smg58

Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.

Tell me two things: How long will Reyes and Cora be out. How much would these other shortstops cost. No sense paying much for a temporary fix, assuming that's all we need. I certainly wouldn't object to Eckstein if he comes for close to nothing. Keppinger as well. The Indians are looking for major-league ready pitching, and I'd have to know I'd need DeRosa to play regularly the rest of the way before I'd consider parting with Niese or hurting our pen for him. But if a package that includes Niese could get us DeRosa and Cliff Lee, that's another story. PS In case you were wondering, Will Flores currently has a .573 OPS in Savannah.

He gives up more than his share of home runs pitching in Petco. He's not going to like US Cellular.

I hope Minaya has Jose Valentin's number on speed dial.

I'm for making a trade. The way the Indians are juggling Ryan Garko with a couple of younger guys, I bet he could be had on the cheap. Outside of a really bad first half last year, he's been a decent hitter. Plus he mostly played catcher through the minors, and the Mets don't have a Victor Martinez (or even a Kelly Shoppach) keeping him from playing there if (and hopefully when) Delgado comes back. And while we're at it, we could ask the Indians if they're making Cliff Lee available yet.

Edgy DC wrote: ="bmfc1"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Did we just PH that for Murphy? Yes, for a guy who was in the minors 3 days ago. Over. Managing. Isn't it, though? Pagan has never hit lefthanded pitching particularly well, and righties don't really hit Affeldt any better than lefties do. There was no reason at all to make that switch. PS Granted that Tatis would have wound up at short anyway, but given the team as it's currently structured, is there any reason to start somebody else at first base? And can we please stop bunting guys from second to third with no outs?

Hopefully nobody will be needed, but there's no disputing that the organization is thin at the position. Signing Valentin or Easley to a minor league deal doesn't sound like such a bad precautionary measure.

Darren O'Day gets a four-out save for Texas as they beat the Angels 3-0.

Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help. Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.)

I'm thinking that Mannuel is playing Sheffield regularly right now because the loss of Delgado does leave a void in power in the lineup. I've decided that I don't want Bengie Molina this offseason. He'd have to hit like Piazza to make all these stolen bases an acceptable loss.

Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1irek9pi]PS -- Mike Carp is OPSing at 982 for Seattle's AAA squad. Not that there's a chance we'll need a fill-in first baseman or anything...[/quote:1irek9pi] The Mets didn't really have room for both Evans and Carp, and Evans seemed at the time to be a slightly better bet (plus we're short on righthanded bats). But Putz and Green were both risky pickups. (And I'm more worried that Jayson Vargas, now fully healthy, is turning into the player that Minaya thought he was getting when he dealt Henry Owens and Matt Lindstrom to get him.) Fman99 May 14 2009 09:11 AM JJ is quite good... at sucking ass! HIYO! Tip your wait staff folks, they're working hard tonight. Seriously, he is either a) dinged and unable to bring the heat, or a malcontent who is pouting because he's now only the second coolest kid in class. Well he should therefore a) figure himself out, medically, DL, rest, what have you, or drive himself headlong into a bridge abutment. Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 09:18 AM I sense that J.J. Putz won't be getting introduced to Fman's imaginary sister. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 14 2009 09:25 AM ="smg58":1l71a27b]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1l71a27b]PS -- Mike Carp is OPSing at 982 for Seattle's AAA squad. Not that there's a chance we'll need a fill-in first baseman or anything...[/quote:1l71a27b] The Mets didn't really have room for both Evans and Carp, and Evans seemed at the time to be a slightly better bet (plus we're short on righthanded bats). But Putz and Green were both risky pickups. (And I'm more worried that Jayson Vargas, now fully healthy, is turning into the player that Minaya thought he was getting when he dealt Henry Owens and Matt Lindstrom to get him.)[/quote:1l71a27b] Yeah, I know. It's just that when you trade 5 guys for 2 short relief pitchers, essentially, the chances you'll look bad are pretty good. As one guy described it this trade was like Baseball Mogul where the "opposing GM" keeps turning down your trade while you keep on adding guys to it until he says yes. I'd be interested to see what the CPF thought about the trade to begin with. Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 09:31 AM If I recall correctly, I was happy to get Putz, but regretting giving up Smith, since I felt that Putz would be a one-year Met and Smith looked like he could be a good bullpen part for several years. Giving it more thought, I saw Green as the long-term replacement for Smith, and was a bit happier about the trade. I don't think I much regretted the loss of Carp. Last time I checked, Smith wasn't doing that great either, so even though this trade isn't working out so well so far, it doesn't seem like it will go down in history alongside the Nolan Ryan and Scott Kazmir trades. Farmer Ted May 14 2009 09:33 AM We could still have Heilman for the 8th inning. Putz v Heilman. Edge Putz. Less angina. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 14 2009 09:34 AM "The TiTTS say yea, verily Well of course they did. Edgy DC May 14 2009 09:40 AM To give Putz his due (and all setup men, for that matter), the system of a designated savior in a bullpen, where you're either the man or no man, is a fucking head trip and it's as psychologicially counterporuductive as it is strategically counterproductive. The idea that a guy could get through the eight in dazzling fashion but still get pulled to start the ninth, because, damn it, that's the other guy's job, well, it toys with a man. It toys with him. You figure, in a fair system, the number two guy would at least be able to sneak in and steal 1-3 saves a month. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 14 2009 09:45 AM Isn't it funny though that we all knew the Mets would show zero creativity with the whole thing and only wanted to give the impression they had created a "lock-down" endgame, above all other strategies that might better optimize the guys they got. Hell, they should have taken my advice and called Putz the "fireman" then maybe he'd get an erection when he was called on every now and then. But the fear of failure is baked in there too. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:02 AM The fear of failure can be offset when there's an occasional bauble for the guy who earns it. The eighth innng guy can almost only fail. I mean, who knows --- or honestly cares --- who the all-time holds leader is? metirish May 14 2009 10:02 AM SNY play into this too, several times I have heard the booth guys and Burkhardt talk about how " lock down tight" the pen is now....Burkhardt was on recently talking about how great the pen is and I thought I must be missing games or something. Yes it's better than last year and I believe it has the best pen ERA but it's not as good as they might have you believe. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:07 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 14 2009 10:16 AM And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule. Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 10:12 AM I agree. Let's get Jerry in here for an intervention. Fman99 May 14 2009 10:29 AM ="Edgy DC":2o1v6d4w]And top guys are being grossly over-used because they use one where two would suffice, four where two would suffice, and pull the starters between 100 and 110 pitches almost as a rule.[/quote:2o1v6d4w] How true. Betcha didn't know that Stokes got four outs yesterday on all of NINE PITCHES. They should've left him in for another inning, he was cruising. Edgy DC May 14 2009 10:41 AM I should have noted that in his grading. smg58 May 14 2009 03:37 PM Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork. Edgy DC May 14 2009 06:35 PM Every day, that "part" grows in my thinking. 2007, also. Elster88 May 15 2009 11:53 PM Ugh, the first casualty to pen overuse. Should they really overdo protecting Santana just to blow out the guys they got to protect his wins? Maybe they should so he can go nine in September, but I'm worried that this Torre-style bullpen use will end up with all our guys getting Tommy John surgery. Ashie62 May 16 2009 09:08 AM J.J. is a Putz Benjamin Grimm May 16 2009 09:50 AM It's funny because that's his name! OlerudOwned May 16 2009 10:06 AM Sigh. soupcan May 17 2009 09:25 AM ="smg58":9h0j2e51]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:9h0j2e51] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 17 2009 10:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 17 2009 12:51 PM ="soupcan":2k7waus1]="smg58":2k7waus1]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2k7waus1] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?[/quote:2k7waus1] Yes, but does it follow that one must overwork the pen--largely, by overusing the alphas-- to get there? [That's like saying, "We'll need plenty of electric light to do this job," and always using the same 2 fixtures, without changing the bulbs.] smg58 May 17 2009 11:11 AM Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help. Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.) Mendoza Line May 17 2009 01:17 PM Manuel's use of pitchers so far: PitcherInnings to DateProjection for SeasonCareer HighExpectationMaine40.33181.49191190Pelfrey35157.5201190Santana53238.5234230Hernandez38.67174.02255150Perez21.6797.5219690Figueroa6279350Redding0017625Rodriguez18.6784.028680Putz2194.57865Parnell17.3377.99 - 85Feliciano15.6770.526470Green15.3368.997950Stokes16726270Takahashi731.5 - 80Others17.6779.52 - 30Total323.331455 - 1455 The projection for the season is simply the innings pitched multiplied by 9/2, as we're 2/9 through the season as of now. I didn't do anything to account for injuries/missed starts. The expectation is my expectation of how many innings we could reasonably expect to get out of each pitcher this season. The 1455 inning projection is roughly in line with the number of innings the Mets have played per season over the past few seasons. This is going to be tight. I really don't want to see another 35 innings of Sean Green, and 48 more innings of an effective Takahashi is optimistic. And I'm counting on no major injuries to any key pitchers (except for Livan, who figures to miss a few starts). It looks like Manuel is doing a decent job of managing the starters - Pelfrey's innings are low because he was injured at the start of the season. But, yeah, Putz is getting a little too much work right now if you believe this table. I wouldn't mind seeing Manuel throw a few more eighth-inning appearances Takahashi's way, just to see how he'd perform. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 17 2009 01:49 PM What would be telling is a breakdown of games in which Putz has already appeared, and how many of them were in games the Mets were losing and/or comfortably ahead. Strike those, do the projection over, and I'd bet he'd be in normal range. Edgy DC May 17 2009 01:51 PM No, I don't know that the Mets would have made it as far as they did hadn't they rode the bullpen as hard as they did. I know that they didn't make it to the playoffs either year and, and the end of them, several of their relievers were among the league leaders in appearances, even as their late-season breakdowns left them with statitistics that wouldn't suggest they should be pitched every day. Regarding those projections, they're a little deceptive. Johan Santana may have never thrown over 234 innings, but I'd wager he's never gotten half through May with a 1.36 ERA before, suggesting he's pitching to significantly fewer batters per inning. In short, usage isn't best measured in innings, but in pitches. For relievers, appearances is also a key measure. smg58 Jun 02 2009 07:37 AM ="smg58":2w5w8d0z]Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2w5w8d0z] Even with recording no outs yesterday, Putz is on a 90-inning pace. Putz never broke 80 in his years with Seattle. And it couldn't be more obvious his arm is not 100% back. We have guys (Stokes for sure, probably Parnell and Takahashi too) who can take on more work. Manuel is not doing Putz or the team any favors sending him out this often. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:14 AM I kept going over last night in my head. For what it's worth, J.J. didn't walk his way into trouble, but got Baltimore chopped to death. (Keith, you really don't know what that means? Grab a book.) Four seasons hop into my head --- the last two, 1985, and 1973. In the first three of these, the manager had a struggling righthanded reliever (last year, there were two), who was a big part of the team's plans going into the season. The manager in each case would find himself torn between the game at hand and the season at large. In order to win the game, you don't want to put it in the hands of a struggling pitcher. But in order to save the season, you want to redeem that struggling pitcher. So, rather than bury the guy, they downgrade him for one or two appearances before returning him to high-leverage situations. But I think that can be stubborn adherence to The Plan. And you can miss that a new --- perhaps better --- plan is emerging right before you. Davey Johnson in 1985 bounced Doug Sisk below Roger McDowell, but as the season wore on, McDowell was wearing down, and Sisk was still needed (and failing) in big situations. According to Bats, Frank Cashen had a deal on the table to move some prospects (it's never said which ones) to re-acquire Tom Seaver, which would have allowed him to move Rick Aguilera to the pen, where he had flourished in his few appearances and where he would eventually star. What's most bothersome to this day was that Johnson didn't want to move Aguilera because he didn't want to break with the plan, not only for 1985, but 1986, to which he was already looking ahead. The presence of Seaver would force him to rework his rotation, as if somebody (most likely Seaver) wouldn't get hurt and give Aguilera another chance at starting. In 2007, Willie Randolph always trying to redeem Guillermo Mota. He'd downgrade him for a few games and then return him to the mix. Granted, there were no obvious alternatives, but it took a while to even give Joe Smith more trust. Last year, the redemption of Heilman and Sanchez was continually stillborn while other alternatives fell by the wayside. The Mets have real alternatives here in Stokes and Parnell. I like working for redemption. The redemption of Tug McGraw (effected, it seems, by giving him two starts after all else had failed) was the story of 1973. But how about not returning Green and Putz to big moments until they show success after 10 appearances in the back of the pen, rather than two? And if some Eddie Kunz looks like he can move in there, give him a real crack at it. Adapt, baby! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2009 08:28 AM It's plainly obvious they are leaning way too heavily on Putz and I am convinced it is in the service of creating an illusion of a "lock-down pen" as overcompensation for 2008's failures. I'd give him Takahashi's role for a few weeks, slide Parnell and Stokes up a notch and score more fucking runs. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:35 AM Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night. OlerudOwned Jun 02 2009 01:26 PM We could certainly benefit a lot from Sean Green turning things around. He's walking too many batters, his GB% is down 8 notches from last year, his FB% is up 10, and a nutty 16.7% of those fly balls are homers. Doesn't look like any physical problems, so hopefully he can work through it. Give him some innings at home, maybe. The flyballs can turn into outs instead of homers, and hopefully confidence would beget a return to form. Anything to lessen the load on Putz, because his arm is clearly not all there. Fman99 Jun 02 2009 01:41 PM ="Edgy DC":6cnbj2zu]Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.[/quote:6cnbj2zu] Not only that, that save was the one punctuated by two tremendous plays on defense, on balls that were hit hard and turned into outs by Castillo/Wright and Ramon Martinez. Benjamin Grimm Jun 02 2009 01:49 PM Yeah. I took the Schaefer point I'd normally give for a one-inning save and divided it among Wright, Castillo, and Martinez.

