batmagadanleadoff

That scoreboard thingy widget whatchamacallit that the Mets are using this year in the corner of the screen is terrific. You could read all the info easily and with clarity.

Personally, I think that every major leaguer should have to wear a Jackie Robinson mask on April 15 and also be required to change their first names to "Jackie Robinson ". As in Jackie Robinson Vientos and Jackie Robinson Alonso.

Seeing this in the baseball passings thread was a shocker when I scrolled down through the thread, until I saw the text above the picture. Mets get their own death threads.

And Joe Morgan wasn't the only breakout superstar and future Hall of Famer to be traded after the 1971 season. [FIMG=333]https://i.psacard.com/cardfacts/1972-topps-595-nolan-ryan-36566.jpg?h=1000[/FIMG]

Tommy Helms, 1966 NL Rookie of the Year for the Cincinnati Reds; included in the important multi-player Reds-Astros trade after the 1971 season that allowed the Reds to essentially replace Helms with breakout superstar and future Hall of Famer Joe Morgan. Was a featured interviewee in HBO's recent multi-part documentary on Pete Rose. [FIMG=333]https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgP-LZiaPF8civHojz5FcRR69YT0rwC_k7CnOtK5hSCPGJL8ayKuPyuMK5vAIGO-jhw0X4jmuQQAUmRIGLhCRSIAdsbP2SRIXh6hscDNMAIdCzpQmtnEEAz9rrOtUlxk1jBQWHbWUvO_ig/s1600/1967+Tommy+Helms+%2528f%2529.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=333]https://live.staticflickr.com/1738/40733950160_67123a676e_b.jpg[/FIMG]

Better late than never. Who knows when the Mets will play another game in Sacramento? [media=youtube]iwV-TMBPP48[/media]

And the Rockies lose again. They're now 3-12 (.200) and on pace to lose 130 games. On pace? Did I just say "on pace"? My bad. I shoulda said that the Rockies will lose 130 games this season. That's how good the NFL prospects are this year. Oh, and those pesky KC Chiefs. There's a lot you can learn from 15 games.

What We've Learned From the First Two Weeks of the 2025 MLB Season Excerpt: Year after year, the fact remains: Nothing makes baseball fans happier than overreacting to small-sample baseball before the season gets into full gear. [***] Everyone in baseball has played at least 12 games now. What have we learned, both on and off the diamond, that could mean something for the rest of the upcoming season? Here are the seven biggest MLB takeaways from the beginning of the season. [***] Pitching was supposed to be the Mets' weakness … right? The Mets have the lowest ERA in all of baseball. It would be easy to dismiss this because they faced the Marlins six times in 12 games, but Miami is actually the only team to score more than three runs on the Mets all season. Even better, the Marlins did it five times! Most expected New York's bullpen to perform well this season, but no one would have predicted that the starting rotation would also feature the lowest ERA in the sport. Even if your response is “But it's only 12 games,” it's notable because the rotation was supposed to be a major point of uncertainty after injuries to Sean Manaea and Frankie Montas in spring training. Starter Griffin Canning and reliever Max Kranick look like classic David Stearns diamond-in-the-rough finds. Tylor Megill's durability has always been in question, but for right now, he is healthy and pitching well. Meanwhile, Kodai Senga still has the highest ceiling on the team's staff. The biggest question right now is whether or not the pitchers can keep the walks down. All of the Mets starters have had their share of command problems. It hasn't caught up with them yet, because the Mets have the second-highest left-on-base rate in the league, but if the Mets keep giving out so many free passes, it will become a real weakness and runs will be scored in bunches. New York ranks 29th in location+, an advanced pitching metric that assesses pitchers' command. The most encouraging aspect of the Mets' start is that their offense ranks 20th in wRC+, and yet the team is 8-4 because of the pitching. https://www.theringer.com/2025/04/11/mlb/what-weve-learned-from-the-first-two-weeks-of-the-2025-mlb-season?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-ushttps://www.theringer.com/2025/04/11/mlb/what-weve-learned-from-the-first-two-weeks-of-the-2025-mlb-season?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=189588 time=1744577015 user_id=68] Time to check in on MLB's best 2025 WL records, so far. SD Padres 12-3 .800 SF Giants 11-4 .733 LA Dodgers 11-5 .688 Looks like three teams are gonna win at least 110 games this season. The Pods are on pace to win 130. Wanna know why? Because this year, the young'uns are awesome. Bobby Witt and Paul Skenes already look like Hall of Famers, so naturally, the Pads are gonna win 130 games. It couldn't possibly be because teams have played just a tiny sliver of a molecule of games. Chiefs and prospects.

Time to check in on MLB's best 2025 WL records, so far. SD Padres 12-3 .800 SF Giants 11-4 .733 LA Dodgers 11-5 .688 Looks like three teams are gonna win at least 110 games this season. The Pods are on pace to win 130. Wanna know why? Because this year, the young'uns are awesome. Bobby Witt and Paul Skenes already look like Hall of Famers, so naturally, the Pads are gonna win 130 games. It couldn't possibly be because teams have played just a tiny sliver of a molecule of games. Chiefs and prospects.

