batmagadanleadoff

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It seems weird that they would base this on anything to do with the 2019 Mets, or even the 2020 Mets. The Mets playoff odds are being hurt because of guys like Steven Matz, Michael Wacha, and Rick Porcello? That's the first thing I thought of as soon as I read DJ's post. I can't come up with a single reason for using that methodology. I figured that what the most sophisticated prognostications were doing was to project each individual player's season before the season started and base their playoff odds on that data.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: It seems weird that they would base this on anything to do with the 2019 Mets, or even the 2020 Mets. The Mets playoff odds are being hurt because of guys like Steven Matz, Michael Wacha, and Rick Porcello? That's the first thing I thought of as soon as I read DJ's post. I can't come up with a single reason for using that methodology.

it's absolutely a cat and mouse game, shifting, and on so many levels. guys try to make adjustments, swing later, etc. Or the league selects for power, which I guess ties into some of the arguments. I know some are always like "hit/bunt it the other way! Or have more players that use the whole field!" instead baseball selected for guys that hit it OVER the shift, because that value is much greater, and if converting more soft hits to outs than before, it makes the difference between putting the ball in play and striking out even smaller. Arguably some of the solution is to have 4 outfielders. Austin Meadows hits it in the air 56.5% of the time. I bet you could cover most of the spots on the infield he's gonna hit it with 3 guys. As for deGrom. The Mets are clearly shifting more in general. They've shifted on 82/111 lefty PA and 37/112 righty ones. They're looking at _something_. [FIMG=444]http://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/download/file.php?id=4[/FIMG] This is 2019-2021. There's no reason to ever play deGrom up the middle. These charts don't advance this conversation much. Youse are forgetting that shifts are determined on a case by case basis ... on a batter by batter basis ... not based on how the league as a whole hits against a certain pitcher. Teams will shift against a batter because he tends to hit a disproportionately high number of batted balls to a concentrated area. It's easier to predict where that kind of batter will hit the ball so it makes sense to shift more fielders where his batted balls tend to go.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: We owe these frauds a good beating, having been largely non-competitive in a 3-game sweep in Wrigleyville in April. The Mets haven't beat the Cubs at Citi since Terry Collins was their manager.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Bret Saberhagen 1994? Hey! You won. I forgot about this quiz.

Lefty Specialist wrote: An annoying game. I'm OK with 2 out of 3, but this was a winnable game with better strategic thinking. I thought all of the Padres games were winnable. Even the ones in SD. The Mets are getting strong starting pitching and when you have that, you're in every game.

There's also a chicken-egg thing going on here with shifts. Pitchers pitch to the shift. So when a team shifts an extra infielder to the right side against a left-handed hitter who tends to pull the ball frequently, and maybe also swings the outfield rightward as well, the pitcher isn't about to throw outside pitches to the lefty hitter.

dinosaur jesus wrote: I wouldn't put any credence at all in one or two plays in one game. Obviously there will be plays that will be hits against the shift and outs against traditional positioning. But the shift is about playing the odds, and if it pays off even a little more than half the time it's worth it. I also don't understand the point about traditional positioning being more effective when the ball isn't struck well. A well-designed shift puts fielders where the ball is more likely to be hit, whether it's struck well or not. Distributing the fielders for maximum coverage just means putting some of them where they probably won't be needed, just in case they are. Exactly! Plus, teams are sophisticated. They have the data they need to make these decisions. We don't. If teams are still shifting -- and they are, more than ever -- then we can assume that it's because the shifts are working.

dinosaur jesus wrote: I wouldn't put any credence at all in one or two plays in one game. Obviously there will be plays that will be hits against the shift and outs against traditional positioning. But the shift is about playing the odds, and if it pays off even a little more than half the time it's worth it. I also don't understand the point about traditional positioning being more effective when the ball isn't struck well. A well-designed shift puts fielders where the ball is more likely to be hit, whether it's struck well or not. Distributing the fielders for maximum coverage just means putting some of them where they probably won't be needed, just in case they are. Exactly!

