Some true insights mixed in with spurts of undisciplined writing and apparently disinterested editing. Leaving the style points aside (I don't care what they had for lunch in St. Lucie), I came away thinking the Mets' offense is being treated as these guys' science experiment and I sure hope it wins a prize at the fair. Having a consistent Met method sounds as if it will work better for teaching in the minors than it does converting established major leaguers, particularly the ones who are comfortable and productive. (The ones who are comfortable and unproductive should be introduced to another organization.) I also wondered what they'd do with a classic "bad ball" hitter like Guerrero, but then I thought I was searching for the extremes and should give the whole thing a chance to do its stuff on "average" players. Ike looked particularly horrible striking out in Montreal. I mean really tied-in-knots horrible. Makes me think that's this latest wave of advice overcoming him. Has anybody who's been here since the Aldersonians came in really improved as a hitter? Wright is still Wright, Murphy is still Murphy and nobody else has stepped up in any detectable way. But maybe they're only committing to this approach now. They may have a great idea, but they're probably gonna need a few better vessels to make it work. The "we are watching you" stuff is chillingly Orwellian. Would have been curious to read independent industry analysis of what they're trying to do, even if it was a couple of unidentified scouts saying "yes, that's exactly what they need to do" or "phooey on a one-size-fits-all approach".