batmagadanleadoff

Someone here tried to keep track of how many times each different Met jersey was worn last year. Here's a chart, and the link: [FIMG=666]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GbGLSkUXcAAtwtb?format=jpg&name=medium[/FIMG] https://x.com/daily_mets_/status/1852096960972324928https://x.com/daily_mets_/status/1852096960972324928

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think that's how the NFL works too. The home team chooses, and usually picks the colors. The Cowboys, however, always pick the white at home and just about always wear the white on the road as well. I remember one team tried to psych the Cowboys out by wearing the white at home and making Dallas wear their rarely used blue jerseys. The NFL has always worked that way. The Cowboys, BTW, have somewhat loosened their tradition of wearing only white jerseys at home. They have worn their dark (i.e., blue) jerseys at home this season on occasion and now do so once in a while. The Cowboys rival that was most likely to try and "jinx" them by wearing home white jerseys was their divisional rival, the former Washington Redskins, who were not committed to wearing either dark or white jerseys at home and would typically wear white jersey for home games against the Cowboys. The Cowboys tradition of wearing white jerseys at home was not borne of superstition, but rather from the desire to require the visiting team to wear their "colored" jerseys, thus providing the attending fans (and those watching on TV, I guess) with a variety of uniform colors. The thinking was that if the Cowboys always wore their blue jerseys for home games, fans would only see those blue jerseys and the visitors' white jerseys. Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: It's completely flipped in hockey, home is for colors road is to defer to the home teams colors. It's not in the rules but customary So the home NHL team does not have the optiion of wearing white jerseys?

Nobody's demanding unanimous thought, but we've had a spat of bad-faith detractors over the last few decades that use that same argument to justify a lot of attention and time to batshit crazy things. Exactly. It's not about forcing unanimous thought. The guy's equating absurd, irrational ideas with legitimate debate and disagreement. Some things are just not up for debate.

Frayed Knot wrote: I thought that was the case but wasn't sure. I just threw that line in there because it's the first thing that came to mind when I started typing the words, 'Illegal Defense'. One used to hear that multiple times per game, it seems, back in the day. I know exactly whatchoo mean. I remember when zone defenses were illegal in the NBA more than now, when they are legal. The relatively new NBA rule that I still have a hard time adjusting to is the one that no longer requires the home team to wearing "home white" jerseys. The NHL has made the same change but I don't follow hockey.

Seven moves Jim Bowden would like to see made right now: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6085178/2025/01/24/mlb-trade-signing-extension-scenarios/

Frayed Knot wrote: On the first one: I don't remember an illegal defense call made last year (do they still even call it in the NBA?). They don't call illegal zone defenses in the NBA anymore because they're now legal, and have been for more than 20 years. The NBA came to its senses. Strategy is good.

So it's OK for many people to think that the way to stave off Covid is to shoot bleach up your ass and to take horse medicine. Because their President, your President, told them so. It's also OK for some people to think that one plus one equals three and that the Earth is flat. Let's let those people build our bridges and highways. There's no rational argument or justification for withholding a HOF vote from baseball's very-most elite players --- players who punched their ticket into the HOF five, six, seven, maybe even ten years before they retired. Any voter who doesn't think that Hank Aaron deserves a HOF vote doesn't deserve to have a vote in the first place. It's a litmus test --- as it should be. Just like if you wanna pass your college math test, you have to provide the proper, precise, exact answers to the questions asked. If you think that two plus two equals five, then yes, you are an outlier and you will be ostracized -- you will receive a failing grade.

Sure. Especially if everyone were to think that Hank Aaron deserved to be inducted into baseball's Hall of Fame. How dangerous! That's your rationale? That it's dangerous for every HOF voter to believe that Hank Aaron or Stan Musial or Willie Mays belongs in the HOF? That makes no sense whatsoever. Is it also dangerous for everybody to believe that two plus three equals five? Or that the Earth isn't flat?

Correction: they used to get snow-outs. The stadium's domed. Still, it gets very cold there. The weather doesn't care that you might live in one of the nicest houses in the city.

