info
Google 網路論壇不再支援新的 Usenet 貼文或訂閱項目，但過往內容仍可供查看。
Dismiss
Suddenly phony Mickey Callaway was never made for this
瀏覽次數：92 次
跳到第一則未讀訊息
MetsFanSince71
2019年6月3日 下午5:22:342019/6/3
收件者：
https://nypost.com/2019/06/03/suddenly-phony-mickey-callaway-was-never-made-for-this/
Watching Mickey Callaway after the past two Met losses in Arizona made me think about Arnold Schwarzenegger playing Hamlet.
Schwarzenegger is an actor. Hamlet is a part. But not all actors were meant to play all roles. And not all managers have the emotional range to go from sunshine to darkness. On Saturday and Sunday, Callaway appeared an actor determining there are no other roles for him except tough guy running out of patience. And let’s just say I believed Sofia Coppola’s zombie Mary Corleone more than I did Mickey Grouse.
Callaway happy talked 77-85 in his first season — sometimes it felt like he was watching a different movie than the rest of us. He was essentially in the same space this year. It is his comfort zone. But 3½ weeks ago, Jeff Wilpon convened a meeting with the manager and Brodie Van Wagenen and implored Callaway to take what he learned last year and apply it to avoid having another season slip away.
The Mets were three games under .500 (17-20) at the time of the meeting. They came home from the desert three games under .500 (28-31). Nothing has changed except for Callaway’s attempts to be what he sure doesn’t appear comfortable being.
Callaway has slowly tried to ad lib being the heavy, and improv in that area is just not his thing. He amped it up over the weekend, sensing perhaps what we all are — that he is running out of time in his current role. He seemed to be trying to figure out what his bosses and the fans might want to hear. And it just sounds ersatz coming out of his mouth following a year-plus of a manager seeing bunny rabbits in the storm clouds overhead.
“We put ourselves in a position to win more games than we did but we lost them so it doesn’t matter what position you put yourself in, you gotta go get the job done,’’ Callaway said Sunday after a 7-1 loss to Arizona that completed a 2-4 road trip. “We have to do better. I’m kind of getting sick of saying we have to right this ship.’’
If this sounds off to you and me — the nice guy trying gangsta — it will to the players as well. It is not good for a tenuous manager to be publicly challenged by his most respected player, the normally vanilla Jacob deGrom, who was critical of Callaway for removing him Saturday when the ace insisted he had a cramp that was not a problem. It played like Lyndon Johnson losing Walter Cronkite (ask your parents).
Ultimately, a manager should never want his players sensing: 1) inauthenticity, 2) blame deflection, 3) lack of answers. Callaway touched the managerial third rail.
He did not name names and he mainly used “we,” but to watch the post-game gatherings was to hear a lot of “someone has to get it done” and “we have to figure out how to win on the road” and talk about “inconsistency.” It did not sound like a manager speaking in his voice, taking responsibility or providing solutions. Perhaps behind the scenes Callaway is offering more — in reality he better be.
see also
Mets overreacted to Jacob deGrom's cramp, and it cost them
But in reality not everyone is managerial material. In 1999, Joe Torre was diagnosed with prostate cancer in spring and missed about six weeks as Yankee manager. Don Zimmer, so valuable to Torre as his consigliere bench coach, slid a few inches over on the dugout bench and nearly tanked a team mid-dynasty with his edginess and inability to cope with George Steinbrenner. Some lieutenants should not be generals.
Callaway was lauded as an Indian pitching coach. But to me he has been miscast as a New York manager. I have made this point previously — that his best route to success would have been to learn how to manage a game, a season, a roster and talking about it all to reporters in a less stressed environment first off-Broadway like Kansas City or Baltimore. This is a difficult place to train on the job, tougher with Wilpon ownership, tougher still when you have an amalgamation roster that too often plays like the greatest mistakes of Sandy Alderson and Van Wagenen.
