Chad ochoseis

Ron just called him Zimmo. Definitely a CPF reader. Hi, Ron!

Cespedes throws out Braxton Lee trying to stretch a single. Met opponents have been doing a great job of beating themselves lately.

G-Fafif wrote: Mets are four above .500. Last year, they rose to four above .500 (7-3) with that 16-inning win in Miami and never sat that high again. Let's not be that way this year. Yeah, I was thinking that, too. My memory is that the April schedule last year was really soft. I think 7 of the first 10 were against Miami and the other three were against Philadelphia. If we continue beating up on the Nats, I'll start thinking this team is for real.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: So the pitcher batting 8th is a thing for Rosario then? If you like it for him, you might as well like it for Reyes, too. Is it about Reyes/Rosario, or is it about DeGrom and Syndergaard being good hitters? Harvelous hit over .300 his first full season, if I'm remembering right, but his hitting fell off the table even before his pitching did.

Goodbye, and au revoir. It's pretty much impossible to be 50ish, a Mets fan, and not have some early memory of Rusty. Mine is this game, from August 14, 1974, which featured a walkoff single by Rusty with bases loaded, one out, and the outfield playing at what he described in the following day's Daily News as "deep Little League".

I was really hoping that there would be a case for the DH slowing games down by artificially creating offense. But fivethirtyeight says no. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-dh-rule-bane-of-baseball-purists-slowing-the-game-down/

I doubt they'll be longer. I'm fairly certain that the math will show that they'll be shorter. I agree. I'd bet that it's likelier that one team rather than both can score the new rule baserunner. Plus, some games will end when the home team's first batter drives in the winning run. This new setup should promote sac bunting, especially for the home team when the visitors couldn't score in their extra inning half. Sac bunting makes sense in a sudden death situation when there's a runner on second with no outs. I'm in a mathy mood, so I went ahead and did some calculations. According to this nice website (https://gregstoll.dyndns.org/~gregstoll/baseball/runsperinning.html), the probability of scoring a run the way adults do, with an inning that begins with none on and none out, is 26%. With none out and a runner on second, it's about 62%. Making a few simplifying assumptions, you can go from there to an average of 2.60 extra innings playing real baseball and 2.12 extra innings playing with a runner starting on second and none out. So it's a little quicker to start with a runner on second. I did not do any calculations assuming a home run derby, coach pitch, or tee ball. I have yet to hear any actual baseball fan come out in favor of this. Extra innings mean more baseball, and what baseball fan doesn't love more baseball? The problem - if there is one - is that there's less baseball per minute than there used to be, not that extra inning games go on for too long. Edgy MD wrote: The 20-second pitch clock was already established in the minors last season. They are reducing it to 15 when there are no runners on base. And they've certainly curtailed mound visit length and frequency, both at the major and minor-league levels. Aggressively and, to my thinking, counter-productively. Have those shortened games? What do the numbers show? Yeah, by about 10 minutes. https://www.milb.com/milb/news/toolshed-time-of-game-down-across-board/c-127176290

The home plate ump was getting a little tired of the game.

I've never been clear on how the pundits predicted the 1969 season would play out. The received wisdom today is that the Mets were still a joke and that some writers picked them to finish last, behind Montreal (!). But that's never made much sense. Tom Seaver wasn't a secret; he'd won RoY in '67 and then got even better in '68. Koosman lost the 1968 RoY ballot by one vote. To Johnny F. Bench. Gary Gentry was considered to be one of the top prospects in baseball. And even without the benefit of the interwebs, people must have heard that Grote, Harrelson, and Agee could catch and throw. The only 1969 article my Google-fu has managed to find is the April 14 issue of Sports Illustrated, which picks the Cardinals to run away with the division, but has the Mets finishing second. Does anyone have other info?

It's the Twins who signed him, no? Note to self: Drink coffee, then post. And, to be clear, I'm not advocating that either Duda or Morrison should be members of the 2018 Mets; I don't think either of them should be. Just wondering why anyone would choose Morrison over Duda.

Nymr83 wrote: Duda is still out there screaming "cut Adrian" I'm trying to figure out what Duda must be asking for if the Rays signed Morrison, who is basically Dudalite, for two years @6.5. Duda made $7.25M last year and shouldn't be expected to sign for much more than that. I'd much rather have Duda for two years at, say, $8.5M per year than Morrison at $6.5M.

