Actually, I was a little disappointed with both Gary and Ron in that discussion. They did a lot of mincing words there, when all either of them had to say was "Well, that's a ridiculous statement, and probably isn't even worth our spending these two minutes talking about it."
Just more evidence that Perez has turned a corner, watching his body language that inning. Obviously disappointed in himself but never panicing, he kept his composure and tried working through it.
Wow, I think these comments by Gary and Ron are absurd. Ollie is having trouble because he was pitching so well in the first few innings? What utter nonsense, especially for someone like Perez, whose Mets career has overwhelmingly been that when he's good he's very good, and when he's bad he's very bad. This is the first game I can recall him pitching for the Mets where he started off well and then suddenly started having problems.
Look, every pitcher has off days. Fact is, if this is Ollie Perez at rock bottom and he's only given up three runs in six innings, you have to feel pretty good about his prospects for the rest of the season.
Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if Endy had done this in the first inning with Reyes on first? Oh wait, he couldn't, because he never tried to do anything other than a sac bunt that entire at bat.
I would assume that the call for a sac bunt came from the dugout. I feel that the sac bunt was a mistake; Reyes could swipe the base and then you'd have a man on second wihout having to give up an out. But I understand the reasoning, with the way Oliver Perez has been pitching Willie wanted to try to ensure that he had a quick lead to work with, since he's been so dominant lately.
I sincerely hope that it wasn't called from the dugout, since it was a ridiculously bad decision. It was the bottom of the first inning with a man on first and no one out. If the manager really thinks that the best chance for scoring a run is if the #2 hitter bunts, he has put the wrong person in the #2 slot. This is a question for which there is overwhelming evidence - by any measure of success (total number of runs scored in the inning, probability of scoring at least one run), the results of tens of thousands of plays show that a bunt is a bad play unless the batter is a much worse hitter than the person on deck (that's why bunting with a pitcher makes sense). As I said at the time, unless Endy (or by your thinking, Willie) thought he was completely overmatched at the plate, it was a ridiculous decision, and if that was the case, what is he doing batting second in the order?
Franco strikes out on a high hard one from a junkball pitcher. How can this guy still be on a major league roster?
I think the call came from the dugout. Willie, sadly, does have an affinity for smallball. Shame we don't have Acta around to set him straight. Looked like Chavez was trying to turn it into a drag bunt. I wouldn't have minded a full-out drag bunt attempt nearly as much.
The Mets are 35-19. Why all the negativity? I don't have a problem with carrying Julio Franco. When this team is at full health, he's at best the third bat off the bench, with Endy Chavez and Damian Easley ahead of him. Besides, the offensive difference between Julio Franco and whoever the Mets replace him with would be negligible, and probably not worth even a single game.
he's not worth carrying on a major league roster. right now, he's hitting way too often. and even if he was buried on the bench, why waste a roster spot on him? Because he has a lot of experience? I want guys who can actually play.
Perhaps because Moises Alou, Carlos Beltran, Shawn Green, and Jose Valentin are all out, leaving the bench quite a bit thin? Who would you replace him with? I'm assuming that when people start coming off the DL Newhan will be the first guy gone, and Gomez will be back in AAA once there isn't a starting OF spot for him. So the discussion then becomes which two of Ben Johnson, Ruben Gotay, and Julio Franco you want on the roster. Since Easley can play the middle infield, I'd go with Johnson and Franco. In this scenario, Franco becomes the last guy on the bench. Why let go of a well-liked, positive clubhouse presence just to get an extra three or four pinch hits during the course of an entire season?
Please spare me the "negativity" comment. I don't think anyone on this board would say my view of the Mets has been "glass half empty" since I started posting more than two years ago. The Mets are a very good team, which still doesn't excuse giving away at bats or games. They all count. Franco has pinch hit more times this year than Chavez and Easley combined, so no, Franco hasn't been the third man off the bench all year. You have a remarkably poor opinion of major league players if you think that a .540 OPS cannot be easily replaced with someone who would do overwhelmingly better. Since pinch hitters often come up at important times, the notion that it wouldn't have been worth even a single game is laughable. If the Mets lose today, their record in games where Franco has pinch hit will be 12-11, so yeah, I think a competent hitter could have possibly made a difference there.
