batmagadanleadoff

Frayed Knot wrote: Those who voted 'NO' -- or want to change to that now -- are essentially arguing that his career was/is over. He's 10 HRs away and, even in the post spinal stenosis diagnosis era, he's HR'd 11 times in 300 PA. That's more or less a half season's playing time for a guy who has four seasons after this one on his contract. It's always possible that he is indeed done, but I'd vote against it, and if he's not done he's going to get there. I'm surprised there are as many as five "No" votes. I figgered there wouldn't be more than two.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I like retiring numbers. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing 8 on the wall... What is it with Mets fans who think Gary Carter's number should be retired? Because this is one argument that I'm simply incapable of understanding. It's incomprehensible to me on every level. And one of these days I'm gonna write a long post explaining why. If Carter, then they might as well retire Donn Clendenon's number, too. And Bobby Ojeda's. Jeez, the guy was a great Met and deserving of his induction into the Mets HOF, but his legend has grown to absurd heights, way the hell out of proportion to his on the field contributions. He's way overrated as a Met -- the Derek Jeter of the Mets. And I say that bit about Jeter in the worst way possible.

soupcan wrote: soupcan wrote: How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. I disagree with this many ways over. First of all, every ML'er is, at best, mediocre at the end of their careers. Even Willie Mays. Otherwise, they'd still be playing. Mike Piazza would still be backstopping for the Mets, catching Tom Seaver's 96 MPH fastballs. So to characterize Strawberry based on his end of career mediocrity, to imply that Straw was a mediocrity is wholly unfair to Straw and a distortion. But I'm not going to retire a number based on a few good years either. Do the Mets want to be the Yankees who will soon start having to use the Greek alphabet for their players because they've retired every single number for every single player who had a few good years for them? Straw was a superstar and, I think, an underrated superstar, playing in an era when having to hit half your games in Shea Stadium was still murder on a batter's stats. I'll tell you something ... I secretly chafe a little bit every time I have to read that David Wright is the Mets best home grown hitter because I don't really believe it. Wright isn't the hitter that Straw was, and in fact, if you compare Wright's first eight years to Straw's first and only eight Mets seasons, (they were both 21 in their debut seasons, btw, making for a convenient comparison) Straw comes out on top overall, even though Wright had the best singular season. If Wright is the better Mets hitter than Straw, it's only because Wright outlasted Straw as a Met and took many more PA's, which enabled Wright to pass Straw in the career totals categories. For me its not about whether Straw was this or that or better than this guy or that guy. I like what the Red Sox do. I may be mistaken but I believe they have a system for retiring numbers. A player must be in the Hall of Fame and had to have played at least 10 years for them. THAT's a guy whose number should be retired. Also, I don't think it'd be unprecedented if a player like Straw were to have his number retired. He's certainly more deserving of that honor, by like orders of magnitude, than say Gary Carter, who seems to have the most support among Mets fans for that kind of treatment. Lesser players than Straw have had their numbers retired. Not that that means anything, because we're now delving into a discussion in which rules and standards don't really apply and ownership can retire whatever numbers they feel like retiring. You're right, it wouldnt be unprecedented but again do the Mets want to be the Padres who retired Randy Jones and Steve Garvey? The freaking Dodgers haven't even retired Garvey's #6. I'd like a retired number in Queens to be a real honor. Right now I think it is. Casey Stengel, Gil Hodges, Tom Seaver and Piazza. 3 Hall of Famers and one guy who's value to the team is without question. Jeez, if I knew you were gonna write this humongous post, I woulda spared you and told you not to waste alla your time. I never weighed in on whether or not the Mets should retire Straw's number. I haven't formed an opinion on the matter. All I said in that regard, is that it wouldn't be so unreasonable, in light of other team's retired numbers, if the Mets retired #18. I did disagree with you about that mediocrity business, but I'd guess that that was an off the cuff comment in the heat of the moment, and that you really don't think Straw was a mediocrity. At least not all of the time. Not when he was a Met. I did go on that I think Straw was a better Mets hitter than Wright. But I also agree with Edgy that longevity counts. But in my book, which hasn't been published yet, that would only make Wright's Metly contributions more valuable than Straw's. It wouldn't make Wright the better Mets hitter of the two. Not that they aren't kinda close and that a reasonable case couldn't be made for Wright.

Edgy MD wrote: I don't know why we should divide by the number of at-bats. Longevity counts. Otherwise, retire Céspedes number now. You're right. I guess Ed Kranepool was a way better Mets hitter than Cespedes because Krane accumulated a lot more of everything than Cespedes.

You wanna compare their WAR's for their entire Mets careers? Strawberry's WAR was 36.4 in 3,903 AB's -- that's one WAR every 107.22 AB's Wright -- 49.9 and 5,996 -- one WAR every 120.16 AB's. Slight edge to Strawberry -- the better Mets hitter, pound for pound.