Shifts take away one hit on average, every four or five games. Eight outs on BABIP is a tiny sample size.

=stevejrogers post_id=67761 time=1623601903 user_id=57] =batmagadanleadoff post_id=58645 time=1616694200 user_id=68] I believe Schneck holds the Mets record for most years on the MLB roster without ever getting his own Topps baseball card.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=67748 time=1623564152 user_id=68] With deGrom's near-perfect outing of last Friday, where deGeom faced the minimum number of batters over six innings, allowing just one batter to reach base (on a ground-ball single) before that batter was then thrown out attempting to steal second base -- deGrom now leads the majors in just about every meaningful rate stat - having taken over the major league lead in BB/9 IPs after his last outing with a rate of 1.125 deGrom leads the majors in: ERA - 0.56 WHIP - 0.531 H/9 IP - 3.656 BB/9 IP - 1.125 K/9 IP - 14.484 K/BB - 12.875 ERA+ - 688 FIP - 0.92 Most of these major-league leading numbers would be single-season all-time baseball records should they hold up over the course of the 2021 season.

Edgy MD wrote: Should the shift be relaxed when deployed behind deGrom? Is it better to leave the infielders where they are, under the theory that stealing outs from batted balls otherwise destined to be hits is less necessary with him on the mound than simply making the plays on batted balls destined to be outs? I say no. Leave the shifts behind deGrom the way they always were. Why would it be less necessary to employ shifts behind deGrom? Answer - only if there's evidence that the balls put in play against deGrom this season are fundamentally different - location and exit velocity wise - than they used to be. Even though batters facing deGrom are necessarily putting the ball in play less often because deGrom is striking batters out at a greater frequency than ever - those fair balls are probably being distributed as they always were. Edgy MD wrote: Were any of the 18 outs he got Friday on plays executed because of shifted infielders, or was the one out he didn't get the only play the shift affected? Who knows? Showing defensive alignments is the weakest part of a televised baseball game. They rarely do it or talk about it, and when they do show defensive alignments, it comes off as random or haphazard. It should be standard protocol to show the defensive alignment for every batter during a televised baseball game .

=bmfc1 post_id=67750 time=1623591543 user_id=73] They can't wait to get to COL after the game ....

I could've sworn I wrote a post earlier this season about ex-Met Pittsburgh Pirate Philip Evans' red-hot MVP-like start. That old post is apparently in the ether. Or buried underground inside of a hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar. Nice freakin' search engine we have here, as usual. Anyways, here's where Evans is going into today's game.... .219/.315/.336 -- OPS+ - 83 -- Hasn't hit a HR since April. Here's the old post. http://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30262&p=60466#p60466http://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30262&p=60466#p60466 It doesn't come up on the search engine. How come?

I could've sworn I wrote a post earlier this season about ex-Met Pittsburgh Pirate Philip Evans' red-hot MVP-like start. That old post is apparently in the ether. Or buried underground inside of a hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar. Nice freakin' search engine we have here, as usual. Anyways, here's where Evans is going into today's game.... .219/.315/.336 -- OPS+ - 83 -- Hasn't hit a HR since April.

With deGrom's near-perfect outing of last Friday, where deGeom faced the minimum number of batters over six innings, allowing just one batter to reach base (on a ground-ball single) before that batter was then thrown out attempting to steal second base -- deGrom now leads the majors in just about every meaningful rate stat - having taken over the major league lead in BB/9 IPs after his last outing with a rate of 1.125 deGrom leads the majors in: ERA - 0.56 WHIP - 0.531 H/9 IP - 3.656 BB/9 IP - 1.125 K/9 IP - 14.484 K/BB - 12.875 ERA+ - 688 FIP - 0.92 Most of these major-league leading numbers would be single-season all-time baseball records should they hold up over the course of the 2021 season. deGrom does need to work on his HR's allowed rate. He only leads the NL, but not the majors, in HR/9 IP. HR/9 IP Leaders Eovaldi, BOS - 0.373 deGrom - NYM - 0.422 Rogers - MIA - 0.476 Gausman - SF - 0.579