Oh my god! Such grand talk after all of 20 at-bats. It's probably the terrible quality of baseball prospects. Or maybe that the KC Chiefs haven't started a season with four straight losses since god knows when. Siri'll probably bat .050 for the rest of his life. I can tell because he already had 20 at-bats this season.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Wilmer still has those quick hands and smooth swing Wilmer hit his 6th HR of the season today. That's six HRs in 14 Giants games. Wilmer is on pace to hit 69 HRs this season. He'll do it, for sure, because MLB's prospects are that good. And also, because the last time the KC Chiefs lost their first four regular season games was in 2009, 16 years ago. Wilmer's blazing start has nothing to do with sample size. He'll surely continue to hit six HRs every 14 games played by the Giants. Whatever Wilmer can do over 17 at-bats, he can surely do over 2,500 at-bats. Because what's the difference between 17 at-bats and 2,500 at-bats? I'll tell you: Nothing but the prospects. Baseball prospects. Football prospects. Probably tennis prospects, too. Also because there's no luck at all in football. None whatsoever. If there was any luck in football, even a teeny, tiny microscopic shred of luck, the KC Chiefs would never win a game. And that's why Wilmer will probably hit 100 HRs this season.

Pete Alonso is leading the NL in BA, SLG, OPS, OPS+ and RBIs.

It's the sample size. Nothing but the sample size. I checked out the MLB standings for the last five seasons as of April 19th. Here are the best records: 4/19/2019 TB Rays - 14-6 .700 4/19/2020 No games - Covid-19 4/19/2021 LA Dodgers - 13-4 .765 4/19/2022 NY Mets 9-3 .750 LA Dodgers 8-3 .727 Col Rockies 8-3 .727 4/19/2023 TB Rays - 16-3 .842 Atl Braves 14-5 .737 Mil Brewers 14-5 .737 4/19/2024 Atl Braves 13-5 .727 With a small sample size, the best MLB WL percentages are well over .700 and some, closer to .800; in one case, well over .800. It's because they've played few games. Small sample sizes are unreliable because they yield extreme data. It's the sample size. Not the quality of the prospects, or luck or randomness or anything else other than the small sample size of games. Note that none of the teams listed above came even remotely close to maintaining their April 19 WL rates over the course of the entire baseball season.

=stevejrogers post_id=189429 time=1744398654 user_id=57] If postseason counts, 2 games for Baltimore's Memorial Stadium

Small sample sizes produce extreme statistics. Not only on the high end, but on the low end. The smaller the schedule of games played, the more extreme the winning percentages. If the NFL played a three game schedule, not only would you have undefeated teams, but you'd, just the same, have winless teams. What would you then say about the abundance of winless teams? That the NFL prospects are bad? It's the sample size.

=MFS62 post_id=189422 time=1744396704 user_id=60] In all the sports mentioned, the teams with the worst records get to draft earlier than the teams with better records. And I all of those sports, there are only so may top tier prospects each year. So that is the only direct relationship I can see between a winning record and the potential for prospect success. Other factors, such as the quality of scouting, player development, coaching and injuries IMO have greater impact on whether a given player will be successful.. Later

=Centerfield post_id=189410 time=1744394223 user_id=65] This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you. I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this. As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there. But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought. But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all.

=Centerfield post_id=189410 time=1744394223 user_id=65] As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips.

This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you. I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this. As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there. But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought. But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all. No. You're not the one who brought up "prospects". And I wasn't addressing you when I challenged the "prospects" theory. But I dismissed your post-season chart because it had nothing to do with what I was writing. You inserted yourself into a disagreement I was having with Edgy, not with you (nothing wrong with that, you're always welcome) but then began to inject irrelevant data and ideas into the disagreement. And this is all about sample size. And another thing: every pro was once a prospect. So if NFL prospects are supposed to be better, then that means that NFL players collectively are better than MLB players and that's why the best NFL teams have .800 winning percentages. Just crazy talk. They have .800 winning percentage because they play 17 games. If they could play 100 game seasons, or 162 game seasons, they wouldn't come even remotely close to having .800 winning percentages.

This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you. I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this. As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there. But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought. But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all. No. You're not the one who brought up "prospects". And I wasn't addressing you when I challenged the "prospects" theory. But I dismissed your post-season chart because it had nothing to do with what I was writing. You inserted yourself into a disagreement I was having with Edgy, not with you (nothing wrong with that, you're always welcome) but then began to inject irrelevant data and theories into the disagreement. And this is all about sample size.

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=189402 time=1744392528 user_id=119] Forbes Field in Pittsburgh. Was there for eight seasons when Mets played, fewer teams in the NL. No interleague play.

London Stadium, UK - least.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Progressive Field - least I have no idea what stadium that is. Stupid corporate names. Tokyo Dome - least. And that stadium in Monterey, Mexico, where the Padres demolished the Mets about 30 years ago - least. [FIMG=344]https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/yKcAAOSwm9dgKEHr/s-l1600.jpg[/FIMG]

Memorial Stadium in Baltmore - least. Just two games played there, in October of 1969.