I was listening, not watching. But it sounded like he misjudged one ball (probably just a spring baseball thing) and let another one bounce out of his glove. I was mainly trying to be a smartass; I really don't know that he's a defensive step down from Taijeron. But I strongly suspect we're comparing ice slicks and banana peels.

And I field better. I don't even need to check the stats on that one. I've seen Tiajeron and I know it's true. And so do you. Not so fast, there, young Zach.

My MLB sound feed is way out of sync with my video feed. So I hear the crack of a bat, then see the beginning of the pitch.

Akeel Morris, picking up where he left off with the Mets.

Mazel tov! 2-run double for Borenstein.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Does MLB Extra Innings go by your IP address when you sign up or the IP address when you connect, for the blackout rule? And is it available overseas or US only? Going to be doing some traveling this year and thinking about signing up. oe: Duh. I'm actually asking about MLB.TV, not Extra Innings. It's based on where you connect which means that, ironically enough, I miss Mets games when I go back to the NYC area. I think I was able to see games when I was traveling in England and Iceland, but my memory's not clear on that.

The 23rd. That would explain why MLB.tv isn't showing it today.

I'm not getting it on MLB.tv. Not sure if that's because they're not carrying games this early or if they haven't yet autorenewed my subscription. But I can use a live baseball fix, even if it means I'm watching Phil Evans or someone tee off against #74 on the Braves.

It sounds like Edgy is saying that it would lead to better OBP as well as more home runs, which sounds like a new idea. I'm skeptical. New discoveries arising from more powerful computing techniques and advances in statistical analysis because sabermetrics is still a young science are one thing. But people have been swinging bats since Abner Doubleday didn't invent the game back in the 1830s. I have difficulty believing that we'd just be figuring out now that an uppercut swing leads to more hits (and therefore more walks, I guess, if it makes batters better hitters overall) than a level swing.

Apparently, Todd Frazier in the leadoff spot is a thing. It's not a bad idea. Nimmo is the clearer choice, but with Cespedes, Bruce, and Lagares, it's not clear that Nimmo is going to be in the lineup every day. Frazier's OBP was .344, not far out of line with Cabrera's .351 and a whole lot better than Reyes or anyone else on the team other than Nimmo. And Frazier was in double figures in steals in 2014, 2015, and 2016, which should satisfy the traditionalists. And I believe there have been some sabermetric studies that say that the leadoff hitter should have some power, though I can't find any online. It makes some intuitive sense, particularly if you bat the pitcher eighth and a Reyes/Rosario type ninth. Rosario is the leadoff hitter of the future, but he has in no way demonstrated that he's ready to be the leadoff hitter of 2018. Maybe the leadoff spot goes to Nimmo vs righties and Frazier vs lefties. Either way, I'm glad that Mickey is willing to make some bold choices.

Defunct: Shea Pre-'74 YS Pre-'09 YS Municipal Olympic County Comiskey Old Busch Still around: Citi Jacobs Field (yeah, I know what the actual name is) Wrigley Miller US Cellular Nats Park Safeco Ballpark at Arlington Camden Yards Toured Coors, but didn't see a game there

4 billboards. About a half hour in, with Frances McDormand in the main role and with the whole black comedy vibe, I was starting to think that the Coen Brothers had directed this film under a fake name. I enjoyed the film, mainly because of the characterizations and the acting performances. Everyone's been raving about Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell, but it was also fun to watch Clarke Peters (Lester Freamon from The Wire) in a minor role. One of the bad guys has a transformation at the end that critics seem to have a hard time buying, which is why the film has evolved from "brilliant" to "controversial" (detail with spoilers here). I had no problem at all with the transformation. Somehow, in the past 20 years or so, we've lost the ability as a society to believe that some people are redeemable. I still believe that they are. People are complex, and their complexity makes great drama. For some reason, that's difficult for modern critics to handle. I did have some serious problems with a couple of the practical aspects of the plot. Two people in the film commit serious crimes in very obvious ways. One of those people suffers only minor consequences, even though the crime is committed in front of someone who has both the authority and the motivation to put the perp away for a long time. The other person who commits a crime gets away with the lamest of lame alibis. In both those cases, I call bullshit, which knocked the film from 5 down to 4 for me.

Yeah. 19 home runs in 1959 and 22 in 1958. Who would've thunk?

Nah. Franco was over the hill by 1959.