batmagadanleadoff

I don't know what to think other than I think that Diaz is a priority, but like Grimm already said, lotsa teams are gonna go after him. Lesser relievers just aren't that reliable and also, the Mets have been just awful, crappy, awful at developing reliable relievers, going back many, many seasons now, back to the depths of the Madoff crisis. On top of that, they've been putting out a parade, a chorus line of relievers over the years, enough to seemingly field two football teams worth of relievers -- all forgettable and interchangeable. P.J. Conlon? Jacob Rhame? Scott Copeland? Neil Ramirez? Jamie "Lizard Tongue" Callahan? Donnie Hart? Brooks Pounders?

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52455782102_e59ad18214_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]wTP2RUD_cL0[/media] [media=youtube]yC_j_dzkaVE[/media] [media=youtube]Cv6tuzHUuuk[/media]

The 1980 NL playoffs was the first thing I thought of when this Phils/Astros WS came to be and it was one of the greatest playoff series I ever saw. Back then, I watched the playoffs because a second place team, let alone a third place team had no chance of playing in the playoffs. And those crazy tequila sunrise jerseys on National TV! [FIMG=555]https://sabr.org/sites/default/files/1980Astros.PNG[/FIMG] The Astros played that series without baseball's best pitcher, J.R. Richard, who missed the second half of that season after he suffered a stroke. From 1976 to 1980, Richard was one of the premier pitchers in the majors, leading the National League twice in strikeouts, once in earned run average, and three times in hits allowed per nine innings. "When asked in 2012 who was the "toughest pitcher to get a hit off" during his career, Dale Murphy answered "Anybody that played in the late 70's or early 80's will probably give you the same answer: JR Richard." J.R Richard and Nolan Ryan. That was some duo for the brief time it lasted. [FIMG=333]https://80sbaseball.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/richard.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=333]https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/XHIAAOSwDqliOIeD/s-l500.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=333]https://img.beckett.com/images/items/3835053/marketplace/FRONT_custom_sf_513_14050019_1369874549.png[/FIMG]

=Ceetar post_id=111895 time=1666643450 user_id=102] Imagine rooting for PHiladelphia anything? lol.

it always will reward the best team at the time. there's simply no other way to think of it than that if your team has the misfortune of an ill-timed cold streak, you risk getting kicked to the curb despite the possibility that over any other 7-game stretch, that team would win every one. This. A million times. A key feature of flipping coins to simulate events in order to run statistical experiments is that the coin behaves the same way on every single flip. The coin is "fair and balanced" and flipping it will yield one of two equally likely outcomes --- either heads or tails. And if "that fair and balanced" coin is flipped 50 times and comes up heads all 50 times, the odds of that coin coming up heads on the 51st flip would still be 50%. Baseball doesn't work like that "fair and balanced" coin. The Mets, for example aren't the same Mets on "every single flip". One month, Max Scherzer is pitching like a Cy Young award candidate. The next month he's on the IL with an oblique issue. Then Scherzer's re-activated but perhaps, he's pitching gingerly to nurse his lingering oblique issue. Marte is an all-star for the first five months of the season and then he misses the last four weeks of the season entirely, with a fractured finger. He returns for the playoffs but who knows how compromised his skills are because of the finger fracture? I sure don't. Who can say that the playoff Mets were the same as the May and June Mets? They weren't. Which Padres team showed up for the playoffs? Certainly not the squad that had both Tatis, Jr. and Soto on the 26 man roster simultaneously. Yu Darvish pitched one of the three playoff games between the Mets and Padres. Is that representative of the Padres season? Did Darvish pitch one third of the Padres regular season games (54 starts)? If Darvish could start 54 of the Padres games without compromising his health, would the Padres still be an 89 win team? Or maybe a 109 win team? And all this is before one even begins to account for natural randomness, which would occur even if a baseball team really was as consistent as a "fair and balanced" coin. There's no satisfactory answer and the notion of best team will almost always be an elusive one. Me, I'm confident in believing that the '86 Mets or the '76 Reds were the best baseball teams in their respective seasons. And I'd believe that even if the '86 Mets didn't mount a miraculous once in a lifetime comeback in the Bill Buckner inning and were to lose to the Red Sox in six games. Because what the hell does six games prove? But those are rare exceptions. Fans want closure. Fans can't live with ambiguous endings (See, e.g., The Sopranos series finale.) And it wouldn't be wise for the league to market its post-season as a total luck fest where you are as likely to predict the outcome in advance as you are to guess whether a flipped coin comes up heads or tails. Not only am I certain that playoff baseball is a total luck fest, but I'm certain that secretly and internally, the baseball powers damn well know this, too. Even Young Steinbrenner.

