IGT 4/12/08 Santana vs Sheets!

[Guest AG/DC]

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Look I'm not pointing any fingers here but to make a big deal of your Game Thread Mojo then fail to answer the bell while giving golf updates isn't a good sign.

I was out. I should have launched last night.

But I wasn't giving golf updates.

[Frayed Knot]

Easley's probably covering 2nd during that bunt (Willie almost never "wheels" it).
I think - as did Gary & Ron - that it's Wright job to get back towards 3rd after seeing Johan was going to get to it. Johan's also got to look the runner back there, he had the time.


I'm not sure Castillo has a ball out of the infield yet.
You've heard of warning track power, he has 'mound' power.

[Valadius]

I would love to find out if Castillo is still going to lots of clubs late at night, because that would explain a lot.

[Fman99]

Frayed Knot wrote: Easley's probably covering 2nd during that bunt (Willie almost never "wheels" it). I think - as did Gary & Ron - that it's Wright job to get back towards 3rd after seeing Johan was going to get to it. Johan's also got to look the runner back there, he had the time. I'm not sure Castillo has a ball out of the infield yet. You've heard of warning track power, he has 'mound' power.

I'd find him more agreeable hitting 7th or 8th and not 2nd. That should be Pagan's spot, once Reyes is back in the lineup.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="Fman99"]I'd find [Castillo]more agreeable hitting 7th or 8th and not 2nd. That should be Pagan's spot, once Reyes is back in the lineup.

Yeah, but Willie Randolph's managing this team. And every Met fan should know by now that the role of the #2 hitter in a Willie Randolph created lineup is to make an out. This is Willie's way; how Willie likes to do it and that's that. What - You're gonna talk Willie out of a harebrained scheme?

And so what Willie usually does to increase the odds that the #2 hitter will make outs at an even greater rate than just about anybody else is to stick just about the crappiest starter that's only slightly less crappier than the #8 hitter and stick that almost the crappiest guy in the starting lineup into the #2 slot. Then when Willie really wants to show off just how much in charge he is of everything, he has the #2 guy sac bunt to practically guarantee the out. Get it? He just about demands that the #2 guy make an out. You know why? Because he can, that's why. Because he's blessed with one of the best middle of the orders in all of baseball and so he can spare outs like he was Bill Gates burning million dollar bills. Why should Wright or Beltran ever get the chance to come up in the first inning with two men on base? They can homer just the same with one guy on base, or even with the bases empty.

Why once, Willie even had the #2 guy sac bunting with a runner on second and two outs. It worked too. Willie said it wasn't a problem because when the Mets would come to bat in the next inning, they'd start off with a man on third and nobody out.

Castillo? Pagan? That's a no-brainer. Just be thankful that second base doesn't consist of the splendid Matsui-Cairo platoon from Willie's rookie manager year. (And isn't Willie a rookie manager every year?). Those guys made more outs than even Ordonez.

[Guest AG/DC]

Come on. I defended Pagan when he was considered the hair-brained scheme, a few mere weeks ago. When he batted before Church on opening day, that was mocked. Castillo has a lifetime of experience buiding up high OBPs. Let's not let on like Castillo's failures and Pagan's successes are self-evidently the only rational expectation going forward.

Matsui and Cairo were never presented as a platoon. Matsui was the starter and Cairo came in when he was hurt, and continued to draw time as Matsui was never fully back.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="AG/DC"]Matsui and Cairo were never presented as a platoon. Matsui was the starter and Cairo came in when he was hurt, and continued to draw time as Matsui was never fully back.

You're right. And more to your point, I won't blame Willie for being stuck with two crappy second baseman for that entire season. But Matsui and Cairo should never have been batting second. Every single game. And that's on Willie.

If you remember, the Mets were in contention for most of that season. It also didn't help that Reyes batted leadoff all season even though he was just about the worst everyday player in all of baseball that season (and the writer who gave Reyes a 2005 MVP vote should forfeit his priveleges but that's for another post) or that Wright was buried in the #7 slot for half the season even though it was apparent that he was already the Mets best or second best player. That's all on Willie, too.

P.S. If the first paragraph of your post was addressed to me, I'm not sure that I understand it. I was only commenting on the #2 hole.