He's done it before, and it shouldn't be tolerated. If I were managing, Cora would play short tonight.

I'd have used a pitcher to bunt in the ninth. I'd much rather have three chances to bring Reyes home from second than two chances to bring him home from third. If Castillo walks, the winning run is on base with nobody out. Why wouldn't that play into the picture?

I wouldn't have overpaid for Lowe either, but I also wouldn't have offered Ollie more than two years and $15M. The only way Minaya gets off the hook for Lowe is if Ollie pitches comparably.

Well hey, just because the Mets have won seven of their last eight doesn't mean they can't get ripped into. I'm still going with the theory that the lack of support for Johan is just a bizarre fluke that will correct itself eventually.

="Elster88":u1d8ms6m]Santana looking to break the record for most losses without giving up an earned run.[/quote:u1d8ms6m] I'm almost afraid to ask, but what is the record and who holds it?

Is he coming off the DL any time soon? And somebody please take the keys away from him.

="Ashie62":3157mime]Good Lord...sad part..the game is harmed and more surely to come my Prediction 1. Pujols 2. Jeter 3 Nolan Ryan 4 Carlos Delgado 5 Vladimir Guerrero How come Brady Andersons 50 HR year never comes up? Anybody here think Hojo turned into a slugger through something other than a corked bat. His career did end early.[/quote:3157mime] Because Brady Anderson's career was otherwise so forgettable that he's been, well, forgotten. If he was a HOF candidate, people would be talking about him for sure. At this point, everybody's a suspect. I see no point in singling anyone out before clear evidence comes up against them. Edgy DC May 08 2009 05:30 AM Anderson used to come up all the time. But now (1) he's retired, (2) he's eclipsed by people from whom we actually have failed tests from. And (3) what's the point? cooby May 09 2009 08:00 AM I like Manny, I'm sorry about this. I'm keeping him on my fantasy team, too. Nymr83 May 14 2009 12:01 PM ]"When you take steroids you have a direct outcome of the game, that's the integrity of the game. And when you can change records when you do something illegal, it's just not right. ... Baseball records are sacred. If you do something illegal to surpass those records, it's just not good." --Pete Rose, Guardian of Integrity in Baseball metirish May 14 2009 12:04 PM Didn't Rose then go on to say that Alex Rodriguez should still go to the HOF. I didn't read the article but saw that blurb.... Nymr83 May 14 2009 12:05 PM ="metirish":3sqflmah]Didn't Rose then go on to say that Alex Rodriguez should still go to the HOF. I didn't read the article but saw that blurb....[/quote:3sqflmah] Yeah. I wonder what other cheaters he thinks belong in the hall... Benjamin Grimm May 14 2009 12:08 PM I got to about the fourth paragraph and then thought, "Why does anyone care what Pete Rose has to say about all this?" And then I stopped reading. metirish May 14 2009 12:11 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":37sj3ba0]I got to about the fourth paragraph and then thought, "Why does anyone care what Pete Rose has to say about all this?" And then I stopped reading.[/quote:37sj3ba0] Exactly why I didn't read it. Nothing he says really interests me. Fman99 May 14 2009 12:57 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":2eyfx6w2]I got to about the fourth paragraph and then thought, "Why does anyone care what Pete Rose has to say about all this?" And then I stopped reading.[/quote:2eyfx6w2] Pete Rose is a retard. That's why other retards always have Pete Rose's haircut.

Either Manny's lying, or he and his doctor are the dumbest people on the planet.