Grant was "discovered" by scout Fred Merkle, who I assume, was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle%27s_Bonerthat Fred Merkle. From SABR's Land of the Free, Home of the Brave: Mudcat Grant's Odyssey to Sing the National Anthem Excerpt: Even worse, segregation provided constant intimidation and danger. The family had a trapdoor in the floor, a refuge for when marauding white bands invaded, shooting into houses during what Grant described as “n*****-shooting time.”2 He was verbally and physically harassed by local authorities, and whites pelted him with rocks when he ventured outside “colored” areas. A childhood friend was killed for violating racial protocol.3 As Grant recalled, “As a black person, if you tried to think about the worst thing that could happen to you, it could happen that day. And something worse could happen to you the next day. . . . These became almost everyday things. . . . We were terrorized for 300 years. But we didn't call it terror.”4 [***] Eleven days later in Cleveland, opportunity took a darker turn. Egged on by bullpen teammates and frustrated by obstructed efforts to integrate Southern lunch counters, Grant's tolerance boiled over as he sang along with the anthem. As the song reached its ascending conclusion, Grant ad-libbed, “And this land is not so free, 'cause I can't even go to Mississipp-ee,” or words to that effect.8 Pitching coach and Texas resident Ted Wilks overheard. “If you don't like our country, why in the hell don't you get out,” he thundered. “Well, I can get out of the country,” Grant replied. “All I have to do is go to Texas. That's worse than Russia.” Wilks lit the match: “Well, if we catch your black n***** ass in Texas, we're going to hang you from the nearest tree.”9 Grant threw a punch that dropped Wilks to the ground. Pushing and shoving ensued until teammates separated them. Angered and unable to think clearly, Grant fled the park without alerting manager Jimmy Dykes, for which he was suspended for the rest of the season. Some accounts indicate Wilks apologized. “Are you kidding me?” Grant recently scoffed. “He was a racist. . . . There was no way he was going to apologize because [racism] was too strong back in those days.”10 To the team's credit, it quickly reassigned Wilks to the minor leagues and kept Grant on.11 But letters filled his mailbox, some complimentary, many not. He burned all but one he considered “funny” from a war veteran: “Dear black SOB, you got a lot of nerve,” it read. “After all we've done for you. . . . We ought to ship all you N****** and Jews back to Africa.”12 Grant expected other players to follow his protest, but no one did. https://sabr.org/journal/article/land-of-the-free-home-of-the-brave-mudcat-grants-odyssey-to-sing-the-national-anthem/https://sabr.org/journal/article/land-of-the-free-home-of-the-brave-mudcat-grants-odyssey-to-sing-the-national-anthem/

Best single-season ERA's - they're almost all from the deadball ERA and before - [FIMG=666]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51243495305_49b7c5b50d_c.jpg[/FIMG]

If deGrom were to give up just one earned run in his next inning pitched, he'd have to then pitch 15 scoreless innings to get his ERA back to where it is right now (0.56).

[FIMG=888]https://static.dw.com/image/16168067_303.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, I checked, and yeah, the data isn't supporting him. All three indicators of wildness are climbing at a meaningful rate. So if the goo is keeping Pete's noggin safer, there are a lot of other concurrent factors suddenly offsetting it. I certainly have my doubts. Maybe the higher the spin rate, the harder it is to control that pitch.