[batmagadanleadoff]

="batmagadanleadoff"]I won't blame Willie for being stuck with two crappy second baseman for that entire season.

Actually, I'm gonna somewhat change my mind on this. I'll presume that it was Willie who campaigned the Mets to acquire Cairo, probably based on Cairo's surprisingly average 2004 season with the Yankees. I'll bet that Randolph really really really liked Cairo what with Cairo being both a Yankee and a second baseman. So now Cairo's on Willie as well.

[Guest Triple Dee]

Does it make a difference whether Cairo was acquired for Willie's benefit (which I doubt anyway)? When you start looking at back-up infielders to find excuses, then you reallly are clutching at straws.

[Frayed Knot]

As horrible as Castillo's been so far this season let's not go overboard on account of the current small sample (what is it, 6 games?) and start killing Willie as if he's been purposely steering some proven low-OBA guy to the 2-hole.
Castillo's put up a .369 OBA over the last 3 seasons including a slightly higher mark during his partial year Met stint.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: Does it make a difference whether Cairo was acquired for Willie's benefit (which I doubt anyway)? When you start looking at back-up infielders to find excuses, then you reallly are clutching at straws.

I agree. No. But the point I really wanted to make is that Cairo and Matsui should never have been batting second. And if Castillo's gonna suck like Matsui/Cairo, then the same goes for Castillo. Seriously, the jury's out on Castillo and nobody knows for sure how his 2008 season's gonna go. (Of course, you can say that about anyone) But it looks a little bit like he's not the player he was two years ago. He seems to be breaking down physically and at the point where his performance curve is at the downward slope part. If Willie goes with Castillo as the #2 guy, so be it, but I have little confidence in Willie getting Castillo the hell out of there in timely fashion should it become obvious that Castillo is in career decline mode. We shall see. Still, the jury's out.

Perhaps this all got lost in the whimsy, but here are my points:

1. Don't put crappy guys in the #2 hole.
2. Can Willie ever resist his temptation to sac bunt the #2 guy? If the #2 guy's not that good of a hitter, then he shouldn't be batting second in the first place, the hell with "bat control". This isn't 1908 anymore.
3. The #2 slot isn't some repository for the leftover guy who's just a tad better than the #8 hitter. The slot gets more plate appearances over the season than every other slot but leadoff.
4. Ordonez still sucks.

[Guest Triple Dee]

BML -- relax, take it easy

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: BML -- relax, take it easy

Hey: Nice avatar. Whered'ja get it?

[batmagadanleadoff]

I notice that I 'm assigned a new Met every 10th post (Like everybody else, I suppose). So now I'm Steve Bieser. Ten minutes ago I was Mike Pelfrey. This doesn't look like no upgrade. Bieser's still not pictured on the UMDB, and he was a Met even before they went to ugly black.

[Frayed Knot]

For an explanation (or at least a partial one) go to the 'Rankings Forum' and read the opening post in the 'Rankings for Dummies' thread.
And remember that Pelfrey's Met career hasn't exactly been stellar to date.


P.S. Mike Pelfrey was ranked as the 27th best player in 2007 - an 88 win team.
Steve Beiser was ranked as the 27th best player in 1997 - an 88 win team.
So actually they're tied for 498th best Met and Beiser was given the edge due to that all-important tie-breaking factor ... alphabetic order.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Frayed Knot wrote: For an explanation (or at least a partial one) read the opening post in the 'Rankings for Dummies' thread. And remember that Pelfrey's Met career hasn't exactly been stellar to date.

Aha. So in a few posts, I won't be Mike Pelfrey anymore. But then Pelfrey might have a decent year or stick around with the Mets for awhile. Or both. And move up in the rankings. Maybe even pass ol' not pictured Steve Bieser.

And then I might get to be Mike Pelfrey all over again.

That's what Yogi once said: "It's Mike Pelfrey all over again."

[Frayed Knot]

Yup!
In fact, if Pelfrey does NOT move up when we evaluate things at the end of this season, both he and our season are in real trouble.

[Guest *62]

I wanna be Jerry Koosman.

Or I'll pout like a bitch.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

*62 - "I wanna be Jerry Koosman.

Or I'll pout like a bitch."

You're only a few thousand posts from Koosman. He's pretty high up on the pantheon of Mets greatest players.

Nice to see you back with us again. I hope you stick around.