Centerfield

He's also too smart. I nominate Mungo from Heathcliffe.

Updating the Mets' offensive woes: OPS: 25th out of 30 teams. Runs: 23rd out of 30 teams.

If they're going to lose, let's hope they have the courtesy to do it quickly.

European or African?

The Texas Rangers have pioneers? How does one apply for a position?

I read that Johnny Oates number was retired, so that's probably one. Ruben Sierra Pete Incaviglia Juan Gonzalez

Nephew: Did they win? CF: No, they lost again. Shut out 2-0. Nephew: (Shakes head) CF: I'm sorry they're so bad. They're usually not this bad. Nephew: That's ok. If we're Mets fans, we have to do it. If you just root for teams that win, you're just a winners fan.

Turns out the losing doesn't really bother him. I'll update the thread.

Uh-oh. Simultaneous IGT's. We're going to need a ruling on this one.

It's not like they're going to win anyway.

That I understand, but it makes sense to use your best reliever in every situation. This, of course, is not possible, because any one pitcher can only pitch a certain number of innings. So my point is, to prove Jerry is wrong, you must establish that the benefit of using your closer in tie games outweighs the negative effect of having a lesser pitcher pitch in save situations (since presumably, your closer will not be able to handle all of them due to the extra work).

Why waste them in a tie game, one where you may ultimately never take the lead, and possibly cost yourself the opportunity to use him tomorrow (or the day after) in a save situation. I don't agree with this. That's very much my point. Why waste him by keeping him in the bullpen to preserve him for a save situation that may never come? Save situations are not by definition the highest-leverage situations. Please allow me to re-arrange both of our questions somewhat to display the parallel phrases side-by-side: QuestionerPre-amble to QuestionAmbiguity of ConditionDownsideYouWhy waste him in a tie game,one where you may ultimately never take the lead,and possibly cost yourself the opportunity to use him tomorrow (or the day after) in a save situation?MyselfWhy waste him by keeping him in the bullpento preserve him for a save situation that may never comewhile progressively lesser and lesser players toil for the win? Let me first address the Ambiguity of Condition situation. While both of these situations are fraught with ambigutity, his presence curbs that ambiguity. You fear that the team may never take the lead, but putting him in the game increases the likelihood that they will. He provides the team with a better matchup in his innings, and while preserving better pitchers for subsequent innings should they be necessary. In my place in that column, I fear that they are holding him for a save situation that may never come. Well, his presence (and the helpful effect of the presence of better pitchers after him) increasess the chance that that save situation may come. You have to secure a lead before you can secure a save. In a game played one inning at a time, your best available pitcher is the guy to do that. In fact, giving him two innings, he can possilbly secure you both (if not statistically). Then in the Downside column, you tell of the downside being not having him available for saves the next day. Possilby But I say that now is the time of our greatest need when chips are down. Looking at the old win expectancy calculator (not, sadly, recently updated), we are reminded that save situations (one-run lead, two-run lead, three-run lead, or more if the tying run reaches the on-deck circle) tend not to be higher-leverage situations than ninth-inning or extra-inning (which is the same-thing, logically) tie situations. Those games are the games where you want your best. Those are the ones where you have the most to lose relative to what you have to win. And it's statistically supported. And here's the thing. That need of the next day or the day after that, lesser though it is, may never come at all. The need of the moment is known, and i'ts ignored. And so we're getting destroyed in extra-inning games on the road. As far as those two examples I gave from the mid-1980s, in both situations, the team had a vitally crucial game to win the next day. I really don't want to get a whole lot of radical adjustment of bullpen usage out of this thread. But I do most certainly want to get across to any who would hear that holding your closer out of extra-inning games on the road unless/until a save situation can be presented to him is a domonstrably counter-productive strategy. Very good stuff Edgy. It helps to clarify the issue a lot. My question, and the reason I am undecided on this issue, is that I'm not sure that using your best reliever in a tie game will necessarily lead to more wins than using him in a situation where you have the lead. How do we know that? If I'm understanding your win calculator link correctly, all I can tell is that a game is much more likely to go either way when it is tied, than in a save situation. But will using your closer in ties necessarily lead to more wins? After all, in tie games, you need to hold the opposition and score a run. (To illustrate this point, a tie game in the fifth inning is much more high-leverage than a one run lead in the ninth, but does that mean you should pitch your closer in the fifth inning of a 5 to 5 game?) The way I see it, if the Jerry strategy were to be justified, one would have to prove conclusively that: 1. Using your best reliever in a save situation is more effective than pitching him in tie games. 2. The difference is so great that you should hold him out of actual tie games in the event a prospective save situation should arise. In order for your thesis to be correct, you must prove: 1. Using your best reliever in tie games in addition to save situations will outweigh the negative effect of having to give a certain number of save situations to a guy who is not your best reliever. A much easier burden than Jerry has, but I'm not sure that it's been met yet. It's also possible that none of this has any effect on the number of wins and losses at the end of the day.

