Randolph is A TERRIBLE Manager

[mets87]

you think torre's a good manager? hahahaha. ask the guys on the yankee board what they think of him and his stellar bullpen management.

and yes, the playoffs are an absolute crapshoot. in a series of 5 or 7 games, ANYTHING can happen. that is how you explain bad teams (06 cards) going anywhere in the playoffs.

you really think the manager has some drastic effect on the outcome of a game, and i don't know why. don't judge how good a manager is based on the team's record. the dominant yankees of the 90's could have been managed by an infant and done almost as well.

[vincanityisdagr8est]

you think torre's a good manager? hahahaha. ask the guys on the yankee board what they think of him and his stellar bullpen management.

and yes, the playoffs are an absolute crapshoot. in a series of 5 or 7 games, ANYTHING can happen. that is how you explain bad teams (06 cards) going anywhere in the playoffs.

you really think the manager has some drastic effect on the outcome of a game, and i don't know why. don't judge how good a manager is based on the team's record. the dominant yankees of the 90's could have been managed by an infant and done almost as well.

Yea, you should go tell that to Buck Showalter. The thing is the Yankees of the mid-to late 90s didnt have high priced FAs and Superstar, they had an upcoming Jeter, an upcoming Posada, and Rivera. They won with guys like Paul O'neil, Mariano Duncan, Charlie Hayes, Shane Spencer, Chuck Knoblock, Scott Brocious as their everyday players. Yes 98, they went out and got Clemens. It wasn't til 02 when the Yanks went overboard and started signing superstars and they haven't won since.

I have kept my ordinal stand, it take talent to win, but you have to have chemistry, and you have to have a manager who can handle players, which willie does.

You on the other hand keep contradicting yourself. You said at first "clubhouse chemistry" means nothing. The only thing that matters is the skill of the player and the ability of the coach/manager to make the right in-game decision. Then you said the playoffs are a crapshoot. any team can get hot and win. THen you said the manager doesn't have any drastic effect on the outcome of a game.

And if you don't base a managers job on his team's win and losses, then how do you base it on??? What was the point of firing all these managers, we might as well kept Dallas Green.

[mets87]

1996 yankees:

1b: Tino Martinez: 25 HR, .292/.364/.466
2b: Mariano Duncan: .340/.352/500
3b: Wade Boggs: .311/.389/.389
SS: Derek Jeter: .311/.389/.430
CF: Bernie Williams: 29 HR, .305/.391/.535
RF: Paul O' Neill: .302/.411/.474

pretty good lineup. high OBP and a few guys who hit home runs. the pitching staff's ranks:
team era: 5th
H: 1st
R: 3rd
HRA: 1
K: 1

wow, a fantastic mix of high obp and great pitching! and they won the world series!!!!!11

1998 ranks:
team BA: 2nd
team OBP: 1
team slug: 4th
total HR: 4th

pitching:
era: 1
H: 1
RA: 1
HRA: 1
K: 4th


1999:
BA: 3
OBP: 2
R: 3

pitchers:
era: 2
H: 2
RA: 2
HRA: 1
K: 3

2000:
BA: 6
OBP: 5
R: 6

era: 6
H: 3
RA: 4
HRA: 5

would you look at those ranks! i don't know how a team that was ranked in the top 5 of every category in those years went anywhere. had to be the manager and the "chemistry," not just the fact that the teams were pretty **** skilled.

and uh, none of those statements are contradictory. if you don't think the playoffs are a complete crapshoot, i don't know what to tell you, other than keep listening to joe morgan and hope that he actually gets something right when he "analyzes" baseball for you.

[mets87]

02 angels:
RS: 4
BA: 1
OBP: 4

era: 2
RA: 1

so basically they had ridiculously good pitching that year. crazy stuff, the correlation between good pitching and winning.

the 03 marlins had brad penny, d-train and josh beckett starting, plus they got hot in the playoffs.