Comparing their first eight seasons is fair. Yes, Wright's rookie season was a partial one, but Straw missed about a quarter of his rookie season, and missed about a third of the '85 season --when Straw was on pace to have what would've been his best season ever. Even though Wright appeared in just 69 games in his debut season, overall, Wright still had 258 AB's more than Strawberry in their first eight Mets seasons -- 4,161 to 3,903. So that's 2 less WAR's for Wright, if you wanna use WAR, which you do, in 258 more AB's. That doesn't help your case, WAR-wise.

soupcan wrote: How many ultimately mediocre players on every other team in the majors have similar accomplishments and don't have their numbers retired? Quite a fucking few I'm thinking. I disagree with this many ways over. First of all, every ML'er is, at best, mediocre at the end of their careers. Even Willie Mays. Otherwise, they'd still be playing. Mike Piazza would still be backstopping for the Mets, catching Tom Seaver's 96 MPH fastballs. So to characterize Strawberry based on his end of career mediocrity, to imply that Straw was a mediocrity is wholly unfair to Straw and a distortion. Straw was a superstar and, I think, an underrated superstar, playing in an era when having to hit half your games in Shea Stadium was still murder on a batter's stats. I'll tell you something ... I secretly chafe a little bit every time I have to read that David Wright is the Mets best home grown hitter because I don't really believe it. Wright isn't the hitter that Straw was, and in fact, if you compare Wright's first eight years to Straw's first and only eight Mets seasons, (they were both 21 in their debut seasons, btw, making for a convenient comparison) Straw comes out on top overall, even though Wright had the best singular season. If Wright is the better Mets hitter than Straw, it's only because Wright outlasted Straw as a Met and took many more PA's, which enabled Wright to pass Straw in the career totals categories. But pound for pound, I'd take Straw. Also, I don't think it'd be unprecedented if a player like Straw were to have his number retired. He's certainly more deserving of that honor, by like orders of magnitude, than say Gary Carter, who seems to have the most support among Mets fans for that kind of treatment. Lesser players than Straw have had their numbers retired. Not that that means anything, because we're now delving into a discussion in which rules and standards don't really apply and ownership can retire whatever numbers they feel like retiring.

17 years. 18 seasons.

Plus, they're mostly still alive so it's do-able from that perspective. Just one dead '78er.

Does Straw think his number should be retired? If the Mets retired numbers the way the Yankees do, it would have been retired years ago. And Doc and Carter and Koosman and Tug and Tommie and Cleon and Grote and Bud's numbers too. Did I leave anybody out? Kingman?

I see. So the big news is that Straw's mad at the Mets about something that he doesn't wanna talk about.

If anything's "empty", it's that Newsday article I posted. As much as I can't pass up an opportunity to rag on Jeff, there's doesn't seem to be much substance to whatever Strawberry's griping about. And if there is, Straw apparently kept it to himself, because it's not in that article.

bump When this poll first appeared, we knew little about Wright's neck disc problem. Any of you yesses wanna switch over to no?

Darryl Strawberry says Mets’ organization is ‘an empty place’ for him now Updated July 14, 2016 1:52 PM By Neil Best neil.best@newsday.com Darryl Strawberry expressed lingering bitterness over his relationship with the Mets, and in particular chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon, in an interview with WFAN’s Boomer Esiason and Craig Carton Thursday morning. Carton at one point asked Strawberry, “How long did it take you to reconcile with the Mets?” Strawberry answered, “How long will it?” indicating there are issues in the present tense. Strawberry said he participates in some Mets events, including the recent reunion of the 1986 World Series-winning team, for the sake of the fans and Mets employees with whom he remains close, such as public relations man Jay Horwitz. But, he added, “There’s nothing there for me. It’s an empty place.” Regarding his relationship with the Wilpons, Strawberry said, “I’ve never had a bad relationship with Fred. I just think that Jeff was very cold to the ’86 Mets and all of us and we take it personal. “We won and you should celebrate us and celebrate us in a great way. One day maybe they may come around to say, look, we’re not letting anyone wear No. 16 and No. 18 [Dwight Gooden’s and Strawberry’s numbers] for the Mets one day.” Strawberry spoke as part of a series of interviews in advance of Thursday’s night’s premiere of an ESPN “30 for 30” documentary entitled “Doc & Darryl” about the off-field troubles of the Mets’ young stars of the mid-1980s. When asked whether Jeff Wilpon has a problem with the ’86 Mets, Strawberry said, “He definitely has. I held the records for a long time. It’s no big deal. That’s on them, that’s not on me. I’m free from all that now.” What about the fact that Keith Hernandez and Ron Darling are SNY’s long-time Mets analysts? “They pick who they want,” Strawberry said. “Keith and Ronnie were great for us, too, don’t get me wrong. And I love them, just like I love [Gary] Carter and everyone. They did Carter wrong. They did Ray Knight wrong. So, c’mon.” Asked what ownership’s issues with the ’86 team might be, Strawberry said, “I don’t know. I know Fred loves us. He admires that team. But I don’t what the other reason is with the other guy.” The Mets declined to comment. In addition to a weekend honoring the ’86 team in May, the Mets are wearing 1986 throwback uniforms for Sunday home games this season. Several members of the ’86 Mets work for the organization, including third-base coach Tim Teufel, who wears No. 18. http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/darryl-strawberry-says-mets-organization-is-an-empty-place-for-him-now-1.12043173

