Willie in the cross hairs …
-
- May
- 16
The Mets are a very uninspired 20-19 and 2 1/2 games out of first place in the NL East. They are a hot week away from turning things around. But, will they?
I’d like to believe they can and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they were to right the ship. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if they didn’t. That’s the kind of malaise they are in now.
Willie Randolph isn’t changing folks. His personality is one of stubborn pride void of visible displays of emotion. Maybe that’s part of the problem in that they aren’t responding to him. But, when a manager loses a team, there are a lot of grumblings. I haven’t heard many.
There’s enough blame to go around, and that includes the general manager. Omar Minaya is the one who put this group together. He’s also the one who hung his hat on Johan Santana, and Pedro Martinez and Orlando Hernandez. Not to mention oldsters Carlos Delgado, Moises Alou and Luis Castillo.
This IS NOT the same team that came close in 2006, and there are a lot of reasons.
I have a poll up on who’s largely to blame. Tell us what you think here and vote there.
This entry was posted
on Friday, May 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm by John Delcos.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Excellent point, JD. We fans wouldn't know, not being in the clubhouse, yet many of the Willie bashers keep propagating the lie that Willie has "lost" his team.
Except for a few scattered criticisms here and there—ie, Lo Duca and Wagner last year—there has been no criticisms. And David Wright has been pretty clear and vocal in his support for Willie.
"Propagating the lie"? Very telling choice of words.
Read Joel Sherman's Blog today in the Post.
He claims the players do not hate or love Willie.
The are completely indifferent to him.
If this is true it is actually much worse than the players hating the manager.
Well, when a statement that has no basis in reality is repeatedly made, how else would you characterize it but as a lie?
Scott—How does one measure indifference? Would it not be accurate to say that most players are indifferent to their managers? That they play mostly for themselves and their families, their wallets, and their teammates?
Anyone calling Tiffany a liar is a "despicable " little Metsie. Tiffany is the best…. Tiffany is the sun and the moon and the stars.
Why should the big Metsies hate Willie. It seems he lets them play as lazy as they want. He's a good boss, just a lousy leader…...
Time to go to the Metro station and call it a week little Metsies. See you later maybe…......
JK you apologize to Tiffany. That was very mean…. You must think you are george bush…...
How would know whether there is a basis in reality—from Delcos' comment above?
Tiffany—Because I haven't seen any reports that give any evidence of it. And no one who has propagated the "lie" has ever given any evidence of it.
Oh, that settles it, then. Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not concerned so much with whom to blame as with how to explain the Mets performance.
Right now they sit at 20-19 just a game over .500. They've played 9 games against the Nationals, 3 against Cincinnati and 3 against Pittsburgh. Also 3 agains the Marlins whom I'm not convinced are really very good.
20-19 doesn't look so good when considered in this light.
There are 3 possibilities. 1) they are really better than this, 2) this is how good they really are, and 3) they aren't even really this good.
The consensus assumption on this site and everywhere else it seems is that they are really better than this. That is also my feeling. I have to say though, that the longer this goes on, with the Mets essentially playing .500 ball going all the way back to the middle of last season, I am starting to have my doubts. But for now I am still convinced that their true talent level is greater than this level of performance.
So then why are they under-performing. There are 2 reasons that come to mind to me. Bad luck is one and under-achieving is the other.
I don't see any evidence that they have been unlucky, winning blowouts and losing all the close games, or getting bad breaks. What I see is just too many guys not playing up to their ability level, a lack of hitting with RISP, and poor middle relief pitching.
Is Willie to blame for these things? I don't know. I like Willie. However I think that you can make the case that Willie is to blame for these things. I can't prove it but I think something about his demeanor adversely affects the Mets clutch hitting. Also he overuses relief pitchers. He takes the starters out too soon and doesn't let them work out of trouble and takes each reliever out at the first sign of trouble, burning through 3 or 4 or 5 each game.
I'm not sure of any of this to be honest, its just a hunch. The Mets may need to shake things up. I think trading a popular player may be the way to go. If guys start thinking 'if PLAYER X got traded anyone including me can be traded' that may give them the spark that they need.
No problem, Tiffany. You're welcome. ;)
To me indifference means if something bad goes down the players do not have the managers back and will not do anything for him to keep his job.
Sherman is stating the players really don't seem to care that Willie's job is on the line.
My favorite old story I always heard about managers and keeping their jobs.
1/3 of the guys love you and will do anything you want
and be your clubhouse leaders and policeman.
1/3 of the guys hate you and 1/3 of the guys are indifferent to you and play the same for any manager.
The trick of any manager is keeping this balance.
I guess what I am saying is that on the current Mets this balance is out of whack.
It seems most of the guys are indifferent a few hate him but no one loves the guy.
But, Scott, we need a stat to measure indifference. Otherwise, you're just propagating a lie.
Good point. After 2006, Willie decided to change his personality, with the unintended effect of adversely impacting clutch hitting. Maybe Omar just needs to tell him to go back to the happy-go-lucky guy he was in 2006?
Scott, did you read the article where Wright vigorously defended Willie? That doesn't sound like indifferent to me.
