Randolph is A TERRIBLE Manager

mets87 · Post #41 » by **mets87** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:00 pm

well you just used the word clutch. here's another fact that's going to blow your mind. there is no such thing as a clutch hitter. scott brosius was never clutch. in his best season, he went .300/.371/.472. a pretty damn good season, but clearly an outlier as his career line is .257/.323/.422.

maybe you mean clutch in the playoffs? well, here's his postseason line: .245/.278/.418
doesn't look very "clutch" to me. whenever you hear about a guy who "always" gets the clutch hits, it's a myth. for all the times he's succeeded, i can guarantee he's failed twice as much.

and no, you don't need guys that get along with each other. as long as they aren't trying to kill each other, it doesn't mean anything. they're professionals, which means they don't let petty crap like not being best buddies with a guy get in the way of trying to win. i quoted a manager who said the exact same thing. he had guys that were great friends and they didn't win a thing. why? because they were not good at baseball.
here's what it takes to win in baseball, in order of importance.
1) good pitching
2) timely hitting (read: NOT clutch hitting)
3) good defense
...

1,000,000) "chemistry"

yes, that's hyperbole, but you get the point.

randomhero423 · Post #42 » by **randomhero423** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:12 pm

you do need some chemistry. on the NYY, angels, red sox, marlins, cardinals, diamondbacks what team really did not have chemistry/have a huge ego?

you can make a arguement for randy/schilling, but they were friends there.

we all agree that talent is the main reason how you win. but chemistry is defintely needed. last year NYY had the most talent, they didn't win...

mets87 · Post #43 » by **mets87** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:05 pm

they didn't have the best pitching.

and for the last **** time, the playoffs are a crapshoot. every team slumps and every team goes on streaks.

vincanityisdagr8est · Post #44 » by **vincanityisdagr8est** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:24 am

mets87 wrote:they didn't have the best pitching.

and for the last **** time, the playoffs are a crapshoot. every team slumps and every team goes on streaks.

Dude you're an idiot, its clear you know very little about baseball. Watch baseball games clearly, try to understand the overal game, then you can come and we can talk or argue.

mets87 · Post #45 » by **mets87** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:38 am

i'm an idiot? okay, i guess you can go call billy beane an idiot, because that's verbatim what he thinks of the playoffs. i have given you statistical analysis to prove my points, you've continued to chirp about intangibles and other cliches that get thrown out there by every lazy, piece of **** "analyst" and "journalist."

i don't know how you can even debate that the playoffs aren't a crapshoot. how many times has the best team from the regular season won?
the cardinals were definitely not the best. but they went on a streak at the right time.
the white sox had the best record, so okay, the best team of that season apparently won.
the red sox didn't win their division.
florida finished 10 games behind atlanta in the division.
the angels didn't win their divison.
the d-backs barely won their divison and didn't have the best record in baseball.

so explain to me, if the playoffs aren't a test of which team is playing best at the time, what are they? a test of grit and chemistry?

xPrimeTimex · Post #46 » by **xPrimeTimex** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:49 pm

He's a horrendous in-game manager. He hit the lottery coming here when he did because Omar puts a great team on the field and they can win in spite of his horrible in game decisions. If you don't think he's cost us at least 5-8 games this year....than you really haven't been watching.

randomhero423 · Post #47 » by **randomhero423** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:59 pm

last time i checked randolph can't bat for us...

team with 2 outs/RISP we are batting .222 or "late and close" .228

last year 2 outs/RISP we were batting .245 and we were batting MUCH better with games close. this year have not been good. (.250-.260's)

mets87 · Post #48 » by **mets87** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:45 am

both of those stats are stupid, so let's not use them, okay?

randomhero423 · Post #49 » by **randomhero423** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:03 pm

how are they stupid? our team is ranked 24/30 in avg with 2 outs/RISP. the only teams we are ahead of are: cardinals, white sox, nationals, flordia, blue jays, and brewers. only 1 team raelly has playoff aspirations.

our slg with 2 outs/RISP is 29/30. we're only ahead of the angels (who really has no power at all).

with RISP we are tied with the padres, indians, marlins, cardinals, and devil rays... out of the teams we are ahead of the only one with playoff chances are the brewers... (20/30. i think)

in slg with RISP. we are tied with the devil rays... (23/30)

last year with RISP we were 12th in avg. (.274) . RISP in SLG we were 4th in MLB with .466

so really the stats are not "stupid". it proves that our offense have been killing us with our chances. our pitching as been fine, and although some questionable moves by willie (every manager as one.), it's our OFF that isn't getting the job done.

mets87 · Post #50 » by **mets87** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:16 pm

avg w/ risp is an incredibly overrated stat. it's been shown that a player's avg w/ risp, with enough at bats, will end up being very close to his actual batting average. this idea of "clutch hitting" is so ridiculous it's not even worth talking about.

edit: just looked up our team BA...it was .264 last year...10 points lower...that's 53 more hits...so 2 more hits for every person over the course of 162 games...seems pretty negligible

randomhero423 · Post #51 » by **randomhero423** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:19 pm

durin the game today. they just had the run production % dropoff.