At best Callaway is frustrated by all of this. At worst frustration and desperation has him trying to play the part of a tougher manager. And Van Wagenen did not hire him for the role. It feels ever closer to when the director yells, “cut.”
Watching Mickey Callaway after the past two Met losses in Arizona made me think about Arnold Schwarzenegger playing Hamlet.
Schwarzenegger is an actor. Hamlet is a part. But not all actors were meant to play all roles. And not all managers have the emotional range to go from sunshine to darkness. On Saturday and Sunday, Callaway appeared an actor determining there are no other roles for him except tough guy running out of patience. And let’s just say I believed Sofia Coppola’s zombie Mary Corleone more than I did Mickey Grouse.
Callaway happy talked 77-85 in his first season — sometimes it felt like he was watching a different movie than the rest of us. He was essentially in the same space this year. It is his comfort zone. But 3½ weeks ago, Jeff Wilpon convened a meeting with the manager and Brodie Van Wagenen and implored Callaway to take what he learned last year and apply it to avoid having another season slip away.
The Mets were three games under .500 (17-20) at the time of the meeting. They came home from the desert three games under .500 (28-31). Nothing has changed except for Callaway’s attempts to be what he sure doesn’t appear comfortable being.
Callaway has slowly tried to ad lib being the heavy, and improv in that area is just not his thing. He amped it up over the weekend, sensing perhaps what we all are — that he is running out of time in his current role. He seemed to be trying to figure out what his bosses and the fans might want to hear. And it just sounds ersatz coming out of his mouth following a year-plus of a manager seeing bunny rabbits in the storm clouds overhead.
“We put ourselves in a position to win more games than we did but we lost them so it doesn’t matter what position you put yourself in, you gotta go get the job done,’’ Callaway said Sunday after a 7-1 loss to Arizona that completed a 2-4 road trip. “We have to do better. I’m kind of getting sick of saying we have to right this ship.’’
If this sounds off to you and me — the nice guy trying gangsta — it will to the players as well. It is not good for a tenuous manager to be publicly challenged by his most respected player, the normally vanilla Jacob deGrom, who was critical of Callaway for removing him Saturday when the ace insisted he had a cramp that was not a problem. It played like Lyndon Johnson losing Walter Cronkite (ask your parents).
Ultimately, a manager should never want his players sensing: 1) inauthenticity, 2) blame deflection, 3) lack of answers. Callaway touched the managerial third rail.
He did not name names and he mainly used “we,” but to watch the post-game gatherings was to hear a lot of “someone has to get it done” and “we have to figure out how to win on the road” and talk about “inconsistency.” It did not sound like a manager speaking in his voice, taking responsibility or providing solutions. Perhaps behind the scenes Callaway is offering more — in reality he better be.
see also
Mets overreacted to Jacob deGrom's cramp, and it cost them
But in reality not everyone is managerial material. In 1999, Joe Torre was diagnosed with prostate cancer in spring and missed about six weeks as Yankee manager. Don Zimmer, so valuable to Torre as his consigliere bench coach, slid a few inches over on the dugout bench and nearly tanked a team mid-dynasty with his edginess and inability to cope with George Steinbrenner. Some lieutenants should not be generals.
Callaway was lauded as an Indian pitching coach. But to me he has been miscast as a New York manager. I have made this point previously — that his best route to success would have been to learn how to manage a game, a season, a roster and talking about it all to reporters in a less stressed environment first off-Broadway like Kansas City or Baltimore. This is a difficult place to train on the job, tougher with Wilpon ownership, tougher still when you have an amalgamation roster that too often plays like the greatest mistakes of Sandy Alderson and Van Wagenen.