="Ashie62":20knri7u]Would help the offense.[/quote:20knri7u] Would hurt the pitching. Keep in mind that the dimensions don't shrink when the other team is up. OlerudOwned May 05 2009 04:21 PM Re: Playing 162 on the Road? ="smg58":1kzjrurq]="Ashie62":1kzjrurq]Would help the offense.[/quote:1kzjrurq] Would hurt the pitching. Keep in mind that the dimensions don't shrink when the other team is up.[/quote:1kzjrurq] I think you're on to something... Elster88 May 05 2009 08:28 PM ="sharpie":3p5clyb5]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:3p5clyb5] Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason. Nymr83 May 05 2009 08:37 PM ="Elster88":7s9bkdxp]="sharpie":7s9bkdxp]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:7s9bkdxp] Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason.[/quote:7s9bkdxp] parks are rarely built in such a way that you can make it MORE of a pitcher's park, but you can usually bring a fence or three in pretty easily if you are so inclined, so lets be glad they built it the way they did. i'd like to keep it this way, but at least they have options. Elster88 May 05 2009 08:51 PM ="Nymr83"]="Elster88"]="sharpie"]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me. Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason. parks are rarely built in such a way that you can make it MORE of a pitcher's park, but you can usually bring a fence or three in pretty easily if you are so inclined, so lets be glad they built it the way they did. i'd like to keep it this way, but at least they have options. Yup I understand all that, it's pretty obvious. But there's no need to have a pitcher's park to this extreme. ]so lets be glad they built it the way they did. Again, why do I have to be GLAD they did it this way? Can't they build a normal park in the first place if they're going to spend a billion dollars? My original point that there are options between YS3 and Yellowstone stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 05 2009 09:00 PM Big park doesn't mean less offense-- part of Coors' offensive appeal is Grand-Canyon-sized outfield gaps, a la CitiField. It's just a different sort of offense (as the triples numbers imply). Should the dimensions stay the same, however, building a speedy, defensively airtight team becomes much more imperative going forward. Ashie62 May 05 2009 09:01 PM ="Nymr83":192xq2dx]="Elster88":192xq2dx]="sharpie":192xq2dx]You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:192xq2dx] Can't I have something in between? Perhaps just a normal field? Since it's going to be there at least 50 years it'd have been nice. Maybe they can tweak the outfield walls in the offseason.[/quote:192xq2dx] parks are rarely built in such a way that you can make it MORE of a pitcher's park, but you can usually bring a fence or three in pretty easily if you are so inclined, so lets be glad they built it the way they did. i'd like to keep it this way, but at least they have options.[/quote:192xq2dx] Name one option Elster88 May 05 2009 09:06 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":vevh6h8g]Big park doesn't mean less offense-- part of Coors' offensive appeal is Grand-Canyon-sized outfield gaps, a la CitiField. It's just a different sort of offense (as the triples numbers imply). [/quote:vevh6h8g] I'm not buying it. A park with deeper outfield walls leads to less offense than a park in the exact same space with shallower walls. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 09:17 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 05 2009 09:20 PM Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense. Frayed Knot May 05 2009 09:19 PM 1) Let's see how this place plays over an entire season before we declare it (or YSIII for that matter) to be an extreme park in any direction. Traditionally Shea played like a better hitter's park in the Summer than it did in April & May. 2) No other park is like Coors. Not only does the high altitude give about 10% more carry to balls but the increased OF size to compensate for that extra carry also allows for more 1Bs, 2Bs & 3Bs. In retrospect they would probably have been better off to make the fences higher instead of further. Yeah it would resemble a pinball game occasionally but at least then you'd be turning HRs into doubles instead of the other way around 3) They DO have the option of bringing the fences in (and/or lowering them) after the season if the place does indeed turn out to favor hurlers too much. But, like I said, let's wait a bit before declaring that to be necessary. batmagadanleadoff May 05 2009 09:22 PM ="Frayed Knot":3pl3u7wr]1) Let's see how this place plays over an entire season before we declare it (or YSIII for that matter) to be an extreme park in any direction. Traditionally Shea played like a better hitter's park in the Summer than it did in April & May.