It's definitely not a smooth fit. And for all of that, I don't see Toronto blowing away the Mets offer. As was already discussed, is Alonso really gonna choose Toronto over NY for a little bit more money? And it's like 10-15 degrees colder there at the beginning and end of the season. We get rain-outs. Toronto gets snow-outs. It's the coldest weather city in all of baseball. The stadium's indoors but Pete and his family still have to live there.

I agree. It's a tough squeeze. It looks like Alonso's playing time in Toronto will come at the expense of someone who's already expected to play many games. And on top of that, the signing is gonna cost them a draft pick. Maybe they're fairly certain that Guerrero will eventually leave. I dunno. I guess they could move Guerrero to third base, too.

Then what are we even talking about here? Looks like a multi-comment multi-day discussion on something that takes 3 seconds to look up. I think you can even get rolling averages from Savant if you want. Subtracting BA from OBP gives you a quick and easy roundabout ballpark figure of a player's walk rate. It won't give you the precise number for reasons discussed, but it'll yield a pretty close number and give you a decent idea of that player's walk rate. It's easier than looking up the actual walk rate. You almost never get a player's walk rate. The stat doesn't appear on the back of baseball cards and hardly ever comes up in news article about a particular player. You commonly get the player's slash line, though. Mentally subtracting BA from OBP is way quicker than linking to a web site, typing in a player's name, waiting for everything to load, and then scanning the site for the player's walk rate. What FK does is something else. He has some unique personalized method for calculating walk rate that produces what he calls a player's walk rate. It works for him. But it's not a walk rate and it's not even an approximation because FK's method produces a whole number whereas a walk rate is a percentage and almost never higher than 20% or .2 Only FK could possibly know what a "walk rate" of 108 means. I don't know if I've ever looked at the back of a baseball card. And you're clearly reading the wrong news articles. Give me a break. I'm not looking at the "wrong articles". "Articles" just don't mention a player's "walk rate". You can go ahead and "one-up" me by linking to an article or three that reference(s) a player's walk rate but you won't be proving anything. You'll just be cherry-picking. Because those one or three articles will be like one or three out of a thousand articles.

If Shamsky was 0 for one and then got a hit, he'd get a 500 point (.500) bump in his batting average. But no, by the time a player has 300 AB's, he doesn't get a three point bump in his BA from just one more hit. It's the law of large numbers. But that's not what happened here. You just looked at your calculator all wrong and cockeyed.

That's right. I should've written "for the most part" instead of "that's right". On occasion, the HOF worthiness of a candidate is in reasonable doubt or question. So it's understandable when some players are inducted into the HOF with less than 100% of the vote. But there's no reasonable argument for withholding a vote from Seaver. Or Mays. Or Mantle. Or dozens and dozens of other players. Including Ichiro. You just fabricated some standards out of thin air to rationalize Ichiro's non-vote.

That's right. I get it when a player doesn't get 100% of the vote because a voter isn't sure if that player is a HOFer. And some voters come around. They believe, initially, that the player isn't HOF worthy but are persuaded over time that he is. But what's the logic for not voting for Warren Spahn? Or Rickey Henderson? Or Hank Aaron? Or Ted Williams? In the entire history of baseball, Mariano Rivera was the only player who deserved to go in unanimously on his first ballot?

That's right. I get it when a player doesn't get 100% of the vote because a voter isn't sure if that player is a HOFer. And some voters come around. They believe, initially, that the player isn't HOF worthy but are persuaded over time that he is. But what's the logic for not voting for Warren Spahn? Or Rickey Henderson? Or Hank Aaron? Or Ted Williams?

That's nonsense. A non-vote for Ichiro is a statement that Ichiro is not a HOFer. If every voter held that absurd view, Ichiro wouldn't have gotten a single vote. Which would have removed him from the ballot and from HOF consideration for decades.