At best Callaway is frustrated by all of this. At worst frustration and desperation has him trying to play the part of a tougher manager. And Van Wagenen did not hire him for the role. It feels ever closer to when the director yells, “cut.”
tmp
2019年6月4日 上午8:09:482019/6/4
收件者：
Poor defense is a big part of the problem. No matter how you measure it, their overall defense sucks. Fielding percentage, defensive efficiency, defensive runs saved.....it doesn't matter...they are at or near the bottom in all of them.
A lot of it is poor roster construction. Players are forced into uncomfortable positions way too often. And if you look at it, they really don't have an exceptional fielder among their regular players, if at all. They have a few that are average, or maybe a little above.
When you add in the hitting (10th of 15 in NL runs scored) and the pitching (11th of 15 in NL in ERA), it's hard to see anything but a below .500 team unless some of these guys start playing better. A lot better.
Ruben Safir
2019年6月4日 上午10:23:242019/6/4
收件者：
tmp <tmps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:22:34 PM UTC-4, MetsFanSince71 wrote:
>> https://nypost.com/2019/06/03/suddenly-phony-mickey-callaway-was-never-made-for-this/
>>
>> Watching Mickey Callaway after the past two Met losses in Arizona made me think about Arnold Schwarzenegger playing Hamlet.
>>
>> Schwarzenegger is an actor. Hamlet is a part. But not all actors were meant to play all roles. And not all managers have the emotional range to go from sunshine to darkness. On Saturday and Sunday, Callaway appeared an actor determining there are no other roles for him except tough guy running out of patience. And let???s just say I believed Sofia Coppola???s zombie Mary Corleone more than I did Mickey Grouse.
> On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 5:22:34 PM UTC-4, MetsFanSince71 wrote:
>> https://nypost.com/2019/06/03/suddenly-phony-mickey-callaway-was-never-made-for-this/
>>
>> Watching Mickey Callaway after the past two Met losses in Arizona made me think about Arnold Schwarzenegger playing Hamlet.
>>
>>
>> Callaway happy talked 77-85 in his first season ??? sometimes it felt like he was watching a different movie than the rest of us. He was essentially in the same space this year. It is his comfort zone. But 3?? weeks ago, Jeff Wilpon convened a meeting with the manager and Brodie Van Wagenen and implored Callaway to take what he learned last year and apply it to avoid having another season slip away.
>>
>> The Mets were three games under .500 (17-20) at the time of the meeting. They came home from the desert three games under .500 (28-31). Nothing has changed except for Callaway???s attempts to be what he sure doesn???t appear comfortable being.
>>
>> Callaway has slowly tried to ad lib being the heavy, and improv in that area is just not his thing. He amped it up over the weekend, sensing perhaps what we all are ??? that he is running out of time in his current role. He seemed to be trying to figure out what his bosses and the fans might want to hear. And it just sounds ersatz coming out of his mouth following a year-plus of a manager seeing bunny rabbits in the storm clouds overhead.
>>
>> ???We put ourselves in a position to win more games than we did but we lost them so it doesn???t matter what position you put yourself in, you gotta go get the job done,?????? Callaway said Sunday after a 7-1 loss to Arizona that completed a 2-4 road trip. ???We have to do better. I???m kind of getting sick of saying we have to right this ship.??????
>>
>> If this sounds off to you and me ??? the nice guy trying gangsta ??? it will to the players as well. It is not good for a tenuous manager to be publicly challenged by his most respected player, the normally vanilla Jacob deGrom, who was critical of Callaway for removing him Saturday when the ace insisted he had a cramp that was not a problem. It played like Lyndon Johnson losing Walter Cronkite (ask your parents).
>>
>> Ultimately, a manager should never want his players sensing: 1) inauthenticity, 2) blame deflection, 3) lack of answers. Callaway touched the managerial third rail.
>>
>> He did not name names and he mainly used ???we,??? but to watch the post-game gatherings was to hear a lot of ???someone has to get it done??? and ???we have to figure out how to win on the road??? and talk about ???inconsistency.??? It did not sound like a manager speaking in his voice, taking responsibility or providing solutions. Perhaps behind the scenes Callaway is offering more ??? in reality he better be.
