Chad ochoseis

Seems to be straightforward. If there's a good chance that he'll recover from surgery, he's worth the QO. If not, not. From this article, it sounds like microdisectomies have a good recovery rate: http://www.medicaldaily.com/pros-and-complications-microdiscectomy-and-why-tiger-woods-missing-masters-back-surgery-273900 So, QOing him is the easy part. The hard part is whether to actually try to keep him (3 years, 45M?) or let him walk and take a chance with Flores/Rivera/Reynolds/Reyes.

Anybody else watching on MLB.tv's spiffy new Postseason.TV? TBS audio (meh) plus your choice of partial views. It's not bad.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think I'm gonna support the Indians. Rooting for the Cubs is cliche. And I can assure you Cubs fans don't want or need a bunch of sympathizing bandwagoners. As a Cleveland resident, I'm all in for the Tribe to win the WS now. It'll be tough - they've had more injuries in their starting rotation than any other team in the majors this year except for, um, you know. And their best catcher has turned into Rene Rivera without Rivera's offensive skill (talk about low bars). But I'm rooting for the Giants in the NL. The Cubs are deserving. But they're still the Cubs.

Other than the fact that they beat the Mets yesterday, what's to hate about the Giants? I'll root for them over the Evil Dodgers, Eviler Cubs, and Evilest Nationals any day.

It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow. And it's more fun to watch a team that had so-so talent and crappy luck win 87 games than to watch talented teams like the 2007 and 2008 Mets underachieve with 88 and 89 wins. It's been a good season, and anything after today is gravy. Funny thing - since the Mets and Giants were both 87-75, we'd still be playing this game under the old single wild card playoff rules. But it would be regular season game 163 instead of post-season.

Lefty Specialist wrote: 40 We have a winner! Though nobody picked Cabrera as the SHaMVP, because it would have been about the dumbest pick possible. Except maybe for... Chad Ochoseis wrote: D'Arnaud stays in the lineup and silences the doubters.

I second that BoC. McGwire??? There really needs to be a rule specifying a waiting period between the BBWAA ballot and the Veterans' Committee ballot. The point of the Veterans' Committee is to right omissions by the BBWAA that can be seen as unfair from a historical perspective. One year off the BBWAA ballot isn't enough for any kind of historical perspective. That being said, he's the only one with an HoF case to be made. I blame baseball (i.e. Bud and the ownership) for the PED proliferation in the 1990s more than any of the individuals who cheated. They looked the other way and cashed their checks when 60 home runs became the new 40 and claimed to be shocked - shocked! - when the Mitchell Report came out. But McGwire is a borderline case at best. I'd lean towards not voting for him. I don't see anyone else on that list who belongs in the Hall. Baines was a compiler. Albert Belle was an anti-compiler whose great career was overshadowed by his utter assholery, but he's not quite a Hall of Famer. Hershiser was close, but not quite.

Bumgarner's ERA since August 1: 4.03. We got this.

Frayed Knot wrote: Odds are 100% of a game a CitiField on Wednesday. One minute ahead of me! This has been a fun thread for those of us who know more about math than baseball.

. WE'RE NUMBER FOUR![/bigpurple]

Frayed Knot wrote: They're into the 6th in Santa Louisa with the three 1st inning runs by Pitt still the only scoring. The Mets should slow the pace of this game down and get as much info as they can on the Cardinals game. It could affect who to bring in to pitch the late innings.