How about there are just a lot of indifferent personalities on the team? How much can someone who chooses the Marlins over NY and refuses to be traded to a pennant contender from a losing team really care?
Scott—Who are the few who "hate" Willie?
JK, what's with the attitude? What I'm getting at is that the Mets never went through a stretch with bad clutch hitting in 2006. At least not long enough so that they started to think about it. So it didn't matter. They lost in game 7 on the last day of 2006. Starting 2007 with pressure and high expectations, they never hit well in the clutch since. It could be coincidence or something about Willie may influence that.
The Mets performance on the field this year is certainly a measure of indifference or is this a lie.
The way they conduct themselves with the media after a game is also indifferent ( except for Wagner & Figgy ) or is this also a lie.
I guess you expect me to email Bill James and ask him to come up with a stat for indifference.
Maybe the word is not hate maybe you could say the word is respect for the way he does his job.
I bet Wagner does not respect the way Willie handles the pitching staff.
And I bet he is not the only one.
Taylor, sorry. I didn't realize sarcasm would offend you. I will try not to use sarcasm any more if I reply to one of your posts again. My point is that if you think Willie's demeanor detracts from their ability to hit in the clutch, then how come it didn't harm it in 2006?
I don't think Willie isn't a good manager and I don't think he has improved as a manager since he arrived here.
Those who argue for Willie have relied on the "will Willie fired change ?" There are many different variations on this theme.
The funny thing is, Willie's supporters are essentially making the argument that he has no impact on anything. So if this is the case, one of two things should be done:
1) Make the position of manager a lifetime appointment (like a Supreme Court judge). Since they don't have any impact on anything, just lock one up on the cheap for life.
or
2) Fire Willie. You can't fire the entire 25 man roster and there is something wrong with this team. Willie is supposed to be the leader of this team. It is time someone gets held accountable for this team underachieving.
They didn't have adversity in 2006 until the last day of the year so it didn't matter. Since then the clutch hitting has been poor and they haven't come back to win many games. So according to my theory (which is just a theory and even I'm not that confident of it) the reason that Willie's demeanor didn't detract from their ability to hit in the clutch in 2006 is because they had never struggled hitting in the clutch from the start of the year.
Scott—So, obviously, the Tigers are indifferent to Leyland, right? And the Yankees are indifferent to Girardi, right? And maybe even the Red Sox are growing indifferent to Franconia since they've lost 4 in a row, right? Point being, it's highly speculative at best to equate on-field performance with the players' regard for their manager in the absence of any evidence.
As for dealing with the media, some players just don't like to and I don't know how that can be equated to indifference to their manager. Does that mean then that every player who is very open to the media loves the manager? That would mean Wright, Glavine, Wagner, Valentin, and Reyes all love Willie. Because it's been said that all are accommodating to reporters.
Wagner went on record last year, criticizing both Peterson and Willie. But he is just 1 player. You can speculate all you want, but there are no other current players who have gone on record saying they were dissatisfied with Willie. Maybe Feliciano, but it's not clear in his case.
Taylor, but isn't your reasoning circular (regarding 2006)?
Keith—I'm not really saying Willie has "no" impact on anything. My view is that the manager usually has little impact. And this I believe to be case with the current Mets team.
I don't agree with your solutions because:
1) There are times when a manager is a clear detriment to a team or when he's clearly lost his team. In those cases, of course, you'd want to change the manager.
2) True, you can't fire the whole team now. But firing Willie just to do something won't change things if the problem is the players themselves. It's like putting a bandaid on a gushing wound. If you want to hold someone accountable, how about the guy who put the team together? And you can certainly fire many of the players after the season ends.
I do not think Reyes loves Willie.
LoDuca openly was critical of Willie on his radio show last year.
And you are twisting my words.
The Tigers are major disappointment this year and last but
Leyland has won a World Series so he is living a bit on his reputation.
Francona has two World Series to his name.
Girardi is in his first year and A-Rod and Posada are hurt.
After last September Willie and the Mets knew they had to come out of the shoot fast.
This simply has not happened.
Scott—How am I twisting your words? My point is that if you contend a player who hides from the press means he is indifferent to Willie, then why can't I claim the opposite to be true? Look, I don't believe it, because I don't think one thing has to do with the other, but I was just turning around your own logic.
And, yes, I know Lo Duca was critical, but he's no longer here and he and Wagner make up a grand total of two. I don't think there has ever been any outright wars between Willie and one of his players the way we've seen with some other managers.
Are you saying that because Leyland won one ring with the Marlins in 1997 that his current team can't be indifferent to him even though they are playing poorly on the field? And why does being a first-year manager mean Girardi's players can't be indifferent to him. They are playing very poorly too. And yes, they don't have A-Rod and Posada, but Willie didn't have Alou most of the season and he hasn't had Pedro.
I realize it was important for the fans and many Mets to come out of the shoot fast. But did all the players feel that way too? Simply wanting something doesn't mean it can happen. I'm sure many Tigers players want to do better too.