>> Ultimately, a manager should never want his players sensing: 1) inauthenticity, 2) blame deflection, 3) lack of answers. Callaway touched the managerial third rail.
>>
>> see also
>> Mets overreacted to Jacob deGrom's cramp, and it cost them
>>
>> But in reality not everyone is managerial material. In 1999, Joe Torre was diagnosed with prostate cancer in spring and missed about six weeks as Yankee manager. Don Zimmer, so valuable to Torre as his consigliere bench coach, slid a few inches over on the dugout bench and nearly tanked a team mid-dynasty with his edginess and inability to cope with George Steinbrenner. Some lieutenants should not be generals.
>>
>> Callaway was lauded as an Indian pitching coach. But to me he has been miscast as a New York manager. I have made this point previously ??? that his best route to success would have been to learn how to manage a game, a season, a roster and talking about it all to reporters in a less stressed environment first off-Broadway like Kansas City or Baltimore. This is a difficult place to train on the job, tougher with Wilpon ownership, tougher still when you have an amalgamation roster that too often plays like the greatest mistakes of Sandy Alderson and Van Wagenen.
>> Mets overreacted to Jacob deGrom's cramp, and it cost them
>>
>> But in reality not everyone is managerial material. In 1999, Joe Torre was diagnosed with prostate cancer in spring and missed about six weeks as Yankee manager. Don Zimmer, so valuable to Torre as his consigliere bench coach, slid a few inches over on the dugout bench and nearly tanked a team mid-dynasty with his edginess and inability to cope with George Steinbrenner. Some lieutenants should not be generals.
>>
>>
>> At best Callaway is frustrated by all of this. At worst frustration and desperation has him trying to play the part of a tougher manager. And Van Wagenen did not hire him for the role. It feels ever closer to when the director yells, ???cut.???
>
>
> If this stuff keeps up, Callaway will be gone pretty soon, but that will most likely just mean that Riggleman takes over as interim manager. His track record is nothing to get excited about, to say the least.
>
> Poor defense is a big part of the problem. No matter how you measure it, their overall defense sucks. Fielding percentage, defensive efficiency, defensive runs saved.....it doesn't matter...they are at or near the bottom in all of them.
>
> A lot of it is poor roster construction. Players are forced into uncomfortable positions way too often. And if you look at it, they really don't have an exceptional fielder among their regular players, if at all. They have a few that are average, or maybe a little above.
Defensive liability is a huge problem. The mMets are near last int he
>
> If this stuff keeps up, Callaway will be gone pretty soon, but that will most likely just mean that Riggleman takes over as interim manager. His track record is nothing to get excited about, to say the least.
>
> Poor defense is a big part of the problem. No matter how you measure it, their overall defense sucks. Fielding percentage, defensive efficiency, defensive runs saved.....it doesn't matter...they are at or near the bottom in all of them.
>
> A lot of it is poor roster construction. Players are forced into uncomfortable positions way too often. And if you look at it, they really don't have an exceptional fielder among their regular players, if at all. They have a few that are average, or maybe a little above.
league in defisive efficientcy, which became painfully obvious when they
played LA
Bill
2019年6月4日 下午4:32:382019/6/4
收件者：
On 6/4/2019 8:09 AM, tmp wrote:
> Poor defense is a big part of the problem. No matter how you measure
> it, their overall defense sucks. Fielding percentage, defensive
> efficiency, defensive runs saved.....it doesn't matter...they are at
> or near the bottom in all of them.
>
> A lot of it is poor roster construction. Players are forced into
> uncomfortable positions way too often. And if you look at it, they
> really don't have an exceptional fielder among their regular players,
> if at all. They have a few that are average, or maybe a little
> above.
