batmagadanleadoff

It's not even really a stat. And it's not an individual thing anyway, it's event-driven, and it's a team measurement. So then why the WPA's for individual players? And is your comment even true? The total or team WPA in a specific game for the winning team should be one (1), no? And the total or team WPA in a specific game for the losing team should be zero (0), correct? So if WPA is a team stat, (which by the way, I've never seen) what would even be the point? Couldn't you just take a look at the team's overall W-L record to get the same info that team WPA for the season supposedly gives? Obviously teams are more likely to win when they drive in a run from second than they are when they hit that double to begin with. Except that there'd be no run without that "double to begin with". The batter that drove in the run couldn't have possibly done so without some previous batter getting on second base in the first place. Two consecutive batters lead off an inning by each hitting ground rule doubles to produce a run. Check out their WPA's for those specific at-bats. The second batters' WPA is significantly - no, tremendously - higher. But the two batters did the exact same thing and each double was as equally valuable as the other -- not an iota more nor an iota less. Another batter singles and on that single, the runner on first uses his extraordinary speed and baserunning skills to reach third base. The extra base taken by the baserunner is all on the runner. In fact, almost no other runner in all of MLB would have been able to get to third base on that particular batted ball. Yet WPA credits all of the so-called statistical gain from that extra base to the batter and none to the player already on base when the ball was struck.

=smg58 post_id=103239 time=1660100043 user_id=62] Diaz had 3.5 WAR (going by Fangraphs) in his great season in 2018, and he probably won't top that this year (he's at 2.3 WAR). Five Mets position players and one pitcher (Scherzer, despite the injury) rank higher. I don't think you can make a realistic MVP case for him. As for Cy, I'm not categorically against awarding relievers but they not only have to be exceptional, there can't be a really deserving starting pitcher. And Alcantara is deserving, at least as of now.

I'm with Kurkjian. Only if they shouldn't be winning those awards, they shouldn't be finishing in second place, either.

Updates for a rain delay: [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52275606294_6c36a9625b_h.jpg[/FIMG]

It has to be states? (Not complainin', just asking).

=seawolf17 post_id=103145 time=1660071145 user_id=91] I mean, hey. You want your leadoff guy to lead the team in OBP. I like it a lot.

Like everybody else, I thought deGrom was losing stamina at the end of his last start. He seemed to struggle to retire the last out he recorded, needing close to 10 pitches to finally strikeout that batter before he he then gave up a walk and a HR. Bur deGrom said he felt fine at the end and wasn't running out of gas. Jake attributed the walk and HR allowed to mental mistakes he made.

=ashie62 post_id=103116 time=1660059146 user_id=90] =Gwreck post_id=103071 time=1660024807 user_id=56] It's not too early. This is the best Mets team in more than 35 years, and has a real chance to be the best-ever Mets team. Start the countdown. The postseason is happening.

Great reporting there [on Luis Hernandez]. And while you're on the mend, maybe you can give us another in depth write-up on our next fringe Met -- Joaquin Arias -- conjured up by your own last post. Just 30 Mets AB's, all in 2010, Arias was a midle infielder who didn't do much of anything. He was the player to be named later that the Rangers got from the Yankees when they sent A-Rod and his gazillion dollar salary to the Bronx. Arias is featured on Typewriter's 2010 Rock and Roll set because, natch, that was the set for the 2010 Mets. Whachyouse got on Arias? [FIMG=400]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52152484426_e958841b9b_h.jpg[/FIMG]

=stevejrogers post_id=103094 time=1660051681 user_id=57] Hey, a Brian Ostrosser sighting! SteveJRogers Sep 05 2007 03:49 PM Interesting and useless tidbit: Bobby Ojeda of course was injured for the 1988 postseason, and my copy of the 1973 NLCS program (IIRC its the Mets one, not the Reds) does list Brian Ostrosser as #19 even though he was no where near the postseason roster. My guess is he, along with John Strohmayer were just called up in August and would have been possiblities if there was an injury or two late.

We're updating our Rock and Roll Part 2 total Mets set. Ol' Jake wasn't eligible for inclusion in the base set, having not pitched a single inning by the time that set went to press. You gots to play you're way into the sets. Which Jake definitely did, this week. NL PLayer of the Week, maybe? The Sky's the limit with Jake. [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52325293346_75b25e882c_h.jpg[/FIMG]

But I could, just the same, take it in a somewhat more easterly direction. Hard to pass over that kind of Egg. He should be holding a copy of "The Great Gatsby" with all of this west and east eggs talk.

=roger_that post_id=102875 time=1659923266 user_id=128] Seems to me that once you accumulate 1000 or so prospect/years, you can draw some general conclusions as to the actual value of your #1 prospect, your # 20 prospect and so on, and I'd be astonished if MLB teams didn't use such yardsticks in their considerations when faced with trading prospects for major leaguers and vice versa.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52267085987_63794b02d6_h.jpg[/FIMG] Some would call this an Easter egg. I think of it as a Wester egg. But I could, just the same, take it in a somewhat more easterly direction. [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52272052161_d2f92baa93_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Spencer Strider took his loss like a professional even though he is a rookie, saluted the Mets, said that he is sorry he let his teammates down, and he hopes to pitch better the next time he faces the Mets. JUST KIDDING! https://twitter.com/JustinCToscano/status/1556436160783818757 Yeah. We'll see. Jake deGrom retires the first 17 batters he faces, 12 on strikeouts. He also threw the fastest slider ever recorded. Twice. I guess all of that was also fluky.