[/quote:3pl3u7wr] I totally agree with this, and should've added to my post that my ideas, (or anybody else's) would take a few years to confirm or refute. seawolf17 May 06 2009 08:18 AM Edited your poll for you. Mendoza Line May 06 2009 08:29 AM ="sharpie":1tdtxzbf]Fewer homers, more triples. More triples = more fun. You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:1tdtxzbf] What he said. Also, based on the small sample size, it looks like CitiField will favor teams with: (a) key offensive players who combine power and speed (like Wright, Beltran, and to a lesser degree Reyes) ( key pitchers who tend to give up fly ball outs (like Santana) (c) good defensive players in the outfield (like Beltran, Church, and...OK, two out of three ain't bad). So I'm not complaining yet. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 06 2009 08:49 AM Not that this means anything but: HRs through 12 home games 2009 Mets 6 Opponents 12 Total 18 Games with no home runs: 2 HRs through 12 home games, 2008 Mets 10 Opponents 10 Total 20 Games with no home runs: 3 IOW, there's hardly any difference that couldn't be explained by Wright's poor start (he had 4 in the first 12 home games last year; only 1 at home this season) batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 09:05 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on May 06 2009 09:14 AM I count seven Met HR's at CF through 12 games - Delgado (2), Castro, Tatis, Santos, Wright and Sheffield each with one HR. [u:1thgf3q8]Some early returns[/u:1thgf3q8]: Citizen's Bank Park: 48 HR's in 14 Phillie Home Games (Phillies and opponents); 3.43 HR/game 33 HR's in 10 Phillie Road Games (Phillies and opponents) - 3.3 HR/game Citi Field: 19 HR's in 12 Met Home Games (Mets and opponents) - 1.58 HR/game 22 HR's in 13 Met Road Games (Mets and opponents); 1.69 HR/game Coors Field: 21 HR's in 9 Rockie Home Games (Rockies and opponents) - 2.33 HR/game 40 HR's in 16 Rockie Road Games (Rockies and opponents); 2.5 HR/game Candlestick Park, I still call it: 14 HR's in 14 Giant Home Games (Giants and opponents) - 1.00 HR/game 22 HR's in 11 Giant Road Games (Giants and opponents); 2.00 HR/game Miami: 21 HR's in 11 Marlin Home Games (Marlins and opponents) - 1.91 HR/game 27 HR's in 16 Marlin Road Games (Marlins and opponents); 1.69 HR/game John Cougar Lunchbucket May 06 2009 09:06 AM I was afraid I missed one Met HR too. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 09:08 AM I'm afraid you did. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 05:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 06 2009 06:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense. If Gary's reading the Pool, I'd further like to point out that it's not just a question of trading up some HR's for triples. Citi Field is probably murdering doubles more than it's murdering anything else. Shea Stadium doubles that were landing beyond the outfielders on a fly are turning into outs at Citi Field. If those shots are hitting the outfield Citi Field wall on a fly, they would've probably left the yard at Shea. And whether or not a batted ball gets behind the outfield after first landing in front of the outfield has little to do with stadium dimensions and everything to do with defensive positioning, all other things being equal. Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Ashie62 May 06 2009 06:43 PM Thanks for editing the poll. Almost all true fly balls are outs..Gaps are unreachable. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 08:02 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Runs: 133 Runs in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 10.23 runs/game 100 Runs in 13 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 7.69 runs/game Edgy DC May 06 2009 11:17 PM I like big parks and I cannot lie. batmagadanleadoff May 09 2009 04:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"] Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Updated: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 36 Doubles in 16 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 2.25 doubles/game Elster88 May 12 2009 09:54 PM I wouldn't even consider this "anecdotal evidence". Maybe call it just "anecdotal". Delgado and Beltran hit balls that would've been home runs in Shea. Wright did the same on Monday. All three were doubles. I don't have a point. But sadly, Pujols or Zimmerman's extra home runs might make a difference when MVP voting comes for Beltran. I'm surprised how much I want a Met to win the MVP and how much I want Santana to win the Cy Young.