Rosario is playing in his natural position and he's been terrible so I'm
> Poor defense is a big part of the problem. No matter how you measure
> it, their overall defense sucks. Fielding percentage, defensive
> efficiency, defensive runs saved.....it doesn't matter...they are at
> or near the bottom in all of them.
>
> A lot of it is poor roster construction. Players are forced into
> uncomfortable positions way too often. And if you look at it, they
> really don't have an exceptional fielder among their regular players,
> if at all. They have a few that are average, or maybe a little
> above.
not sure I buy the "uncomfortable position" excuse.
tmp
2019年6月5日 上午8:47:552019/6/5
收件者：
ruben safir
2019年6月5日 上午8:57:222019/6/5
收件者：
On 6/5/19 8:47 AM, tmp wrote:
> It's been both. Players playing out of position, and bad defensive players at their normal positions, like Rosario has been.
The thing that bothers me about Rosario is that if he can't hit and he
> It's been both. Players playing out of position, and bad defensive players at their normal positions, like Rosario has been.
can't field then why is he on the field?
tmp
2019年6月5日 上午11:40:482019/6/5
收件者：
Hechavarría was a good pickup, very solid defensively, and had some big hits too.....so they can always just go to him. They also have Guillorme at triple-A, who is hitting pretty well there.
Hass
2019年6月6日 下午5:35:012019/6/6
收件者：
tmp
2019年6月6日 晚上8:35:042019/6/6
收件者：
Different eras. In Buddy's age 23 season (1967), he handled 753 chances, or about 5.51 chances per 9 innings. Rosario projects to about 535 chances this season (more than 200 less), or about 3.64 chances per 9 innings. If Rosario handled the same number of chances as Harrelson in 1967, he would make about 37 errors this season at the rate he is going so far.
I'm assuming (without checking) that most of the difference in the # of chances between Harrelson and Rosario is due to more strikeouts and fly balls in today's game.
And none of that takes into account the tremendous difference in baseball field conditions now vs then. A lot of those old fields (like Shea in 1967) were like rock piles compared to the pool tables of today.
Also, Harrelson's 1967 season was pretty much out of character compared to the rest of his career. He never came anywhere near 32 errors before or after that season.
Hass
2019年6月6日 晚上9:15:132019/6/6
收件者：
ruben safir
2019年6月8日 下午4:35:092019/6/8
收件者：
whole or up the middle that Rosario just watches, and that is what
bothers me most. He never extends out to go after a ball in the whole.
He is just not an adequate SS and for this they let Flores go to Arizona.
At least Flores tries.
ruben safir
2019年6月9日 凌晨1:12:402019/6/9
收件者：
On 6/6/19 8:35 PM, tmp wrote:
> That's very true, but there's a little more to it than that.
this is how retarded this comparision is
Harrelsons RF/9 was 5.24 and Rosario is 3.39
It is not just strikeouts and balls. It is what is OBVIOUS when you
watch him, that he can't reach anything not hit right at him.
Harrelson is 35 points higher than League average and Rosario is almost
50 points below league average... because he sucks.
i wont even discuss feilding %
tmp
2019年6月9日 上午10:22:582019/6/9
收件者：
On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 1:12:40 AM UTC-4, ruben safir wrote:
> On 6/6/19 8:35 PM, tmp wrote:
> > That's very true, but there's a little more to it than that.
>
>
> this is how retarded this comparision is
>
> Harrelsons RF/9 was 5.24 and Rosario is 3.39
>
> It is not just strikeouts and balls.
But PART of it is. There are 3.1 more strikeouts per 9 innings now than in 1967 (8.9 vs 5.8), or 500 more K's per season, hence 500 fewer balls put in play just from that. You can't directly compare their range factors without taking some of these factors into account. That's all I meant.
> On 6/6/19 8:35 PM, tmp wrote:
> > That's very true, but there's a little more to it than that.
>
>
> this is how retarded this comparision is
>
> Harrelsons RF/9 was 5.24 and Rosario is 3.39
>
> It is not just strikeouts and balls.