Ian O'Connor is very, very upset. He posted what can only be called a tantrum in the Post. Poor entitled Ian. https://nypost.com/2022/10/24/hal-steinbrenner-lucky-he-cant-be-fired-for-yankees-failures/https://nypost.com/2022/10/24/hal-steinbrenner-lucky-he-cant-be-fired-for-yankees-failures/ Truth is, after the Astros finished off their ALCS sweep in The Bronx on a rain-delayed Sunday night, making it 13 straight years that the Yankees have failed to reach the World Series, Steinbrenner deserves to be fired. He is lucky that there isn't anyone in position to call him into the office and deliver the grim news. This is why baseball playoffs are unwatchable as far as I'm concerned. Young Steinbrenner is essentially complaining that his Yankees aren't winning enough coin flips and behaving as if he's entitled to win coin flips. That's really what this all comes down to. Instead, he should be thanking his lucky stars that some 20 years ago, the Yankees were able to win three straight World Series titles. It was an incredible run of luck to be able to pull that off with expanded playoffs. I'm positive that with the current playoff format, the odds of a three-peat are so astonomically miniscule, no matter how great or dominant some team becomes - that I won't see a baseball three-peat under this format even if I live to be 250.

Here's some simple counting math. I counted all the head-to-head playoff series' since expanded playoffs were introduced (1994, but that was the strike year in which playoffs were canceled, so 1995) to determine how often the team with the better regular season record won its playoff series and how often the team with the lesser record won its playoff series. I ignored the one game do or die series', which were played from 2012 through 2019. Also, I ignored the entire 2020 post season as that was the Covid shortened season and regular season records consisted of only 60 games. So how'd they do? It's a goddamn coin flip, pretty much. The team with the better record won 51% of the series'. Which means, obviously, that the team with the lesser record won its series' 49% of the time. Teams with better record --- 97 series' won Teams with lesser record --- 91 series' won Maybe some other time, I'll break this down further, to see how teams with a three or four game edge, for example, did as compared to teams with, say, a five or six game edge. Of course, breaking down the series' into smaller groups will reduce the sample sizes for each group, so there's that to consider.