Jose7 · Post #52 » by **Jose7** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:10 am

Randolph definitely cost us this game. What an IDIOT, I hope he gets chewed up.

gooGD · Post #53 » by **gooGD** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:59 pm

COST?

the double play cost us that game. not glavine in the 9th inning batting with no one on base.

fact check:

we are 59-46, best record in NL

randomhero423 · Post #54 » by **randomhero423** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:11 pm

what cost us the game was felicano/heilman in that inning.

mets87 · Post #55 » by **mets87** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:28 am

gooGD wrote:COST?

the double play cost us that game. not glavine in the 9th inning batting with no one on base.

fact check:

we are 59-46, best record in NL

fact check:

the NL is once again mediocre.

Jose7 · Post #56 » by **Jose7** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:04 pm

This article Sums up why I do not like Randolph.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Shawn Green show is apparently over.

Now, as someone who said all along that Green would not keep up anything like the production he posted in April and early May, I could take this opportunity to toot my own horn, but I've got more important things to focus on. For starters, Green is still getting regular playing time in right field.

Now I appreciate Green's veteran stature and clubhouse leadership and anything else people point to while arguing why a player so clearly past his prime should still be prowling a baseball diamond, but the Mets right fielder's recent struggles at the plate transcend any argument that could be made for his continued presence in the batting order.

For example: Green posted a stellar .412 on-base percentage in April, but his mark for the season has spiraled down to .319. Why? Maybe it has something to do with his miserable last two months, in which he's gotten on base only 42 times in 163 plate appearances for an awful .257 mark. As a point of comparison, Rey Ordonez's career OBP was .289. Joe McEwing's was .302. It doesn't help that Green lacks Rey's flair with the leather and Super Joe's doggedness and versatility.

Green's power numbers have fallen off, too. He will close out July without a single home run in the month, and has compiled a puny .321 slugging percentage since the All-Star Break. Even more disconcerting are Green's numbers against lefties on the season: .194 batting average, .255 OBP, .257 slugging percentage.

It's always sad when aging players aren't really good enough to stay in a Major League lineup anymore, and even more pathetic in Green's case because his skills have diminished so quickly and thoroughly since his stellar seasons in 2001 and 2002. But as painful as Green's struggles are too watch, Mets fans shouldn't have to watch them nearly so often.

I know what you're asking: What's the point? With Carlos Beltran probably headed to the DL, Lastings Milledge gainfully occupied in the center fielder's stead, Moises Alou getting back in the saddle in left and few other outfielders on the roster to speak of, who should play right field instead of Green?

Pretty much anybody, that's who. Willie Randolph started Damion Easley in right on Sunday -- not the best solution, for sure, but likely still a better option than Green at this point. Marlon Anderson and David Newhan could compete for playing time as well. When Beltran returns, there's no question that Milledge should take the reins in right, but until that point, it's quite likely that Willie will keep trotting out Green for further embarrassment.

To make matters worse, the recently dispatched Chip Ambres might have actually been the man best suited to play right while Beltran is hurt. Sure, Ambres has proven little at the big-league level in his short career, but he had reasonable numbers -- .272 / .370 / .492 -- in Triple-A and can almost certainly field the position better than the cement-footed Green. At the very least, Ambres clearly should have been taking at-bats away from Green against left-handers starting quite a while back. At New Orleans this year -- I kid you not -- Ambres hit .373 with a .490 OBP and nine home runs in 83 at-bats against lefties.

I'd call Green an albatross in the Mets batting order, but I honestly don't think that's fair to albatrosses everywhere. Albatrosses can fly, for one thing. Green seems like a really nice guy and perhaps he could be useful as a left-handed bat off the bench, but he has made it quite clear this year that he's no longer a suitable Major League right fielder.

I'll grant that all this might seem like a whole heap of sound and fury that signifies very little, at least if Willie does the reasonable thing and allows Milledge to start every day in right once Beltran returns. What the Green situation demonstrates, though, is another example of Randolph sticking with veterans instead of allowing untested rookies and bench players to show their merits.

A similar situation is unfolding behind the plate. Paul Lo Duca has done nothing this season to show he's a better hitter than Ramon Castro, yet Duke still starts four out of every five games. It's easy to say that it's all immaterial because the Mets are in first place and have been for a long time, but who knows how much more comfortable their cushion atop the standings could be if Willie wasn't costing the team by stubbornly adhering to his veterans.

holdupstop23 · Post #57 » by **holdupstop23** » Wed Aug 1, 2007 4:55 pm

Worst manager ever. He is just so **** awful.

gooGD · Post #58 » by **gooGD** » Thu Aug 2, 2007 2:21 am

[quote="Jose7

Jose7 · Post #59 » by **Jose7** » Thu Aug 2, 2007 3:24 am

Green sucks.

Props to Willie today on the Anderson sub, he should have put in Milledge for Alou or Green in the 9th though.

mets87 · Post #60 » by **mets87** » Thu Aug 2, 2007 3:53 am

gooGD wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

managers get way to much blame when the team loses.

probably, but then the opposite is also true. when a team wins the divison, pennant, world series, the manager is effing worshiped. why, because his players played well at the right time?