batmagadanleadoff

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Dodgers get a pass because they tend to have baseball's largest payroll and it's not even close. I'm not sure what your source is, but Sportrac suggests this isn't even close ... to true. The same source as yours. What's your source for skepticism over my post? The Dodgers have the third highest payroll this season --the top payroll in all of baseball for four straight seasons before that. So they tend to have the largest payroll. And they can do this while playing in a market smaller than the one the Mets play in. And they've developed an awesome array of talent over the past few seasons that is historical in nature, whereas the Wilpons' Mets have tended to have barren farm systems. I don't get this stretching the reasonable bounds of imagination to equate the two teams all because Utley's a Dodger. You can't expect a team to have a superstar at every position. The Dodgers might be baseball's best funded org, and certainly one of the brightest. Maybe the Mets'll get there one of these years when baseball gets the balls to give Wilpon the Frank McCourt treatment he deserves.

Ceetar wrote: So you hold the Mets to higher standards than other teams, because you perceive some sort of obvious advantage that may not be there, despite them arguably being the most successful expansion team. So it's okay to give too many PA to a bad player because they've over paid for other bad players or what? Shouldn't this make it worse? They've spent so much more and STILL are playing bad players at 2B? Their rotation might be in shambles. The Yankees also have no pitching depth. You're right. The Wilpons are terrific.

29 and three fourths.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I wouldn't put anybody on that team unless they played for the Wilpons, who seek these players as desperate hail Marys because they can't spend like a NYC team ought to. Berra and A-Gone just don't belong in the same category. It ain't right. Nobody else signs these guys. nobody. The Dodgers definitely didn't acquire Chase Utley and keep re-signing him. The Rangers definitely didn't sign the aged and bad last year Bartolo Colon. The Indians definitely haven't given 111 PA to the facsimile of Rajai Davis. The Mets aren't like most other teams. They play in New York City. The Dodgers get a pass because they tend to have baseball's largest payroll and it's not even close. They're not signing Utley out of desperation and then trying to fool their fans that he still has it in him to play like a superstar.. And the Rangers and Indians don't play in New York City. Please with the scamming and inept Wilpons and their two first place finishes in 30 years.

I wouldn't put anybody on that team unless they played for the Wilpons, who seek these players as desperate hail Marys because they can't spend like a NYC team ought to. Berra and A-Gone just don't belong in the same category. It ain't right.

Nymr83 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I'm certain that if he was pinned down, Alderson could defend Reyes' far lower stat line as more redeemable than Gonzalez', citing advanced metrics like chase rate and exit velocity and BABIP. He's certainly still on the clock. Reyes also has "ability to play multiple positions capably, if no longer well" which is a pretty in-demand skill on a team that insists on carrying a short bench. I'd still cut him, but his presence is far more defensible than Gonzalez's from that perspective Hey --- Reyes is more worse at more positions than Gonzalez is. That's some sales pitch.

Oooh! The Mets fired Willie Randolph at midnight. How terrible. What brutes. I'm still enraged over this egregious mistreatment of such a superbly qualified manager.

How bad are they? 16-33 since "the streak". Worst record in baseball in that span.

SteveJRogers wrote: Players left from the 2015 postseason to play a game for the Mets this season? The early bird catches the worm, right? You win. These are the only 2018 Mets that played for the pennant winning Mets of three years ago. Blevins wasn't on the post season roster as he sustained a season ending injury in April of 2015. But close enough. The point I wanted to make is that deGrom is the only Met on that list who is better this year than three years ago. I didnt consider Blevins for the reason stated above, and Lagares and d'Arnaud, who will miss the rest of this season.

What do these 12 Mets, and only these 12 Mets, have in common: Kevin Plawecki Travis d'arnaud Michael Conforto Wilmer Flores Juan Lagares Yoenis Cespedes Jacob deGrom Noah Syndergaard Matt Harvey Steven Matz Jeurys Familia Jerry Blevins

I feel pretty certain that Jose's days as a Mets player are numbered. And I'm not basing my opinion on anything I've read.

The. Nats are now in first place as most experts predicted they'd end up in by season's end. And how bad are the Mets? They're now closer to the last place Marlins than to the first place Nats.

bmfc1 wrote: I wonder if we'll hear Conforto say at the end of the season "the injury bothered me all season and I should have taken more time to get ready." That's what I was thinking for about a month.

Brandon Nimmo's not on the all star ballot. Devin Mesoraco is. As a Met. .

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: well that's a waste of 5 hours That's what I was gonna write. I wish Degrom didnt start because then, this game woulda been over hours ago.

Degrom pitching for this team reminds me of--- how does that expression go? A silk hat on a pig?

Feckless typewriters.

Holy moley! I thought that shot was outta here as soon as Nimmo hit it.

You know who else is a feckless typewriter? The Mets. That's who else.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Can "Mets-connected" be expanded upon without giving away the answer? I've tried to when I wrote the first post. This is the best I could do. Did I provide the best possible phrased clue or do the limits of my abilities prevent me from doing better? Beats me. I dunno? I could rephrase that, but I think I'd be making the answer a lot easier to solve. Maybe that in itself is a clue. Here's the re-write: "Two of the players on the author's top 30 list played for the Mets during their outlier seasons. Name them." Better, and better late than never. But if I'd wrote it that way, I never woulda hadda explain myself, thus giving more clues, and youse might of never gotten Cespedes.

Best fire headline, so far... "No, the fire at New York Mets' Citi Field did not involve a dumpster." WAPO. Google it yourselves. No link. My smartphone's wearin' me out with the typing and the copying and pasting.

The Mets and Pythagorus don't really match up well this year. A .500 record with a negative run differential usually implies a lot of close wins and larger losses. The large losses they have: seven of them by seven or more runs [8, 8, 10, 7, 11, 11, 11] -- that's a shitload of extraneous runs-against in just 26 defeats -- and by contrast those losses are offset by only two big wins: [10, 12] On the other side, a better than expected Pythag tends to imply you've grabbed more than your share of close wins, yet the Mets (like you haven't noticed) are now 7-11 in those so it's not like they've been on some kind of unsustainable roll of good luck just to get to the treading water level. Were they in the first two week of the year? ... of course they were, 11-1 type of streaks don't exist without a dose of luck. But I think the 'a run is a run is a run' system named after Mr. Pythagorus can get skewed in this still-small-ish sample of 52 games. It's still just an estimate, not a scientific law. Going by memory here, but it wasn't so much blowouts as incredibly timely hitting. Maximum gains from big hits. Disproportionately high number of home runs happening with two and three ruinners on, for example. And those blowout losses that are outnumbering the blowout wins -- that's the absolute hallmark of a bad team.

d'Kong76 wrote: I know it'll drive all the spreadsheet guys bonkers, but the Mets are a good half-dozen-game bad-luck losers so far and that's a lot in the cur- rent standings and how we feel about this team. The Mets are at .500, true, but they've been outscored 220-239, so Pythagoras sez they should be a coupl'a games under .500. Which means that they've been exceedingly lucky this season, rather than a bad luck team. Me, personally, I happen to agree with what I just finished writing about ol' Pythagoras and luck. I remember scrutinizing the Mets cumulative stats when they were riding high last April, and I couldn't figure out how the hell they were winning so much. The stats didn't justify the results. So take .500 with a grain of salt. Pythagoras sez the Mets should be closer to the last place Marlins than to the top of the division.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: We don't have the men. We don't have anywhere near the men. The window, it's closed. I understand the arguments for doing otherwise, but it would behoove us to sell everyone of significant worth whose prime is now to replenish... deGrom inclusive. Yeah, right. What's likelier to happen is that instead, they'll extend David "Godot" Wright.

cooby wrote: Thanks for explanation! That makes sense You're welcome. I guess.