Edgy MD wrote: There'll never be a perfect solution to this. Even if there were no playoffs and the team with the best regular season record was simply crowned the champ, people would always disagree as to whether that team is truly the best. Especially if that team has the best record by only a game or three. Well, folks can disagree all they want, but it's a tough argument to say that calling somebody the better team after achieving the most in a 162-game test is less credible than calling somebody the better team after a three-game test — the principle being that a larger sample size provides for a more compelling experiment. I didn't say that it was "less credible". That would be an enormous understatement. I said that it wasn't credible at all. No mathematician in the world --well, no sane mathematician-- would ever conclude that a team that is one or three games better than the next over 162 games played is the better team and that luck or chance could be ruled out in explaining the one or three game advantage.* And this is so obvious given these particular numbers that I'd be willing to bet my life on this without even bothering to work out the math. This doesn't mean that the team with the better record isn't necessarily the best team, but that the numbers don't prove it out. But people hang their hats on W-L records and are ready to dismiss the 101-win Mets as chokers because they lost to an 89 win team in the playoffs. Fans see that 12 game difference that the Mets enjoyed over the Padres and imagine an enormous advantage for the Mets, probably because a team that wins its division by 12 games likely knows, in August, that it's gonna finish in first place -- and winds up clinching first place comfortably. And if the second place team finished 12 games out, you can only imagine how far back the rest of the division finished out. But here's the thing: the Mets didn't win 101 regular season games playing the Padres only. They also played bad teams. The dregs of baseball. They played as many bad teams as they played good teams. If they played the Padres exclusively all season long, it's virtually guaranteed that they would've won less than 101 games. So in a playoff series, the difference between the Mets and Padres --two good teams-- is much smaller than appears. And that's before accounting for luck, especially baseball luck which is more prevalent than say, basketball luck, and randomness and that they're only playing three games at most. In that setting, the Mets edge over the Padres, if there even was one, was tiny. Infinitesimal. This really is a series of coin flips. And the coin flipper can't control the outcome of a coin flip. So this is about as random as could be. *In math terms, this means that having a one or three game lead in the standings over 162 games played is statistically insignificant to reject the null hypothesis that the one or three game lead is random or due to luck or chance. In other words, there's not enough proof to declare to a high probability that the team with the best record is in fact, the best team.

Phillies. So I can read and watch moronic World Series takes about how the Astros choked and lack character all because they lost the WS despite having the better regular season record. All this after having read and watched moronic playoff takes all month long about how the teams with the better records lost to teams with lesser records. But we've been through this already.

Do teams have to take the players' and agents' word for the other offers they've received, or can they see the other teams' offers in writing? How does it work if Cohen says, "I'll match any team's offer, Jake"? Seems like a very difficult question to get a straight definitive answer on. Reminds me of an old post about Jack DiLauro. I think that agents can't fabricate imaginary offers. When I make that claim, I'm applying sound legal contract law principles. That kind of a lie is a material misrepresentation, and not trivial. It's a statement that can potentially impact the negotiation more powerfully than any other statement made. The misrepresentation goes right to the heart of the matter. In the real world, contract negotiators lie all of the time, even when they're not permitted to lie. Because they're usually lying under circumstances where they won't get caught. If I'm selling my house and you make an offer on the house, I might tell you that I've already received several offers that are 100 grand higher than yours even if none of that is true. I lied to you but you'll never catch me because how would you ever know about competing buyers.? And if push were to come to shove, I can always get my aunt or my best friend to say that they submitted an offer higher than yours. Negotiators lie often because they can get away with it. But the world of free agent negotiations is a tiny and insular world where everybody knows everybody. First of all, I'd assume that all negotiations that take place over the telephone are being recorded. Obviously, emails and text exchanges create their own permanent record. If an agent were to fabricate fake offers to leverage a negotiation, the owners would assert their legal rights to punish that agent for lying. They're not going to allow that environment to exist. It's not in their interests because lying like that, if permitted, would drive up salaries needlessly. They'd enforce their rights just like they've instituted luxury taxes, and an amateur draft, and limited free agency where players have to wait several years before they're eligible for free agency. All of these measures keep the owners' costs down, which increases their profits.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=111802 time=1666491310 user_id=68] When I wrote earlier that these negotiations are like a game of checkers, I meant that. I chose those words carefully. I think that contract negotiations have long ago, evolved to the point where the two sides get right to it because they know all the moves and counter-moves.

Edgy MD wrote: I think you get it. You just disagree with it. That's fine. What on Earth would I have to gain by pretending that I don't know what you're talking about? I'm opening myself up to the possibility that I'm not understanding something that is obvious and that I should understand. Which on this massively ego-driven forum where some posters wouldn't admit that they're ever wrong even if they have to stretch out a discussion for endless and endless posts, is not something I'd do for pretend.