> i wont even discuss feilding %
ruben safir
2019年6月9日 上午10:29:112019/6/9
收件者：
On 6/9/19 10:22 AM, tmp wrote:
> You can't directly compare their range factors without taking some of these factors into account. That's all I meant.
Range factor, I believe, is a measure of balls in play, or amI wrong?
> You can't directly compare their range factors without taking some of these factors into account. That's all I meant.
tmp
2019年6月9日 上午10:42:072019/6/9
收件者：
9*(Putouts + Assists)/Innings
tmp
2019年6月9日 上午10:46:552019/6/9
收件者：
ruben safir
2019年6月9日 下午1:41:402019/6/9
收件者：
On 6/9/19 10:46 AM, tmp wrote:
> That's RF/9, or the number of successful plays made per 9 innings.
fine and according to BR Harrelson was well above league average and
> That's RF/9, or the number of successful plays made per 9 innings.
Rosario is well below
I'm sure it is the pitching staffs fault.
In fact, Rosario is near dead last or last in every fielding metric yet
thought of....
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=ss&stats=fld&lg=all&qual=y&type=1&season=2019&team=0
ruben safir
2019年6月9日 下午1:54:142019/6/9
收件者：
ruben safir
2019年6月9日 下午2:10:582019/6/9
收件者：
On 6/9/19 1:40 PM, ruben safir wrote:
P/Os, Assists, Chances, double plays, and yet was 23rd in Percentage of
PA that were Grounders... about the middle of the pack. Oh and
Harrelson in this season converted 93% of the balls he touched into
OUTS, which is second for anyone playing SS in 1967 with over 1000 PA..
>>blink<<
Comparing Rosario to Harrelson is PURE BULLSHIT.
訊息已遭刪除
tmp
2019年6月10日 上午10:19:082019/6/10
收件者：
My point was mostly that it's not real accurate to just use raw range factors when there's a gap of 50 years between the numbers. That point is made clear by looking at the league average RF in 2019 vs 1967 - which is what I should have said to begin with.
ruben safir
2019年6月10日 上午10:40:372019/6/10
收件者：
On 6/10/19 10:19 AM, tmp wrote:
> Relax. I was not saying that Rosario is as good as Harrelson. It's not close.
>
> My point was mostly that it's not real accurate to just use raw range factors when there's a gap of 50 years between the numbers. That point is made clear by looking at the league average RF in 2019 vs 1967 - which is what I should have said to begin with.
Tmp - I'm not so much attacking your point, but the original premise,
> Relax. I was not saying that Rosario is as good as Harrelson. It's not close.
>
> My point was mostly that it's not real accurate to just use raw range factors when there's a gap of 50 years between the numbers. That point is made clear by looking at the league average RF in 2019 vs 1967 - which is what I should have said to begin with.
which amounts not nothing better than troll bait. At no time in Bud
Harrelson's career, which happens to be a difficult career to access
because he played through what was some of the most difficult hitters
times in the game, could Harrelson ever to viewed as not Major League
material, and most specifically ever an inferior defender. Anyone who
ever saw Harrelson play knows this INSTANTLY.
ruben safir
2019年6月10日 上午10:49:032019/6/10
收件者：
On 6/10/19 10:19 AM, tmp wrote:
> Relax. I was not saying that Rosario is as good as Harrelson. It's not close.
>
> My point was mostly that it's not real accurate to just use raw range factors when there's a gap of 50 years between the numbers. That point is made clear by looking at the league average RF in 2019 vs 1967 - which is what I should have said to begin with.
https://youtu.be/fUQI-KC5F7A?t=393
>
> My point was mostly that it's not real accurate to just use raw range factors when there's a gap of 50 years between the numbers. That point is made clear by looking at the league average RF in 2019 vs 1967 - which is what I should have said to begin with.
0 則新訊息