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Why would they need to know the league months in advance? Either way, the cities aren't determined until a few days before. But I do understand that they'd like to narrow down the possibilities. For example, going into the LCS last year, they knew that the Series would open in Kansas City or Toronto. If team records were a factor, then those two possibilities would have been four, with New York and Chicago included. So they'd have to block out hotel rooms in four cities instead of two. It's more than hotel availability. Among other things, it's also coordinating with the NFL and its TV schedule. It used to be tougher before this era of single use baseball stadiums, when baseball and football teams from the same city would typically share the same stadium. Remember when you'd see football yard lines painted on baseball fields beginning in late August through the end of the season? I think that the only teams that share a stadium like that today are the Oakland A's and Raiders.

My understanding is that MLB can't award WS home field advantage based on head-to-head or best overall record because, for planning purposes, it needs to know which league will have that home field advantage months before the WS.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't mind the four-day All-Star break. (Although 30 years ago I know I would have hated it.) I'm with you. So it's at least a minority of two. In fact, a five-day break, to Saturday, wouldn't bother me either even though that's not happening, mainly because it'd mess with the structure of the most profitable three day Fri-Sat-Sun weekend series.

Centerfield wrote: *Ditch the "every team gets an all-star" rule. I'd modify this one so that it's mandatory that the host team have at least one all-star selection.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And if he is managing to win, they why is he holding back a Cardinals rookie for a key, late-inning situation? He was swinging wildly up there. It seems like in these close games -- and many recent games have been close -- World Series advantage is not being decided by the best players, but the player representatives for the bad teams. Don't be wasting any of your brain cells analyzing "this counts" -- probably the dumbest baseball thing ever foisted on the game and its fans. The only reason it even exists is as a knee jerk reaction to when ASG managers were too fcking dumb to save players for extra innings in SeligTown. You know what else? If it weren't for this counts, we wouldn't hava had last night's ridicluous spectacle of the NL wearing road unis in an NL host stadium. Of course, yesterday's managers saved players for extra innings. Namely, every single eligible Met.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And if he is managing to win, they why is he holding back a Cardinals rookie for a key, late-inning situation? He was swinging wildly up there. It seems like in these close games -- and many recent games have been close -- World Series advantage is not being decided by the best players, but the player representatives for the bad teams. Don't be wasting any of your brain cells analyzing "this counts" -- probably the dumbest baseball thing ever foisted on the game and its fans. The only reason it even exists is as a knee jerk reaction to when ASG managers were too fcking dumb to save players for extra innings in SeligTown. You know what else? If it weren't for this counts, we wouldn't have had last night's ridiculous spectacle of the NL wearing road unis in an NL host stadium.

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: And if he is managing to win, they why is he holding back a Cardinals rookie for a key, late-inning situation? He was swinging wildly up there. It seems like in these close games -- and many recent games have been close -- World Series advantage is not being decided by the best players, but the player representatives for the bad teams. Don't be wasting any of your brain cells analyzing "this counts" -- probably the dumbest baseball thing ever foisted on the game and its fans. The only reason it even exists is as a knee jerk reaction to when ASG managers were too fcking dumb to save players for extra innings in SeligTown.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I blame Bud Selig. Did you just come out of left field? When I saw the NL in road uniforms even though the NL is the host city, I lost interest. I watched the intros and that's it. Swear to god. And something else, while I'm on my soapbox --- they ruined everything when they divided the leagues into three divisions. That's the root of wild cards, inter-league play and every other modern baseball evil, including that the all-stars no longer wear their regular caps during the game anymore.

Zvon wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I blame Bud Selig. Did you just come out of left field? When I saw the NL in road uniforms even though the NL is the host city, I lost interest. I watched the intros and that's it. Swear to god.

I blame Bud Selig.

I wonder if Colon, as a relatively last minute all star replacement, is holding his jersey forward facing because the back of his jersey hasn't been customized yet?