So What Was Willy's Excuse? (+ POLL)

by DavidNYC on Jul 29, 2007 3:30 PM EDT

I stuck around to watch the end of last night's painful, painful game, and spent the final innings growing angrier and angrier at Willie Randolph's inexplicable managerial decision in the 7th inning.

For those of you just tuning in, we started the night with a "short bench" due to the double-header - Pelfrey had been called up to pitch the second game, and Beltran was hurt but not on the DL. Paul LoDuca was injured running the bases in the 7th and left the game (El Duque pinch-ran). The pitcher's spot was due up in the lineup, but rather than bat Ramon Castro - who was going to have to come into the game in the top of the next inning to replace LoDuca - Willie went with Marlon Anderson. In so doing, Randolph ensured that we'd have no more batters on our bench, which forced him to send Tom Glavine to the plate in the bottom of the 9th.

Gary Cohen said that the only reason he could think of for this move was because Willie liked the pitching matchup better with Anderson versus Castro. But both Cohen and Mex agreed that, despite this reasoning, it was a pretty absurd move to make. Needless to say, I - and just about everyone in Mets fandom - seemed to concur as well, particularly when Glavine made out in the 9th.

In any event, I went out to a friend's birthday party and didn't stick around to watch the post-game press conference. What I want to know is, what the hell excuse did Willie offer? I did a quick (not exhaustive) scan of the tradmed and only found one short mention of Randolph's decision:

With Hernandez demoted, and with Beltran out since Wednesday, the Mets actually had only three available bench players for the nightcap - two of whom Willie Randolph burned when he decided to pinch-hit Marlon Anderson against Ray King in the seventh, knowing Ramon Castro would have to enter the game for Lo Duca. (Randolph said he favored the King-Anderson matchup over Castro vs. Jon Rauch, whom the manager figured would have otherwise entered.)

So his proffered reason was exactly as Cohen had hypothesized - and, like I said above, it still sucks. What I want to know, though, is:

a) Did Willie say anything else? Or was this the sum total of his explanation?

b) Why didn't another coach - say, Rick Peterson or Jerry Manuel - say, "Hey, skip, maybe we should send Ramon up there - we don't want to be caught with our pants down in the 9th"? If one of them did speak up and Willie over-ruled them, well, I hope that means he'll listen more carefully next time.

c) And finally, why aren't there any indignant columns about this in today's papers? Did I just miss them, or will they appear on Monday? (In other words, why - apart from the broadcasters - is this criticism appearing pretty much only in the blogosphere?)

Anyhow, take the poll.

Poll

Did Willie Randolph Make the Right Move Last Night?

Yes

0 votes

No

1 votes

Hell, no!

21 votes

22 votes | Poll has closed

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 9 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't know

How much more of this I can take. It's often said that the manager can't bat for his players - but in this case, Willie all but took the bat out of his players' hands.

by DavidNYC on Jul 29, 2007 3:36 PM EDT reply actions

Yea

What bothers me more than the move is the fact that Randolph takes no responsibility for his actions when he makes a clearly bone-headed managerial move. Just a, "Yea, I effed that one up pretty badly. Not sure what I was thinking" would suffice, and at least there would be some accountability. Nothing, so I'm left to wonder if he still thinks he made the right decision.

The problem with his "matchup" mea culpa is that he can't possibly think that Marlon Anderson's performance in five previous plate appearances against Ray King was enough to effectively send a pitcher in to pinch-hit in the ninth instead of Anderson. He was somehow convinced that this meaningless sample of past success made him an improbably superior choice to Ramon Castro batting against Jon Rauch, so much so that he had no problem sending Glavine up to hit in the ninth instead of a position player.

by Eric Simon on Jul 29, 2007 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions

terrible move both by Randolph and Minaya

There's really no reason to have 12 pitchers, and it's asinine the way nearly every team does it now. That means you're left with a bench of 5. But, instead of realizing they're shorthanded because of Beltran, and that they probably won't need 7 bullpen pitchers in the two games, they went one worse and went to 13 pitchers for the double header. Meaning a bench of 4--3 because of Beltran. Completely idiotic.

They never should have even been at a bench of 5, much less 4. If they stayed, even for the double header, at 11 pitchers, this never would have been an issue. It shows a complete ignorance for tactical roster construction, something made even more apparent by worrying about one specific match-up (Anderson over Castro PHing) ignoring what that will eventually lead to. The specific is Randolph's fault, the larger picture is both GM and Manager.

by jalsonmi on Jul 29, 2007 8:05 PM EDT reply actions

most teams are carrying 12 pitchers

the game is such an offensive one now that I think it makes a lot of sense, esp. in the NL where you have to hit for pitchers early from time to time. Very easy to wear out an 11 man pen, esp. if you drop the long man.

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win!!!

by DoctorK16 on Jul 30, 2007 3:17 AM EDT up reply actions

I feel and have felt

that both Minaya and Randolph are overrated because they are "popular" and because of the Mets' budget.

by kmdarcy @ Amazin' Avenue on Jul 30, 2007 2:31 AM EDT reply actions

well considering the last managment

team were working under the same constraints and these 2 have won a lot of games this is unfair.

its a ground ball...trickling... its a fair ball, its by Buckner, rounding third Knight, the Mets will win the ballgame, the Mets win!!!

by DoctorK16 on Jul 30, 2007 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Randolph

I don't know that he is over- or under-rated. He seems to be good at the same things that Joe Torre is/was good at -- dealing with players and placating the media -- and struggles with the nuances of in-game tactical decision-making, much like Torre does.

by Eric Simon on Jul 30, 2007 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions

Bullpen

I would argue that Randolph is better at managing his bullpen than Torre. At least Willie doesn't overuse the last man to pitch well until his arm is dead and then find a new favorite setup man. Feliciano, Heilman, Schoeneweis, Smith, and Mota have all pitched important innings this year.

Overall though, I'd agree with you. Like Torre, Randolph gives a ton of deference to veterans, deals well with players and the media, and often makes...um...surprising in-game decisions.

by ams258 on Jul 30, 2007 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions

See

This is what I have a hard time believing. This was not - NOT - a hard call. Gary Cohen recognized the problem instantly, as did just about every serious fan watching the game.

Managing a baseball team simply isn't that taxing. Even in the NL, there aren't exactly a ton of decisions to be made. A reasonably bright manager should have seen this problem and avoided it.

by DavidNYC on Jul 30, 2007 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions