The Padres manager said that the guy looked safe ... well, I'm with the announcers etc. ... if he was, it wasn't by much. But, it's not like it's going to change anything. The guy is not going to overturn his call and the other umps will not either -- they surely didn't have a better view of the play at the plate that ended the game. So, he said the right thing, and received a bit of respect in the process. The guy who was "safe" noted upon being asked that the ump called him safe. He didn't know if he was. It didn't matter really, did it?
You know, as to who advances to play the "best team in the NL East." [to paraphrase some boaster] The Mets had problems since June, but they didn't kick in until the end, since (1) they didn't play as bad as they did recently and (2) their competition let them stay ahead. Really, they should have been knocked out of First Place in June, but the Braves are average (still over .500, making them credible in the NL) and the Phillies inconsistent. Their upswing -- and it took all their wins against the Mets to make it count (plus help) -- in a fashion came too late for the Mets. And, even there, the Mets thought they escaped, since the first sweep was followed by a Mets upswing, and the second took so long ... with subpar teams in front of them at the end.
After all, at least the Padres got beat by the likes of the Brewers and the Rockies to finish things (or them) off. The Mets put out an apology to their fans. The NY Post doesn't think Glavine etc. are upset enough. The guy from the NYT is upset at the possibility that the manager is at risk. The team was imperfect and all. You know, since a manager has no influence on a team, even to the degree of affecting a single win.* The rapid decline -- like some kind of freefall amusement park ride -- is a consequence of problems (Pedro couldn't start an essential game because he needed rest, El Duque was only available -- weakly -- near the very end etc.) not his fault.
But, Willie Randolph surely has some of the blame for the collapse against the likes of the Nats and Marlins ... just too many losses. The complacency and other problems (what happened to Reyes? not just at bat) is a team effort. The last game was as well. The bullpen gave up one run after that first inning, which ended 7-1. In 1999, against the Braves, the Mets fought back from a 5-0 deficit in a playoff elimination game ... they lost, but they did so by blowing a late lead. In 1996, with Willie as a coach, the Yanks came back from a 6-0 second inning deficit already down 2-1 in the World Series. Here, the Mets ... who clearly had given up ... got nothing. And, Willis left in less than three innings. He wasn't 100%, and obviously, the Mets appeared dead in the water.
So, why risk it? Watch out for the fan putting too much emotion into the team ... why risk it, right? The Rockies fans will get at least one home game during the Wild Card round ... if they are anywhere as enthusiastic as they were yesterday (sometimes those tiebreakers to determine field do matter, huh?) , that should be something to see. Rockies/Cubs Championship round, anyone? After all, the Rockies can actually lose two games now and still win. Don't let the room to spare go to your heads now!
---
* They do affect a few wins, which in various cases might be what makes or breaks ya. For instance, Seattle had a freefall, where they won even less in two weeks than the Mets did. A few wins might have let them survive. Maybe not, but such things matter. The collapse should too. What will it wrought? Bye to Glavine, who might not be a full inning [season ... but, after Sunday, who knows?] pitcher anymore, seems predictable.
We shall see ... since I still have last October (1999 isn't totally gone) in my mind, the "let's just start anew" strategy won't quite work for me personally. I think a bit of a sore wound would be nice for them too. Not enough to have a complex, but enough to be hungry and never complacent. One would think they would be those things ... but assuming could be a bad idea.