So aside from that, like I said there are 27 remaining combinations of outcomes (3 x 3 x 3) - We wind up in the #1 WC slot in 22 of them, 20 of them free and clear of both teams plus two others where we're tied w/the Giants for slot #1 which is the same as winning outright since we hold the tie-breaker. ODDS = 89.07% - In two other cases we wind up with WC #2 all to ourselves: Mets lose twice + Giants win twice + Cards either lose once or lose twice. ODDS = 4.69% - There's the one case mentioned above where we tie with the Cards for WC #1 with SF out of it: ODDS = 1.56% So that's 25 of the 27 cases where we're assured of playing one game for the right to meet the Cubs. TOTAL ODDS = 95.32% That leaves the two we don't want to see where we'll be forced into a Monday play-in or maybe even a Monday/Tuesday play-in: - Mets lose both, Giants win both, Cards win both: This puts us in a play-in vs StL for WC #2. ODDS = 1.56% OR - Mets lose both, Giants win once, Cards win both: that outcome throws us all into a 3-way tie and multiple play-in games which I don't even know how they'd be set up. ODDS = 3.13% Subtle error here in the calc - assuming 50% probability of a win of any given game, each team has a 25% likelihood of winning 0 games, a 50% likelihood of winning 1, and a 25% likelihood of winning 2. The calc above doesn't take into account that a team is twice as likely to win exactly one game than zero or two. There are four possible outcomes for each team - win none (one outcome), win one (two outcomes), or win two (one outcome). So 4^3 = 64 outcomes in total. The only outcomes under which the Mets don't win the wild card are these: Cards win 2, Mets win 0, Giants win 1. 2 out of 64 ways that this can happen (1 way for the Cards to win 2 * 1 way for the Mets to win 0 * 2 ways for the Giants to win 1). If this happens, there's a 3-way tie [crossout]and the Mets still have only a 1/3 probability of not winning a wild card. So the probability of Mets losing the WC this way is (2/64)*(1/3) = 2/192[/crossout] OE - in a 3 way tie, the Mets have a 1/4 probability of not winning a WC, because of the way the tiebreaker works. So prob of Mets losing this way is (2/64)*(1/4) = 2/256 Cards win 2, Mets win 0, Giants win 2. Only one way that this can happen, and it leads to the Mets and Cards tying for WC2, so there's still only a 1/2 probability that the Mets lose the WC even if it were to happen. So the probability of the Mets losing the WC this way is (1/64)*(1/2) = 1/128. The outcomes are mutually exclusive, so you can add them. [crossout]2/192[/crossout] 2/256 + 1/128 = [crossout]7/384[/crossout] 1/64 probability that the Mets don't get the WC. So there's a [crossout]377/384 = 98.2%[/crossout] 63/64 = 98.4% probability that the Mets do get the WC. I'm not motivated enough to figure out the probabilities of WC1 and WC2. The real probability is much higher, of course, because of strength of opponents (also, the Dodgers still have something to play for, and the Pirates and Phillies don't).

Angel Pagan auditioning for a post-baseball career in WWE. [youtube:2dop8ofw]EiyC-MaQ18A[/youtube:2dop8ofw]

Jay Bruce. One hell of a good pickup.

Rivera has been handling pitchers and throwing out runners and has an OPS almost identical to D'Arnaud's. I still want to think D'Arnaud has a better career ahead of him, but there's no way he's been better than Rivera this year.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Chad Ochoseis wrote: I'm TJ Rivera. Wind me up and watch me hit solid line drives to right center. Has he hit enough to be the 2B next year? Not yet, but he's a strong candidate to be the Next Wilmer Flores. I'd think he's got to have a leg up on the 2017 2B starting job. I'm forgetting whether Walker's a straight FA at the end of the season, or if there's a club option, but either way, I wouldn't want to risk the balky back.

I'm TJ Rivera. Wind me up and watch me hit solid line drives to right center.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: When was the last time baseball (or any sport) lost an elite player just starting to ride the wave of his prime?? Really bummed over this. First one that comes to mind is Lyman Bostock. This royally sucks. Sympathies to the family, the Marlins, their fans, and anyone else connected with him.

Fman99 wrote: Nicely done! 10-5 and keep the padding a-comin please. MLB.tv is definitely lagged. As far as I know, Campbell just made it 9-5.

Zvon wrote: I don't know what to make of this. The out homered team usually loses these days. Yeah. I cringe anytime I hear stats like that without context. Incidentally, the Mets are 81-0 this year in games where they've outscored the opposition.

They're quickly running out of alternatives.

Didn't even notice the double switch. Little d takes a seat.

Asdrubal Cabrera, AMERICAN HERO!

. [bigpurple:iqgyvw27]JOSE FRIGGIN' REYES!!![/bigpurple:iqgyvw27]

This would be a very nice time for Bruce to begin to redeem himself.