The first two sliders Jake threw today were clocked at just under 96 MPH - the hardest thrown sliders ever clocked by Statcast.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52267085987_63794b02d6_h.jpg[/FIMG] Some would call this an Easter egg. I think of it as a Wester egg. Good one. Touche. (It's supposed to rhyme with "To Shea". It'd be obvious if I could put an accent mark over the e but I've already spent about 15 minutes trying to figure out how to type the e with the accent mark. The unicode is U00E9 but I can't get it to go. So I owe you an accent mark. I can type a section mark --§ -- or a paragraph mark --¶ . But that e with the accent has me stumped.)

We're busy bees over here at TCG what with the flurry of new Mets arriving at the trading deadline. We like trades. Because more trades means more cards. And more cards means more money for us and our overlords over at Plasticine Industries. We've started our update set for the new 2022 Mets. And we'll have alternate cards for some of the other Mets who appeared in the base set. Plus extras. And surprises. So go out and buy those packs of cards. You might even get a golden ticket and win a one-of-a-kind trading card featuring Led Zeppelin's private reunion concert held at our offices earlier this year. Here's a sneak peek at some of our updates. [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52268536595_f123013503_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52323832860_d8337446e4_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52267085987_63794b02d6_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=102445 time=1659718324 user_id=68]You're against trades. ... . I can represent my positions perfectly fine.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Duh! Head slap! I knew that! If he was a six-year Met, fans would probably be demanding a statue of Carter in front of Citi Field.

=Ceetar post_id=102283 time=1659642082 user_id=102] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=102277 time=1659640721 user_id=68] =Ceetar post_id=102273 time=1659640077 user_id=102] why are you confident?

Carter was only a five-year Met (1985-1989).

Edgy MD wrote: =metsmarathon post_id=102426 time=1659710761 user_id=83] my god, we went from second-likeliest team to win the world series all the way down to.... second most likely team to win the world series. holy fuck, what a disaster. the astros added a 1b/of/dh, a catcher, and a reliever, - two of those players were ones the mets were thought to be in the running for - and their chances of winning the world series dropped nearly as much as ours! The dodgers chances of winning it all dropped a full 3.1%! what utter shit management they have, amirite? do they even know what they're doing in LA? Here's marathon backing up a position with data and facts. It's not that much to ask.

Fuck Aerosmith.

Edgy MD wrote: Really annoying. Youssa say, "And your untouchable future superstar could be Shawn Abner or Billy Beane. Which is much likelier." Then meesa say, "You're going to have to show me your work." And then youssa all, "What's the difference?" Real cool-like. And meesa all, "The difference is that a statement of fact has weight when backed by evidence." Just dorky as shit, but meesa am what meesa am! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Meesa think it's an easy enough narrative to follow. Or youssa can just write things about how intransigent meesa am. Or youssa can make it about Rey Ordóñez. That's fine. But it's just changing the subject to other things youssa won't back up. It's certainly not going to convince meesa that the value of deadline acquisitions are generally more likely (much more likely) to benefit the contending team making the acquisitions than the players they trade would have. You'd like for me to back up the value of making baseball trades? Is that even possible? It's like a Rorschach test. Or interpreting the bible. You can twist it and bend it to prove anything or make it mean anything. It would be a totally nebulous and pointless exercise. Take, for example, the Amos Otis for Joe Foy trade. It was a horrible trade, right? So what? What's the point? That the Mets should never make a trade ever again because of how bad the Otis trade went? Would that be your point? Or something like that? And that's assuming the Otis trade was bad. Because it wasn't. I could say it was a fucking great trade. I could. If I was rooting for the Royals. Because every trade that's good might also be just as bad. It depends on your perspective. What the Otis trade really was was a disproportionately lopsided trade. An unusually lopsided trade. But no matter what it was, is that supposed to be a lesson to never make a trade ever again, or at least, never to trade young players who've had limited playing time? Is that what you're getting at. That past trades might justify present day trades and it's on me to prove some point using that methodology? That you're generally against the Mets making any trade, especially of home-grown Mets draftees is indisputable. You're emotionally attached to those Mets and the proof is all over this forum, going back decades. And if I were to dig out some of those posts, which I have no intention of doing, you'd still find some way to wiggle out of admitting the point. And there's nothing wrong with that attitude. You're entitled. You're trade averse unless the trade seems so lopsidedly in the Mets favor that there's almost no risk involved. That's the trade you're confy with. Like Ownbey for Keith. I'm not sure what Ordonez has to do with this conversation. I did bring him up earlier, but it had nothing to do with weighing the value of trades.