="G-Fafif":2scopwla]1) The Mets send David Wright, Jose Reyes, Carlos Beltran, Tim Redding and Ramon Castro to Philadelphia for Jimmy Rollins, Shane Victorino and Ryan Howard. 2) The Mets send Carlos Delgado, Brian Schneider, John Maine, Brad Holt and Ike Davis to Toronto for Roy Halladay, Rod Barajas and Kevin Millar. In concomitant moves, the Mets shift Daniel Murphy to third base, call up Fernando Martinez and have Oliver Perez and Bobby Parnell switch roles. I think this is a flight of fancy. Or am I dead serious? I'm not sure.[/quote:2scopwla] I wouldn't expect to see Halladay in a Mets uniform as long as the Jays are winning and the Mets aren't. We should have been jealous of the Phillies' bullpen last year, not their position players. They scored exactly the same amount of runs as the Mets did, in a much friendlier park. I'm not sure who'd rather have Victorino than Beltran, or why. batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2009 06:29 PM ="smg58":39bribgv]We should have been jealous of the Phillies' bullpen last year, not their position players. They scored exactly the same amount of runs as the Mets did, in a much friendlier park. I'm not sure who'd rather have Victorino than Beltran, or why.[/quote:39bribgv] I agree. Overall, I don't think there's a damn signifcant difference between the Mets and the Phillies. Luck more than anything else, has designated one of these indistinguishable teams as the champs and the other, a bunch of choke artists.

Edgy DC wrote: I'm telling you here that playing Murphy around will relieve his worried mind, rather than further burden it. If he'd played some first in spring training I'd agree, but throwing him there cold might not do him or the team defense any favors.

="Nymr83":af7dck4v]why would peterson be to blame? perez has always been inconsistent[/quote:af7dck4v] I remember a report coming out a week or two before the midnight firing that Peterson's head was on the block as well partly because of Ollie's performance. Ashie62 Apr 28 2009 05:37 PM Oliver twisting in he wind