My theory (remember its just a tentative theory) is that Willie is a fine as a manager except when things don't go well for an extended period of time. When things first start to go badly it isn't necessarily anyone's fault. It may just be bad luck. Luck can run against you for a surprisingly long time. When that happens then you are facing adversity. That never happened in 2006. I'm saying Willie may not be the best manager to help a team out of a slump. Its not circular. If that's a weakness in his managerial repertoire it wasn't exposed in 2006.
You can be indifferent to the manager and play well as the Mets did in 2006.
I have never seen much love for Willie from any of his teams.
If the Tigers flop this year Leyland could be out.
All managers are hired to be fired.
Willie's time has come.
Putting off the inevitable just makes things worse.
Taylor: If the 2006 team didn't struggle in the clutch I think it's because they had better clutch hitters then, particularly Valentin and Delgado, who is just a shadow of the player he was in '06. And when a few players are hitting well, it takes pressure off everyone else. You know, the "hitting is contagious" theory.
Also, I don't think hitting last year was a problem. IMO, it was the bullpen. Their situational stats in '07 were similar to what they did in '06. Yes, this year it's way down, but so is Delgado's output so far.
You may be right, but I just can't see any connection to Willie there.
Well I am now convinced. As a very impartial observer it is now clear to me that even though all the Metsies except the suit guy think Willie must go Willie is the perfect manager. After all Willie only had what the consensus of baseball minds said was the best team in 2006 in the whole National League and didn't get to the World Series, and Willie had what the consensus said was the best team in the whole National League in 2007 and didn't even get his metsies to the first round of the playoffs,and despite having the boggest payoroll by far in the whole National Lague Willie has barely kept the Metsie ahead of lowly Washington. Willie is deserving of the metsie managing job. A corporate suit and tie guy like JK would never be wrong. So all you other metsies stop attacking Willie and be glad he will make sure your metsies underachieve again this year and hopefully every year forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. And don't foget if you don't go to work in a suit and tie JK will ban you from the new dump next year. Only corporate types will be allowed from then on.
Scott: Yes, I agree. Indifference to a manager is not a barrier to good performance, since I don't think players play for the manager. They play mainly for themselves and their families. So, since the two are often unrelated, I can't see how poor play necessarily means players are indifferent to their manager. It might be that they just are not as good as we had hoped.
Taylor: It could also be that Willie is a mediocre manager and everything fell his way in 2006. Call it luck, or that they just caught every break.
The 2006 team ran away and had no adversity except maybe Kaz Matsui untill late in the year when Pedro and El Duque went down.
The fact is mediocre managers have won the World Series,
even lousy managers have won a World Series.
Case in point is Joe Altobelli.
He won a World Series with the Orioles but less than two years later was fired. ( this is before Angelos )
I think Bill James once said good managers at the most are worth 5 to 8 games a year.
The question is Willie a good manager or just average/mediocre.
after reading this thread i have several thoughts
1- willie deserves some credit for 06. he had a bad year last year and there is some residual good will for the job he has done so far. if they suck this year and suck is defined as 500 or worse he is gone.
2- there doesnt seem to be a clubhouse leader. i think dwright will be one day, but he is too young. various ppl rumored to be in the past are no longer here.
3- no passion. as i have said this past week, competition breeds passion. name one position where there is competition.
4- bench. we have some nice bench players. the problem is that there are no young ones in the IF and it is too early to tell on Pagan. Church has sewed up LF so the OF is spoken for.
5- pitching is a mess so far, but it is early and I am hoping it is just a phase.
bottom line i think it is up to the players, but if willie were to uncharacteristically throw some chairs and blow up it might get someone's attention. it would just have to look natural.
alternatively he could fight for his team on the field more. that might help.
To all of you willie supporters, I pose a question:
If willie gets fired, how long do you think it will be before he is offered another managerial position at the major league level?
perhaps a long time. jobs are not that plentiful. it is part luck, part who you know and part ability.
i would like to think he has made a difference. I think he is better than what we had before. the team played better d and that makes a difference. the pitchers cover the spot they should and the players tend to know what they should do.
are there better managers? of course but there are worse.
i think catchers make good managers because they are part of the game the whole game. but experience counts too. i think being a manager in the minors makes a difference. you get to try things out and figure out how to do things.
willie obviously does not have all the answers. but on whole i think he does a good job.
like i said before. if they do not do well this year he is probably gone.
Hey Sadecki: It won't take any lonmger than its taken Art Howe…...
Ray—I don't think your question is very relevant but I'll answer it anyway. Many ex-managers and ex-GMs of the Mets have a hard time getting another similar ML job, and I don't think it will be different in Willie's case.
I don't see how not getting another offer is conclusive of anything relevant in regards to this discussion. For example, take Cito Gaston. He never managed again in the majors, yet he has back-to-back WS wins and a winning percentage as a manager. And BV never got another offer from a ML club after the Mets, even though he was open to it for a few years immediately after. So it's an interesting question but not very relevant to the current Mets team.
JK thinks your question is irrelevant Ray Sadecki. I guess you are beneath his corporate dignity. He makes one hate all Metsie fans. I can't wait for John McBush to be President and make the draft and send JK's holier than thou butt off to Iraq for a year or two.