batmagadanleadoff

=roger_that post_id=190325 time=1745278803 user_id=128] I think a lot of Mets fans (not necessarily you) are frustrated with Baty's performance in the major leagues so far (I am too) and are angry with him over it. (I am not.) They feel he has cheated them, teased them with stellar AAA numbers, deceived them with spectacular spring trainings, and then let them down by failing to deliver on his promise in the bigs.

Rally Guy is at the Game. Call the FBI! Call Kristi "Before/After" Noem. Nab that guy and watch the world's sex-trafficking problems go away.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Serizez like this one are why I wish 1st place was something worth fighting for again. I feel like the David Stearns Mets are indifferent to 1st place--it made absolutely no difference that the Phillies had such a great regular season last year to get punked by a third place team that didn't get 10 games over 500 till mid-august. Because MLB is now a total shitshow.

Baty's a lifetime .214 hitter, ferchrissakes. He's not even hitting that much, this season. But yeah, there's no downside to Baty hitting .200 over another two or three or four hundred plate appearances this season. Maybe the Mets should also look to trade Pete Alonso for another first baseman who hits major league pitching like Baty does. No downside there, either. And think of all the money the Mets'd save.

=Like I said, Lefty post_id=190306 time=1745259404 user_id=128] Your answer seems to be that he's not good enough to hit major league pitching, just good enough to kill AAA pitching. There are very few hitters (I can't think of any, offhand) who fit that description.

=Like I said, Lefty, post_id=190258 time=1745193574 user_id=128] What exactly is the downside of giving Baty a few hundred more ABs? Possibly stunting Danny Young's career?

=Like I said, Lefty post_id=190293 time=1745250216 user_id=128] I think there's a direct correlation between hitting at AAA and hitting at the MLB level, and that 99% of the difference, when there's one, is sample size, luck, streakiness, and luck. Also luck.

To take Lefty's comparison of him and Vientos, let's look at their minor league records: Also, Baty outhomered Vientos by six in T-Ball. You left that out. Why don't you compare their Major League stats? Vientos - 1.9 bWAR; Baty - (-0.9) bWAR You left that out, too. But you didn't ask anybody whether or not they think that Baty will turn out to be the next Roberto Clemente or the next Al Kaline or the next (Gasp!) Willie Mays. Was that your point? You asked whether or not Baty should be demoted to AAA. Ever hear of Tucker Ashford? Lou Klimchock? You should. They were one-time Mets. And some of the best similarity score comps for Baty. Brent Morel? He's the highest similarity score comp for Baty. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morelbr01.shtmlhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/morelbr01.shtml Wanna know who Vientos's top two similarity score comps are through his age 24 season? Frank Thomas and Jose Cruz. Minor Leagues. Most major leaguers excel in the minors. And most of them have careers closer to Ashford than to Thomas and Cruz. Ever heard of The Peter Principle*? It applies to just about every single baseball player who reached AAA. Brett Baty is on a major league roster right now because he had a good run in AAA and then in Spring Training. He was never any good in the majors. To put it frankly, he's been horseshit and a total drag on the team for his entire Major League career. And I'm acknowledging his fabulous debut at-bat where he hit a HR. What's the harm in keeping Baty on the MLB roster? Because he's a liability. The more he plays, the more he hurts the Mets. Already this season, his bWAR is in negative territory (-0.2). We're still in April. He's never had a positive bWAR in the four years he's been in the majors. That's the harm. He's killing the Mets. The Mets are winning in spite of Brett Baty. _____________ * The Peter Principle is the concept that in hierarchical organizations, employees are often promoted to positions beyond their capabilities, eventually reaching a level where they are no longer competent. This happens because people are often promoted for their performance in their current role, rather than their suitability for a higher role.

And Al Kaline began his career 2-for-13, both singles. Mays started out 1-for-26. Your point? Baty started his career with a .215 average through 591 at-bats. Small samples are cute novelties but are largely meaningless; Baty's career is beyond "small sample" territory and is now in "established pattern" territory. It's not just Baty's 591 AB's. Based on historical data from hundreds, if not thousands of previous prospects, the odds are now stacked heavily against Baty ever becoming a star. This is now his 4th season in the bigs. I'm not ruling anything out but prospects that continue to struggle like Baty has after this many years in the majors hardly ever reach their ceilings.

=roger_that post_id=190246 time=1745188914 user_id=128] And Al Kaline began his career 2-for-13, both singles. Mays started out 1-for-26. Your point?

=Cowtipper post_id=190227 time=1745180865 user_id=166] Based on the past few games, the Mets are on pace to win every game for the rest of the year.

Is there a writer of fiction who would try getting away with naming a character "Nootbar"? Yes.

