IGT, 5/24/2011, Homecoming

[Edgy MD]

I love hearing the voices of fans who hang in there.

[Edgy MD]

C'MON, IKE!

[Edgy MD]

That's the stuff, Ike.

Afraid to throw you a fastball, huh?

[Edgy MD]

Baxter leads off, pinching against a lefty.

Six-run ninth coming.

[Edgy MD]

Or not.

Thanks for ruining my streak, youse bums.

[Edgy MD]

A coupla thoughts otg:

[list:3590lpsf][*:3590lpsf]If you gotta lose to a team of suckers like the Pads, it might as well be game one of a series.

[/*:m:3590lpsf]
[*:3590lpsf]If you gotta lose to a team of suckers like the Pads, you might as well get some monkeys off your back by breaking a homerun slump and getting a two run hit for Ike Davis in his lone trip.

[/*:m:3590lpsf]
[*:3590lpsf]A big part of our pythagorean bugbear may be having a mopup pitcher with a 12 ERA rather than a five or six era.

[/*:m:3590lpsf]
[*:3590lpsf]Wondering how much of Hefner's crapout is going to be written off to the rain and how much is going to be hung around his neck.

[/*:m:3590lpsf]
[*:3590lpsf]Can't see a reason not to farm out Manny. If you believe there's something more beyond the results, great, but his as low a risk for a waiver claim now as he's ever gonna be. I suppose he could outright refuse a demotion like Ollie but so be it. The Mets have a pile of talented pitchers waiting for their chance, and can't live in fear of brinkmanship by guys throwing meatballs.[/*:m:3590lpsf][/list:u:3590lpsf]

[Ceetar]

I've run the numbers but haven't polished/edited the post but basically if we had Manny Acosta 2011 over Manny Acosta 2012 we'd only be being outscored by a very small amount and no one would be noticing the discrepancy.

[Vic Sage]

* I'm curious as to why you feel losing game 1 is preferable to losing any other game in a series?
* HRs are always nice, and an Ike Davis hit is such a Rara Avis, it would be welcome at any time;
* Blaming the negative run differential on Acosta seems like a stretch to me, but i'm open to the possibility. In any event, even if Manny is largely responsible for much of the negative run differential, he is unlikely to be the sole factor. I'd suggest our negative differential is an accurate reflection of this team's overall performance (i'm sure other teams with neg run diff over the years have had 1 or 2 guys you could point a finger at, too), and that it is the lineup's statistically unmaintainable 2-out success rate, giving us a league-leading come-from-behind win rate, that has created the temporary illusion of marginal success.
* yes, lets blame the rain. That's always good.
* Dump Manny? sure, why not.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: * I'm curious as to why you feel losing game 1 is preferable to losing any other game in a series?

Because it's nice to finish well.

Vic Sage wrote: * yes, lets blame the rain. That's always good.

I certainly didn't do that.

[Vic Sage]

Because it's nice to finish well.

And its nice to start well; and its nice to take 2/3 in any order. i still don't get it.

I certainly didn't do that.

i didn't say you did; i'm suggesting we should. it's consistent with the overall tone of excuse making we're indulging in. Surely if the glass is half full, it can be topped off with rainwater.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure who "we" are.

Really, that chip can be surgically removed from your shoulder. I heard Dr. Boutros has done hundreds of such surgeries. Thousands.

[Ceetar]

Vic Sage wrote: * Blaming the negative run differential on Acosta seems like a stretch to me, but i'm open to the possibility. In any event, even if Manny is largely responsible for much of the negative run differential, he is unlikely to be the sole factor. I'd suggest our negative differential is an accurate reflection of this team's overall performance (i'm sure other teams with neg run diff over the years have had 1 or 2 guys you could point a finger at, too), and that it is the lineup's statistically unmaintainable 2-out success rate, giving us a league-leading come-from-behind win rate, that has created the temporary illusion of marginal success. * Dump Manny? sure, why not.

how is Acosta's performance a temporary illusion of marginal success?