That's nonsense. A non-vote for Ichiro is a statement that Ichiro is not a HOFer. If every voter held that absurd view, Ichiro wouldn't have gotten a single vote. Or did Mariano Rivera win the Cy Young award in his last season? Babe Ruth didn't deserve to go in unanimously? Willie Mays? Yogi Berra? Tom Seaver? A player is either a HOFer or he isn't.

He's credited in the record books with an even .300 BA in 1969 https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/shamsar01.shtmlhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/shamsar01.shtml But he's also credited with 91 hits and 303 ABs, which I get working out to a .303 BA. What am I not getting? Maybe your calculator is broken. Or your head if you worked it out in your head. Go ask Brian Ostrosser. Maybe he knows.

Can't believe all this radio silence and apparent inactivity in the Alonso negotiations. Maybe the Alonso camp really overplayed its hands. Pete's OPS+ has been dropping for four straight seasons and he looked like absolute horseshit for many long stretches of last season -- like the worst side of Dave Kingman. By most fielding metrics, he's about the worst fielding every-day first baseman in baseball. What's Boras's backup plan? Some desperate hail mary wish that Freddie Freeman sustains a terrible injury in ST and the Dodgers and all their money come to the rescue?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I hope it's grey. Jeez. It didn't even occur to me that the new unis might be (shudder) black.

I didn't say there was a fuss over it. I said the information was leaked. Yes, parties can divulge information. If they do it publicly, it's a disclosure. If they do it anonymously it's a leak. I'm of the belief that parties leak information with intent. When I wrote about the "fuss" over these disclosures, I was writing about you. I thought you were making a big fuss over these disclosures. Which is fine. That's what makes these boards interesting. But to me, these leaks or disclosures or whatever are one big nothing-burger as far as I'm concerned. I don't think there was any strategy or chess game being played by the release of that info. I think that it's somebody privy to the negotiations deciding to disclose some of that info to the press anonymously and nothing more. I never thought the disclosures were going to cause the Mets to crumble or fold or to weaken their bargaining position. And more importantly, I never thought that the Boras/Alonso camp ever thought that, either. It's just info being released. Any reasonably sentient fan knows that without knowing Boras's demands, the info is practically useless anyway. Me personally, I don't think these talks are dead and there's a very good chance that Alonso and the Mets finally come to an agreement. I say this because Alonso wants very badly to remain a Met and everybody knows this. Alonso has made no attempt to hide this. If the Mets offer was unreasonably low, some other team would've topped it by now.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: In an entirely free market, I expect that the Pirates and the Reds would relocate to .... What are you considering to be an entirely free market? Because in a truly free market, not only would teams be free to relocate to wherever they choose, but players not under contract would be free to negotiate their next contract with whatever team they choose. There'd be no restrictions on free agency and no amateur drafts. Even minor leaguers would be free to switch organizations after their current contracts expire. Some regulation is needed. A team shouldn't be allowed to just up and move to France or Africa because of the travel burden it would impose on the other teams.

Then what are we even talking about here? Looks like a multi-comment multi-day discussion on something that takes 3 seconds to look up. I think you can even get rolling averages from Savant if you want. Subtracting BA from OBP gives you a quick and easy roundabout ballpark figure of a player's walk rate. It won't give you the precise number for reasons discussed, but it'll yield a pretty close number and give you a decent idea of that player's walk rate. It's easier than looking up the actual walk rate. You almost never get a player's walk rate. The stat doesn't appear on the back of baseball cards and hardly ever comes up in news article about a particular player. You commonly get the player's slash line, though. Mentally subtracting BA from OBP is way quicker than linking to a web site, typing in a player's name, waiting for everything to load, and then scanning the site for the player's walk rate. What FK does is something else. He has some unique personalized method for calculating walk rate that produces what he calls a player's walk rate. It works for him. But it's not a walk rate and it's not even an approximation because FK's method produces a whole number whereas a walk rate is a percentage and almost never higher than 20% or .2 Only FK could possibly know what a "walk rate" of 108 means.

I guess. Once a player's numbers are large enough, you can subtract BA from OBP to get a rough idea/ballpark figure of that player's walk rate.