=kcmets post_id=190052 time=1745078785 user_id=53] Senga sporting a 1.06 ERA. No snarky small-sample-size responses needed.

The original Rusty's was on the NE corner of Third Avenue and East 73rd Street. When that Rusty's closed, the space was taken over by E.J.'s Luncheonette, which is still there, some almost 35 years later. There's an old episode of The White Shadow filmed on location on the Upper East Side in the vicinity of the original Rusty's. ICoach Reeves was filmed walking north on Third Avenue. I think that the restaurant might've appeared in the bqckground.

=roger_that post_id=190121 time=1745106269 user_id=128] OK, now we're on track for slightly better than 105 wins (13-7 = .650 = 105-57)

Well, that's the other issue. What does the OP mean by "realistic"? Possible? Plausible? Likely? What?

At their current rate, the Mets will go 102-60. (Or a little better, but that's how it rounds off.) Realistic? You tell me. On track? The Mets are winning 63.1% of their games. If they continue to win 63.1% of their games, and get to play 162 games, they will finish with a 102-60 record. So yes, the Mets are on track to win 63.1% of their games. By the same logic, Aaron Judge is on track to bat .400. Tyler Soderstrom is on track to hit 77 HRs this season. The Padres are on track to win 128 regular season games. And I'm on track to eat lasagna every single day for the rest of my life, having eaten lasagna for dinner last night. But please check out this year's crop of NFL prospects for further proof. https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34337https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34337

You tell me. If you're gonna order us around, which you always do, you need to say "Simon sez". You didn't say "Simon Sez". The rest of this post is even dumber than the driving school in the Bronx post.

Darling and Shamsky. Kranepool and Swoboda. Close. Real close. [FIMG=444]https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguNQybWxK63rvTE7z3wY0k5kkOqOSx1eE6w27G8ShoEo5wQy1shjP2Ilwc89Mleg7dEkqV9oZMmiUBrguXkiSj159sZxmF81Vy1SosH66-bqAttKUk3e8QIx3pP4lQT9vR0kRlQzBzwKIg7TBlW-OxI6xWfbesaAWH1vV-lzGU_64LeEXjtyyvFlHE6kEm/s920/the%20dugout.JPG[/FIMG]

=stevejrogers post_id=189917 time=1744921360 user_id=57] ... the only Met employees in the 63-year history of the franchise I'd say deserves such an honor would be Casey Stengel and Willie Mays.

I also went to The Dugout when I was a kid. I made sure to touch the door knob to Kranepool's office, knowing for sure that Kranepool also touched it. I was thrilled. And delighted. Thrilled and delighted. So thrilled and delighted that I haven't washed my right hand ever since.

Why would anybody be "offended"? Is that the right word?

Jorge Lopez, released by the Mets last season after throwing his glove into the stands following a Mets loss was suspended by MLB for throwing at several Pirates and insitigating one of those baseball scenes where all of the players clear their benches to slow-trot onto the field and stare at each other for a bit and then probably trade recommendations about where to get the best chili in town. [media=youtube]ehyFBlpWcSI[/media]

=Fman99 post_id=189895 time=1744894378 user_id=86] First back to back losses this season. Had to happen eventually I guess. Much like the road trip that started the season the Mets went 3-3. So if you're splitting series on the road and winning them at home then you're in good shape. First place Mets come home today for 7 games against STL (four) and then Philly (3). I'd like to see them win both series and go 5-2 here.

I won't be doing this too much more often. So long as MLB teams continue to play games -- 162 games in all for each team -- those small sample sizes eventually won't be so small. But now is a good time to check in on the best and worst MLB records. The teams with the best records have played exactly 17 games as of this writing and youse know what 17 games constitutes: It's the exact number of games an NFL team plays in its regular season. So here goes. The last figure represents each team's projected final WL record based on their current WL rates, respectively. SD Padres 14-3 (.824) (133-29) SF Giants 12-5 (.706) (114-48) ______ Col Rockies 3-13 (.188) (30-132) Chi White Sox 4-12 (.250) (41-121) Make of this what you will. From these baseball records, it looks like this year's NFL prospects are extremely good. And also extremely bad. I have no idea what this portends for the KC Chiefs in their first four games, though. But it definitely means something. One team will shatter the record for most baseball wins in a season and another team is gonna shatter the '62 Mets WL record for futility -- all in the same season. So something, something, something KC Chiefs. This all reminds me of something else: yes, it's true that once in a while, the NFL teams with the best regular season records have winning percentages over .800. But just the same, the worst NFL teams have winning percentages under. 200. How do you explain that? Bad NFL prospects? Because the NY Jets never start out 4-0?