The very idea that he's not going to stick around to continue this is pretty much the exact reason the run differential excuse for why the Mets will suck soon is silly. You're projecting a guy pitching like that the rest of the season instead of either him settling down or being replaced by a guy putting up a completely unknown result. But projecting that result out is inferring the Mets are going to give up another 80 runs, when the truth is you could call up someone that gives up 10.

and yes, He's pretty much solely responsible. I think the deficit is 34 and Acosta has given up 30.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

He's saying the 2-out runs and comebacks are what's created the temporary marginal success, not Acosta.

The problem with saying Acosta is "responsible" for the run differential is that he's only responsible because he's presumably earned his assignments based on the talent the Mets currently employ. The guys behind him in the pecking order are there on merit themselves so asking more of them than you'd expect of a "good" Acosta is foolish. That said, little lost now to send Acosta down to find his stuff at AAA and let a scrub from there assume janitorial duties. Just don't expect the switch will erase the differential all by itself because it won't.

[batmagadanleadoff]

• A big part of our pythagorean bugbear may be having a mopup pitcher with a 12 ERA rather than a five or six era.

Edgy DC wrote: A coupla thoughts otg:

This shouldn't be taken lightly. Over the course of the season, even a bad mop-up man will cost the team some wins. One or three of those seven run losses might've been one run wins. But instead, the bad mopper puts the game out of reach and the manager more or less concedes by leaving no stuff badmop in the game because the primary goal has shifted from winning to preserving the unused portion of the bullpen. And then, even more runs are tacked on.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Vic Sage wrote: * I'm curious as to why you feel losing game 1 is preferable to losing any other game in a series?

So was I.

Vic Sage wrote: * Blaming the negative run differential on Acosta seems like a stretch to me, but i'm open to the possibility. In any event, even if Manny is largely responsible for much of the negative run differential, he is unlikely to be the sole factor. I'd suggest our negative differential is an accurate reflection of this team's overall performance (i'm sure other teams with neg run diff over the years have had 1 or 2 guys you could point a finger at, too), and that it is the lineup's statistically unmaintainable 2-out success rate, giving us a league-leading come-from-behind win rate, that has created the temporary illusion of marginal success.

Couldn't agree more. The Mets have been phenomenally lucky with the timing of their hits. Unless you wanna believe the stuff about players being purposely able to play better with men in scoring positions. And I know what your view on that one is.

[Edgy MD]

Oh, you're absolutely right, and I meant just to offer an observation. A mopup guy who enters a game down 5-1 in the fifth can secure things for a potential comeback or turn the game into a rout. Manny was a key to the Philly sweep, entering each game with the Mets down, pitching stabilizing the game and securing the opportunity for the three comebacks.

More typically, he's entered a game after an early exit by the starter and brought his gasoline and matches. No doubt there was a comeback opportunity or two lost there. Last night, perhaps.

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Couldn't agree more. The Mets have been phenomenally lucky with the timing of their hits. Unless you wanna believe the stuff about players being purposely able to play better with men in scoring positions. And I know what your view on that one is.

sample size randomness mostly.

Now clearly you're more likely to have more batters up and more runs to drive in with two outs, but the difference has been stark. But it's just as easy to say the Mets are getting lucky getting those hits with 2 outs as you are saying they're unlucky to not get them with 1 out. 90 RBI to 53. OPS .758 to .644.

Last year it was (1out/2out) 250 to 284 in RBI and .708 to .754 OPS.

the Mets have 53 RBI with a runner on third and 2 outs and 50 RBI with a runner on third and less than 2 outs. (They nearly had twice as many RBI in the <2 out situation last year)

it's really just statistical noise, especially if you buy into the idea that the Mets WILL hit for more power than they have.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: No doubt there was a comeback opportunity or two lost there. Last night, perhaps.

Yes, but not 7, or whatever the differential is now.