When I wrote earlier that these negotiations are like a game of checkers, I meant that. I chose those words carefully. I think that contract negotiations have long ago, evolved to the point where the two sides get right to it because they know all the moves and counter-moves. Agent: The Giants offered 3 years for a total of $75M. Can you do four years? Team: I might be able to go four years, but I'm not sure I can do 4 years at $100M. How about four years at $85M? Agent: No. We need 4/100. Team: We weren't really planning for four years so let me get back to to you on that. But to make things clear, we're not dropping out. We're still interested.

It's lame because I told you that I don't get your point. But you choose not to explain. Maybe you've had a change of heart on your position but you'd rather not admit that. Who knows? If an agent can't fabricate fake offers to the team, then the agent's only other alternative, if asked to disclose the top offer is to not disclose that top offer. I don't know how that helps the client. If I was the team and the agent told me that (s)he would prefer not to disclose the top offer received, I'd tell the agent that I'm interested in signing their client and that they should get back to me when they have a serious offer from some other team that they're considering accepting because I might top it. What's the agent gonna do then? Spite the team by not getting back to them? That's not in the client's interest and probably constitutes actionable malpractice.

Lame.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52446807286_d6c234f7fb_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]ckgGUhCuEJI[/media] [media=youtube]puJt66y0TBw[/media] [media=youtube]Dj0drevGOgA[/media]

Edgy MD wrote: A reason they wouldn't present written offers is that they would thereafter be expected to, and they couldn't bluff. Or puff. Of help a story get in the papers that the Rockies are looking to go big on their client and are believed to already have a significant offer on the table. I'm not getting this. Nothing prevents an agent from puffing. And I dont know what kind of bluffing you're referring to. I dont think contract negotiations are complicated. They've been done so often and for so long that the two sides probably do them by script. Only the terms change. If I was negotiating for the team, my first two questions would be "What's it gonna take to sign your client?' and "What's the largest offer you've received?' The agent could puff all he wants to on the first question but cant lie on the second. These contract talks are way more transparent than you are suggesting. The way the owners see it, MLB is theirs and the players work for them, right or wrong. It's their billions. They paid for the teams, the stadiums and the infrastructure. They're not gonna permit an environment to exist where agents can bullshit them with fake offers to leverage contract talks.

Edgy MD wrote: Do you really think they present written offers they've gotten from other teams? Maybe, but that doesn't seem like the way its done to me. I do. Why would they not? It's to their clients' advantage if that offer from some other team is higher than the offer from the team they're negotiating with. And the agent doesn't have to disclose the precise offer amount, but just that it's higher. This choice of tactic -- whether or not to disclose the precise offer amount -- would be determined on a case by case basis depending on the contract, the player involved, and the number and identity of the teams interested, etc. What happens when a team says: "Look, I want player x. I'll pay top dollar but I'm not gonna outbid the highest bidder by a lot more than I have to. So what's the top offer you received? Also, many, if not most sports agents are also lawyers. If they're lawyers, or giving out legal advice, they're also regulated by lawyers' ethical codes of conduct. In every contract negotiation, there is the legal requirement to negotiate in good faith. There's a distinction between "puffing" - e.g., "My client is better than Mike Schmidt", which is permissible even if that client is about as good as Roy Staiger was, and outright lying factually -- "The Yankees offered three years at $33M a year" when that isn't true. Eventually, all the facts will be known, and I suspect that an agent would face legal consequences for knowingly fabricating false competing offers to increase some other team's offer. Not to mention that the agent might get blacklisted by the league itself. I don't know any of this for sure, but this all sounds right to me. But to get back to the original point: Edgy MD wrote: A lot of gamesmanship is at play, and an agent kind of has the right to bluff. I don't think the agent is permitted to knowingly invent or fabricate competing offers. Nobody's being taken of advantage of. The owners are billionaires and they're brutal and ruthless. That's how they get to stay where they are in the first place. Their negotiators are extremely knowledgeable and experienced and negotiate contracts at the very highest levels. It's like playing a high stakes games of checkers -- checkers, not chess -- checkers because both sides know all the moves. Nobody's getting bluffed out.

