Our Mets Hall of Fame - the seventh Manager Election

[Cowtipper]

The manager eligible for the seventh Manager Election is:

Willie Randolph

She he be in Our Mets Hall of Fame?

Since I imagine a bunch of no votes for this one, I just want to remind you: Please explain your no vote for it to count. Thanks

[Joe Rigatoni]

Like I said in the other post,in 2006 he lost to an inferior team in the
St.Louis Cardinals in the NLCS,in 2007 his team collapsed,in 2008 he got
fired after 69 games because his team underachieved.Plus,certain players
played better after he left because they felt more comfortable with him
gone.Plus,he always seems to have a scowl on his face which is not the
image you want your team to project on a day in,day out basis.In my heart,
to say the least,I feel his tenure as a Mets manager is not Hall Of Fame
worthy.

[Cowtipper]

I voted for Randolph, because I'm stupid and accidentally clicked the wrong circle. How that happens on a poll with two options is beyond me, but I managed to do it anyway.

[whoisonit]

No way he deserves this.

[NJMetfan4life]

Willie wasn't that good.

[milladrive]

I voted for Randolph, because I'm stupid and accidentally clicked the wrong circle. How that happens on a poll with two options is beyond me, but I managed to do it anyway.

Heh, spazz. But sighhhh, seriously, you've made your honest mistake made known, so in the name of fairness, I'm sadly not against discounting your vote and including it as a "nota."

Like I said in the other post,in 2006 he lost to an inferior team in the St.Louis Cardinals in the NLCS...

And yet, as I replied in response to that other post, the man did manage the Mets to the 7th game of the '06 NLCS. (And if we were so "superior" to the Cards, how'd we lose to them?) Johnson lost to an "underdog" (a much more appropriate word) Dodgers in '88. So, um, what was your original point again?

...in 2007 his team collapsed...

And, as I've regurgitated ad nauseum, second place is second place, whether achieved by a late-season collapse or falling short after a late-season surge. It's a 162-game season.

...in 2008 he got fired after 69 games because his team underachieved.

Firings and unachievements are in no way interconnected. If such were the case, then let's stop now and count how many Met managers held their jobs after records of two games under .500 after 69 games. Using his firing against him is, imho, unfair. And again, should I compose a list of the teams that underachieved, then got it together to succeed? Ya know, teams like the '69 Mets (18-22 thru 40) and the '09 (15-17 thru 32) Yanks? Believe me, the list is long. The ups and downs over the course of a season can be cruel when broken down by a daily log. And you know what? No one I know has a functional crystal ball that will ever tell us what the results would otherwise have been after Game 162 had he remained.

Plus,certain players played better after he left because they felt more comfortable with him gone.

And as I first replied, that point can't be denied. Yet no one addressed my subsequent query regarding the origination and the perpetration of that discomfort. Frankly, a lot of immediate-gratification pressure was thrust upon him by us using the media as our vehicle in mid June '08.

Plus,he always seems to have a scowl on his face which is not the image you want your team to project on a day in,day out basis.

Well, these remarks are new to the discussion, but I'll happily address them. First, we have...

Plus,he always seems to have a scowl on his face...

To what "scowl" do you refer? I seem to recall a few smiles every now'n'then. If there were indeed a continual scowl I seem to have overlooked, it may have been while the Mets were playing three-and-a-half-season .554 ball under him till mid June '08, when the team went into a common occasional baseball skid and all at once, all of Metstown fell into a Wall-Street-like panic, as if wishing to desperately avoid a third straight ninth-inning collapse. Oh, and before you reply to my question about the "scowl," please try to bear in mind that despite Jerry's 55-38 (.591) finish in '08, Willie was fired as the Mets were on a four-outta-six surge, lost Jerry's first game, and had to whip out a 47-29 record after his initial 8-9 record.

I'll save the diatribe of how, as much as I like Jerry, I think the firing of Willie Randolph was an utterly unnecessary event. I'll save that. ...But please, feel free to elaborate. "scowl"

...which is not the image you want your team to project on a day in,day out basis.

What? Have you taken a look at Bobby Cox over the past quarter century? Or Charlie Manuel? What exactly IS the image you want your team (via the manager) to project on a daily basis? Joe, come on, there's a lot more riding on a successful season than having a manager with a high Q-rating. It's way more than the post-game interviews. Hell, my manager can be The Elephant Man with larynx issues and Scrooge's attitude just as long as he's properly managing my baseball team. I can only try to get the horses in the stable so he can manage a winning team.

Now, unless I'm George Steinberger, getting the right horses can be a quite difficult, even for a high-end payroll team as the Mets. Add a little luck, too. But do luck and my moves affect a manager's abilities? No, they merely try them. Like I've said, elsewhere, I believe a manager to be responsible for only about 5 wins or losses per season. The good ones get you those five. Five games either way may seem like I'm understating it, but that's about a 10-game leeway. For instance, one that gets all five when compared to one who loses all five, can be 92-70 versus 87-75. Can make or break a season. On the other hand, the other 152-game leeway remains solely on the shoulders of the guys with mitts and bats.

Point is, Willie was one of those plus-side-of-the-leeway managers, as is Jerry, so the firing was unneccessary. Partly as a result of all of this, Randolph's legacy as a Met manager currently suffers, especially from the lost time and the too-recent memories of "failures" while he managed them.

[Cowtipper]

Since Willie Randolph probably isn't going to garner any significant support within the next couple elections, I'm going to cut the manager's elections short, unless anyone objects to that.

[milladrive]

No objections here.

No need to further unduly drag Willie's rep through the mud.