05 whitesox: everybody overachieved. you'll notice that they have almost the same team and are a joke. a computer predicted their record would be 72-90 this year. i think they're a couple games better than that, but you get the point. they overachieved and got on a nice streak in the playoffs.


bad teams go on winning streaks during the season; why can't the same thing happen in the playoffs?

[vincanityisdagr8est]

1996 yankees:

1b: Tino Martinez: 25 HR, .292/.364/.466
2b: Mariano Duncan: .340/.352/500
3b: Wade Boggs: .311/.389/.389
SS: Derek Jeter: .311/.389/.430
CF: Bernie Williams: 29 HR, .305/.391/.535
RF: Paul O' Neill: .302/.411/.474

pretty good lineup. high OBP and a few guys who hit home runs. the pitching staff's ranks:
team era: 5th
H: 1st
R: 3rd
HRA: 1
K: 1

wow, a fantastic mix of high obp and great pitching! and they won the world series!!!!!11

1998 ranks:
team BA: 2nd
team OBP: 1
team slug: 4th
total HR: 4th

pitching:
era: 1
H: 1
RA: 1
HRA: 1
K: 4th


1999:
BA: 3
OBP: 2
R: 3

pitchers:
era: 2
H: 2
RA: 2
HRA: 1
K: 3

2000:
BA: 6
OBP: 5
R: 6

era: 6
H: 3
RA: 4
HRA: 5

would you look at those ranks! i don't know how a team that was ranked in the top 5 of every category in those years went anywhere. had to be the manager and the "chemistry," not just the fact that the teams were pretty **** skilled.

and uh, none of those statements are contradictory. if you don't think the playoffs are a complete crapshoot, i don't know what to tell you, other than keep listening to joe morgan and hope that he actually gets something right when he "analyzes" baseball for you.

I never said they had a bad lineup. I said none of them were superstars, or highpriced FA except Boggs. None other than boggs were considered HOFs at the time. You ask anyone of the Yankee board, they'll tell you, the Yankee teams of the mid to late 90s had great chemistry, and won with good pitching, and timely hits. They didn't have Arods, sheffields, and Giambis of the world. Hek you wanna bring up analysts, just listen to Ron darling and Keith Hernandez, atleast once a game they bring up the chemistry of the 86 Mets.

And yes your statements are contradictory. Are the plays a complete crapshoot?? Absolutely not!!!! In a 7 game series the better team usually wins, yes there has been upsets, underdogs have went on to beat the heavy favorites. But look at the underdog teams that usually win, they win because of the team chemistry. The Red Sox beating the Yankees, The Pistons beating the Lakers, and this year the Warriors beating the Mavs. Even in Football, the Colts team this year was not as talented as the onces in the last few years but they won because they played together.

[mets87]

how the HELL can you say CHEMISTRY made the red sox beat the yankees?! they were down 3-0. the yankees performed the biggest choke in baseball history in that series. it wasn't "chemistry" that made them win. the yankees blew it, plain and simple.

and yeah i'll give you in basketball and football it's all about playing together because if the offensive line gets the play wrong the qb/rb gets tackled for a loss, and if someone goes the wrong way on a play in basketball it results in a turnover. there is SOME chemistry in baseball, such as a double play combination and the ability of the pitcher and catcher to communicate. but seriously, "chemistry" doesn't allow you to come back in games. that's a combination of god-awful pitching and lucky hitting.

[vincanityisdagr8est]

how the HELL can you say CHEMISTRY made the red sox beat the yankees?! they were down 3-0. the yankees performed the biggest choke in baseball history in that series. it wasn't "chemistry" that made them win. the yankees blew it, plain and simple.
and yeah i'll give you in basketball and football it's all about playing together because if the offensive line gets the play wrong the qb/rb gets tackled for a loss, and if someone goes the wrong way on a play in basketball it results in a turnover. there is SOME chemistry in baseball, such as a double play combination and the ability of the pitcher and catcher to communicate. but seriously, "chemistry" doesn't allow you to come back in games. that's a combination of god-awful pitching and lucky hitting.

How can you not say it was good team chemistry??? Can you give me another example of a team simply coming back from 3-0 despite and winning the series?? Especially when its the Yankees againsts their biggest rivals?? You know what YOU CANT because there hasn't been any. A team doesn't suddenly come back from a 3-0 deficite like that, especially when the Redsox against the Yankees.
You tell me, if chemistry doesnt play a factor then why would the RedSox trade away their best hitter and the most popular RedSox since Ted Williams in the middle of the season for Orlando Cabrera. Orlando Cabrera, prior to that trade you would never mention Cabrera in the same sentence as Nomar.

And most of all the RedSox players and manager said themselves that team had great chemistry and the players love playing for Francona. Your saying that the Players, managers, baseball analysts, former players, all these guys who play professional baseball and are around the game are all wrong??

If you have been a Met fan as long as I have been, and you seen Francona manage the Philies, the guy wasnt exactly Tommy Lasorta.[/b]

[randomhero423]

chemistry is something you can't find in a stat. but is DEFINTELY needed to win.

a manager's job isn't just to manage the game, but to also be "the straw that stirs the drink". if this wasn't true, then for the most part everything is based off talent and for lil desicions about the bullpen.

to say chemistry doesn't matter is insane. when you get along and have fun, it makes your job a lot easier, and keeps things loose. you don't just have a manager for "in game".

[mets87]

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search?q=chemistry

[vincanityisdagr8est]

http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search?q=chemistry

Ok, so even that article is saying that the 96-2000 had great chemistry.

[vincanityisdagr8est]

Everyone who has posted on this topic has agreed that Willie is not a very good on-game desicion maker, but handles the team well. Why are you making an argument when there isnt one??? Chemistry is necessary for a team to succeed.

Some of Willie's moves are questionable, everyone here agrees, but the guy has done a great job. If he was so bad he wouldn't have won 97 games and came a game from getting to the WC last year and being 55-43 despite injuries to key players like Beltran, Alou, Green, Valentine.

I'll give you an example 2 years ago down the stretch the Mets lost 9 out of 10, including being swept by Was at shea. Met teams in the past would have just given up and looked forward the next season, but they went 11-3 in the final 14 games despite Pedro not pitching the last month. Like Willie or not his players play hard for him.

[mets87]

-= original quote snipped =-



Ok, so even that article is saying that the 96-2000 had great chemistry.

dear GOD.



no, it is not saying that at all. the point of that website is to criticize crappy journalism and to dispel myths about baseball such as "clutch hitters," "chemistry" and "grit" (see: david eckstein), the need to sacrifice bunt and hit and run, etc. the authors are making fun of people who think that "intangibles" matter more than pure skill.


and once again, you give the coach far too much credit for the team's achievements. the mets were the best team in the NL and it wasn't even close. they tied for the best record in baseball. they won in spite of randolph's idiotic in-game decisions, not because of them.

[vincanityisdagr8est]

Okay so now your giving your fact website?? Thats sad.

I am not giving the coach too many credit, but I do give where credit is due.

Yes Mets were by far the best and most talented team last year, but then how do you explain what they are doing this year?? They had Gomez, Milledge, Ben Johnson, and guys off the street playing the outfield. Their big sluggers have struggled and are not putting up the numbers they were last year. But yet they have the best record in NL, hmmm.....willie has done a pretty good job so far.

[mets87]

Okay so now your giving your fact website?? Thats sad.

what does that even mean? is that english?

Yes Mets were by far the best and most talented team last year, but then how do you explain what they are doing this year??

you act like they've played amazing baseball this year. they're up by like 3 games in the division. the pitching has been ridiculously good, that's why they're still ahead. but you're right, give willie credit for making the pitchers pitch well.

[vincanityisdagr8est]

-= original quote snipped =-
you act like they've played amazing baseball this year. they're up by like 3 games in the division. the pitching has been ridiculously good, that's why they're still ahead. but you're right, give willie credit for making the pitchers pitch well.