Edgy MD wrote: Without copious data on the subject, I hesitate to conclude that this goo is giving people both more spin on the ball and more control of where their pitch is going. Are walks/wild pitches/hit batsmen all down from 25 years ago? Spider Tack is like rosin on super steroids. Or steroids on steroids. You get the point. Here's one study to support what I just wrote, but you can surf the web for several others. I don't think that the (Ahem) revolutionary effects of Spider Tack are being disputed. https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2180019https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2180019 There's no reason to conclude that Spider Tack is also increasing control. And rosin, which is legal, provides the sort of control that all players want -- to ensure that some poor unlucky batter isn't getting killed to death by a wayward pitch every other month. It's a balancing act. Some extra control via foreign substance is tolerated for the safety of everybody, even if the substance gives pitchers an edge through enhanced spin rates. But Spider Tack tilts the balance between better control and enhanced spin rates to the point of unreasonableness. It marginally enhances control, if even that, while increasing spin rates to the point where there are now apparently 10 or 20 Sandy Koufaxes in the majors.

Here's a theory I've never heard until just now: Mets' Alonso accuses MLB of manipulating balls to impact free agency by Jason Wilson Jun 09, 10:20 PM [FIMG=555]https://assets-cms.thescore.com/uploads/image/file/459615/w1280xh966_GettyImages-1233343983.jpg?ts=1623275651[/FIMG] New York Mets first baseman Pete Alonso is in favor of pitchers doctoring baseballs with whatever substance they want and thinks the real story is how Major League Baseball changes the ball from year to year depending on who's set to enter free agency. "The biggest concern is that Major League Baseball manipulates the baseballs year in and year out depending on the free-agency class or guys being in an advanced part of their arbitration," Alonso said Wednesday. "So I do think that's a big issue - the ball being different every single year. Alonso remained adamant when asked to elaborate on how the league has tweaked the ball to coincide with free agency. "That's a fact," Alonso said, per SNY. He continued, "In 2019, there was a huge class of free-agent pitchers, and then that's (when) the quote, unquote, 'juiced balls' (happened). ... Now that we're back to playing in a regular season with a ton of shortstops or position players that are going to be owed, paid a lot of money like high-caliber players, it's not a coincidence." Alonso added that ball manipulation is a problem unique to baseball. "With other sports, the ball's the same, like basketball, football, tennis, golf, the ball's the same. ... Maybe if the league didn't change the baseball, pitchers wouldn't need to use as much sticky stuff," he said, per DiComo. MLB plans to crack down on pitchers who doctor balls during their starts, and hurlers like New York Yankees ace Gerrit Cole are facing greater scrutiny for their potential involvement. Alonso agrees with Cole insofar as ball-doctoring is traditionally a practice that has been quietly accepted over the years, and he thinks pitchers having better grip when throwing is a positive. "Since the start of the game, pitchers have been using substances," the slugger said. "I mean, there's a bag of rosin behind the mound right now to help guys dry their hands and get grip. For me, I think whether they're using pine tar, rosin, Bullfrog, or sunscreen and rosin, or whatever they want to use to help control the ball, let them use it. He added, "I go in the box every single day and I see guys throwing harder and harder every day. And I don't want 99 slipping out of someone's hand because they didn't have enough feel for it." While grip is one benefit from using the various sticky substances available - approved or otherwise - another has been drastic improvements to spin rate, which is seen as giving pitchers a competitive advantage. MLB has yet to officially announce a plan to address ball-doctoring or what sanctions will be involved for pitchers found to be in violation of the rules. https://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2181873/amphttps://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/2181873/amp

Edgy MD wrote: =bmfc1 post_id=67435 time=1623289896 user_id=73]7/2, NYY--away (isn't it better for Jake to pitch against ATL than NYY?) Sure, but Friday night, start of Independence Day weekend, matched up against the headline-hungry crosstown rivals? The TV gods are sure going to want him to go against the Yanks. As low as the impact is on the standings, every and any game against the Yankees has a subtext that lends it the weight of a cup matchup. Folks who make decisions may or may not fall into that. I'll take it either way. I feel pretty certain that Rojas' decision will be based on (a) whatever's best for deGrom in his head, or ( if he's devious, whatever is most likely to keep him out of the All-Star Game.