I'm not defending the practice, but comparing Game 6 of the NLCS (or any other post-season game) to a regular season game isn't exactly fair. The practice of holding back your closer for a save situation on the road is justified (or at least justification is attempted) by the idea that your closer's innings must be limited. In other words, you only get a few appearances from your closer before you have to shelf the guy. Why waste them in a tie game, one where you may ultimately never take the lead, and possibly cost yourself the opportunity to use him tomorrow (or the day after) in a save situation. In a playoff game or elimination game, this theory is obviously out the window. Like I said, I'm not condoning the practice, but you must manage a regular season game with the big picture involved, whereas playoff games are all in. Besides, like BG says, Frankie sucks anyway.

Which thread was it where we were picking bridesmaids from a Mets' farmhands' wedding?

In the states for a few weeks and he's got an IGT named after him. What a country!

I was thinking of this game: http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=270529121 Benitez balked in the tying run.

My wife's nephew is here from Korea. He's going to stay with us for the summer so he can go to camp and work on his English. He's an avid fan of the Korean baseball league, but knows little about the big league teams other than the Koreans playing here. He came to New York ready to root for the Yankees, as they are the new home of Chan Ho Park. When he arrived, I told him we watch the Mets in our house, and because he's a great kid, he said that was just fine with him. He watched the Cincinnati series with me, and then the Braves series. Suffered through the All-Star Break ("When are they going to start playing again?"). The San Fran series was too late for him, but he asked me each morning how they did. On Sunday, we went to a birthday party and he watched fans of the other team cheer and have a great time as their team stormed back from a 3-0 deficit against their division rivals to win the game going away. Last night the start time was early enough that he got to watch a few innings. Finally, after mulling it over for who knows how long, he finally turned to me and asked "Uncle CF, why do you root for this team?" I'm open to suggestions.

So are we no longer signing Rod Barajas to an extension? I don't know what lineup will work, but can we score some fucking runs please?

Armando Benitez.

Forget winning. Let's try to score.

Jack Clark.

That's a hoverboard wise guy. Hoverboard.

But to be clear, this is not to say that RF should not be a platoon situation, it absolutely should. But Francoeur doesn't warrant any other playing time other than that.

We don't have four outfielders for 3 spots, we have three. Well, three good ones anyway. Assuming Beltran comes back anything close to his old self, we will have two good outfielders and one that is in the middle of the pack (Jason Bay is 40th out of 66 outfielders who qualify). Jeff Francoeur is 59th out of 66 with an OPS below .700 (.695). Of the 7 guys behind him, only Carlos Lee is not a CF (or at least capable of playing an adequate CF). When Beltran comes back, we will have three starting quality outfielders, and three only. This should not be mistaken in any way with our situation in 86. We had four outfielders with an OPS at least in the high 700's. Mookie (.775) Heep (.799) Lenny (.822) and Straw (.865). If you want to draw a comparison to Francoeur, I guess you would have to go to George Foster...but even his numbers (.718) beat Frenchy's. It's tough to measure Francoeur's value against the bench players. While Francoeur has a track history, the other guys either have too few at-bats to be meaningful, or have spent most of their time in the minors. I don't think you can say he should be off the team, nor do I think you can conclusively say he's the best option on the bench.