NO I am giving him credit for holding it all together. Yes he has made some bad desicions, but he was also made some very good once. Their pitching has been spectacular, Rick Peterson deserves a lot of credit for that. But Willie deserves a lot of credit as well. He never excuses when the team struggled, he benched Reyes for lack of hustle, he moved Delgado down in the lineup. He has shown he is not intimidated by his players, he is the leader.

[vincanityisdagr8est]

[quote="mets87"]
no, it is not saying that at all. the point of that website is to criticize crappy journalism and to dispel myths about baseball such as "clutch hitters," "chemistry" and "grit" (see: david eckstein), the need to sacrifice bunt and hit and run, etc. the authors are making fun of people who think that "intangibles" matter more than pure skill.quote]

What makes him such an expert?? I can start a website tommorow telling you a chemisty is the key to winning. Doesn't make me right. I have given you what the players say, what former players have said, what people who have been around the game say, you have given me a website. Good Job.

[mets87]

what the hell do you think the players and former players are going to say?

and those guys don't just talk out of their asses like the "analysts" you love on espn. they use statistical analysis to back up their claims. that's a pretty well respected blog, not just some 15 year old's myspace.

[vincanityisdagr8est]

what the hell do you think the players and former players are going to say?

and those guys don't just talk out of their asses like the "analysts" you love on espn. they use statistical analysis to back up their claims. that's a pretty well respected blog, not just some 15 year old's myspace.

Wow, you're great your insight from a well respected blog. You're a joke bro. It's not worth arguing with you. You have given no facts, you keep contracting your own self, and you back your points with a "well respected blog", Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mets87]

wait. i've given you statistics from the yankees teams of the 90's and a few of the last world series teams. those aren't facts? but saying a team had "chemistry" is somehow factual? come on man, you're backpedaling with the insults.
(oh btw, in another thread i saw a cardinals fan say that the post season is a crapshoot. verbatim. might wanna check it out. i didn't come up with this stuff.)

i can see you're a traditionalist, since you apparently have something against blogs, so you probably think that stats like batting average and rbi mean something. that being the case, you definitely should keep spoon-fed information from joe morgan, john kruk and steve phillips while people like me keep laughing at people like you.

[vincanityisdagr8est]

wait. i've given you statistics from the yankees teams of the 90's and a few of the last world series teams. those aren't facts? but saying a team had "chemistry" is somehow factual? come on man, you're backpedaling with the insults.
(oh btw, in another thread i saw a cardinals fan say that the post season is a crapshoot. verbatim. might wanna check it out. i didn't come up with this stuff.)

i can see you're a traditionalist, since you apparently have something against blogs, so you probably think that stats like batting average and rbi mean something. that being the case, you definitely should keep spoon-fed information from joe morgan, john kruk and steve phillips while people like me keep laughing at people like you.

No i am not a traditionalist, i have nothing against blogs if the person knows what they are talking about. I don't think stats like BA, Hrs Rbi tell the whole story, never have, never will. And i dont like any one of those guys you mentioned Joe Morgan, John Kruk, or Steve Philips. I have watched enough baseball in my life to know what works and what doesn't. You said you need was the only thing that matters is the skill of the players on the team and the ability of the coach/manager to make the right in-game decision. Well how many of those Yankee players at the time were high skilled athletes?? Paul O'neil was ran out of town in Cincinati, Scott Brosius who did nothing in Oakland, comes to NYY and becomes clutch??

Then you say you dont think the manager has some drastic effect on the outcome of a game.

So far all you have said is how this guy in that blog agrees with you, and how that guy in that blog agrees with you. Forget analysts, players have said it themselves. You are still missing the main picture, I have said over and over ofcourse you need talent, talent is the most important thing, but you need other intangibles to win. You need guys that get along with each other. If you have a divided clubhouse, you won't get far. How are you going to play together as a team if you can't get along? If you look at the Mets they could easily have a divided clubhouse. Everyone is accusing Minaya for bringing in Latino players, you can easily have tensions between the Latino and non-latino players. But Willie has done a good job of not allowing that to happen so far.

If you have a weak manager, players take advantage. Guys like al leiter, john franco has taken advantage to that situation, I for one do not wanna see that again.