think leaving Burgos in to face Howard was smart baseball?Taken by itself - nope, I wouldn't have done it but, it wasn't done in a vacuum and I'm not the guy who has 30 years worth of ML experience backing me up. I think that while the move wasn't a 'by the book' move I assume that Willie's got a bigger picture in mind - be that pumping Burgos up or finding out exactly what he had in Burgos or a combination of the two. Either way, if he's going to make high-risk moves making them in early April so he can find out exactly what he has in his team is the time to do it. iramets wrote: My sense of the CPF today is that the eventual win makes Willie's dumb move less dumb. If the game had ended with the score after Howard's HR, I think I'd have more company. If you doubt it check out pages 5 and 6 of the IGT, when you guys were going crazy at the colossal stupidlity plainly on display.Maybe you're right but again, these moves in early April are more understandable and justifiable. And if Willie does make stupid moves over and over again and wins in spite of them, I'll take it. It's when his unorthodox ways start costing games on a consistent basis (which in the three years he's been here has not been the case) then I'll start griping.

iramets wrote: Also we're not talking about a Burgos-Howard matchup wth a seven run lead. That's where you play hunches, not a run ahead and ducks on the pond. It was just a foolish move, that the most eloquent explanation won't make sensible, much less Willie's confused articulation of his dumb ideas.What's the bottom line ira? I always thought it was wins and losses. In that vein Willie has been a complete success since he's been here. Give the man some credit. He's been around the game for what - 30 years? Is it completely inconceivable that maybe he just might know what he's doing even if it doesn't jibe with what you think he should do?

Delgado 3 Beltran 2 Alou 1 Feliciano 1 Green 1 Wright 1 Reyes 0.5 Valentin 0.5

I noticed that an ELO song was played for one of Wright's ABs but now I don't remember which on song it was.

Nice job, thanks.

My 10 year-old's LL team has now played as many games as the Indians with another scheduled for this afternoon.

And oddly enough, according to UMDB, today is the 22nd anniversary of Gary Carter's first homerun as a met.

The earliest Opener I remember attending was '85 and I've been to every one since. I think I was at the '83 and '84 games as well but can't be sure. They say that today's temps could rival '85's which wouldn't be fun. That was a cold one my friends, although those that were there left with a very warm feeling in their cuckolds.

Johnny Dickshot wrote: GWreck (upper deck), Old Mole (??) and Soupcan (cushy, possibly heated field-level seats with waiter service) expected to be in attendence as the 07 Mets open in Flushing.Sunny and cold out, fellas. Wrap up. Seats expected to be heated at the new place in '09. Until then we still have to settle for ushers rubbing our appendages to warm them. So primitive.

Glavine 2 LoDuca 2 Delgado 1 Green 1 Schoenweis 1 Smith 1

OHernandez 4 Castro 1 Green 1 Reyes 1 Wright 1

I'm just philosophically opposed to trading an everyday player for a starting pitcher.