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, matching an offer is usually an act of faith. I imagine a front office can call their colleagues at the other team to try to confirm. But (a) that other team has motivation to be cagey also, and ( that could amount to collusion, so I would guess that doesn't happen too often. A lot of gamesmanship is at play, and an agent kind of has the right to bluff. I dunno. Agents are regulated. There's a code of ethics and state and federal statutes that apply to their conduct. It's definitely not a free for all anything goes.

I hope that this doesn't mean that they are "all in" for '23 to the extent that they will do anything to get Jake but Bochy wouldn't come out of retirement for a rebuild. My guess is that the Mets won't be outbid for deGrom and that the Mets would be willing to match any other team's offer if they are outbid. If deGrom signs elsewhere, I'll be for reasons other than money. I've bought into the rumor that deGrom would rather play in a city that he finds more comfortable than NYC.

I think that the best solution is to simply understand that the playoffs winner, especially an expanded playoffs winner isn't necessarily the best team in the respective sport. But as simple as that idea sounds, it'd be a difficult idea to truly set in given how the notion of best team as the playoff champ is so deeply embedded in the collective mindset. There'll never be a perfect solution to this. Even if there were no playoffs and the team with the best regular season record was simply crowned the champ, people would always disagree as to whether that team is truly the best. Especially if that team has the best record by only a game or three.

Hah. The Mets moved Edgardo Alfonzo over to third base to accomodate Carlos Baerga, who turned out to be a big bust. Ironically, a key part of the Mets turnaround in 1999 included Alfonzo moving back to second base right after the Mets let Baerga walk in free agency. Alfonzo's return to second base allowed the Mets to sign third baseman Robin Ventura. For 1999, the Mets essentially swapped Baerga for Ventura. Baerga pretty much sucked for the rest of his career. So maybe, Indian GM John Hart really did know something about Baerga that the Mets never figured out, or figured out when it was too late.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: I just want to repeat: If anyone can think of any events from Mets history that should be included, please let me know. This is great. Bruce Stark cartoons. I loved those. Because you asked for it: http://leaptoad.com/mets/clipping.php?filename=00315.jpgFacing Up to It http://leaptoad.com/mets/clipping.php?filename=00316.jpgOur Gang This is great. There was some other illustrator who drew Mets sports cartoons for the Daily News in the mid-60s. Fella by the name of Springer. Frank Springer. Whoever that was. (Check out the July 29, 1964 Daily News, for example). Did some Batman covers, too, among lotsa other stuff. [FIMG=666]https://p1.liveauctioneers.com/6586/247886/128533471_1_x.jpg?quality=80&version=1652215967[/FIMG]

This would be a non-starter with MLB. There aren't enough "Game Sevens", where the winning team advances and the loser is eliminated. Those "do or die for both teams" games are the biggest draws and yes, I know that that could also be a game five or a game three, too. Also, following this playoff system requires a larger commitment, probably more than the casual fan is willing to give. And if the main goal is to reduce playoff upsets, I'm not so sure this system will accomplish that. There's just too much luck in baseball, and there's no way to get around teams with better records losing to teams with lesser records more than is tolerable in short series' so long as the opposing teams are both good teams to begin with and then playing few games against each other. Even the old pre-1969 system didn't guarantee that the WS winner would be baseball's best team because the WS and in fact the entire playoffs consisted of no more than seven games. But at least back then, the WS was limited to elite teams, ensuring that a top team would capture the crown. Playoff baseball doesn't establish much beyond who won the few games played. And that's fine but it's just that people want to read much more into this than is really there and then they go ballistic when their expected narratives don't pan out or when their 100 win team loses to an 89 win team, even if that 100 win team only lost two out of three instead of 40 out of 50.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I just want to repeat: If anyone can think of any events from Mets history that should be included, please let me know. This is great. Bruce Stark cartoons. I loved those. Do you have access to the old New York World-Telegram? (If such a database even exists). If so, you could reprint Willard Mullin's cartoons. That'd be awesome.