batmagadanleadoff

Lefty Specialist wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure what you mean to say about Torre. Torre was handed the keys to a Ferrari. All he had to do was keep it from running into a ditch. Had they kept Buck Showalter after 1995, they'd be talking about him for the Hall of Fame now. The Torre hiring was derided at the time because up to that point he'd been profoundly mediocre as a manager. [fimg=333]http://cdn.riveraveblues.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/CluelessJoeCover.jpg?edf414[/fimg]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position. Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here. Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally. What was my prior position? I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work. I'm not changing positions. I'm saying two different, reconcilable things. One - that there's value in tailoring the team to the park, or the park to the team. And two - that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense.

No. Bochy's managed 20 seasons and has a record of .500. The 3 trips to the World Series in the last 5 years is nice but even if they win again I still don't see anything that puts [bochy] in the upper echelon of managers all-time. [fimg=222]http://s0.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/espn-grantland/img/grantland-logo.png[/fimg] Is Bruce Bochy One of the Best Managers in Baseball History? (Yes. Here�s Why.) excerpt: The Giants� success starts with the players, of course � the mainstays like Buster Posey, Pablo Sandoval, and Madison Bumgarner who�ve come up big in the last three postseason runs. Superstitious types will cite The Even-Year Effect, which (theoretically) enabled the San Francisco squad to carve through October every even-numbered season. But at some point, we have to throw some credit to the man who has been there longer than all but two members of the current roster.1 It�s quite possible that the Giants wouldn�t be where they are now without the guidance of Bruce Bochy � one of the best managers in baseball history. It may sound strange to anoint Bochy with such a lofty title. After all, managers don�t pump out detailed, easily scrutinized stats the way that star players do. Objective data tells us that Derek Jeter is a no-doubt Hall of Famer, even before we get into reverence and rings. With managers, the only standard on which everyone can agree is wins. And judging a manager solely by team wins is just as problematic as judging a pitcher by the same measure. But that�s not to say evaluations can�t be made. And when you look at it closely, there�s no doubt Bochy is an all-timer. read the rest at http://grantland.com/the-triangle/bruce-bochy-best-manager-san-francisco-giants-baseball/

Anthony Recker sucks. But if youse wanna go 55 posts on who the Mets backup catcher should be, go knock yourselves out.

That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position. Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here. Try this. Better. http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

Edgy MD wrote: That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position. Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here. Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally. What was my prior position?

Got a link? B-ref's a powerfully informative web site that ain't as easy to navigate as it could be. Anyways, park factors won't transform a 75 win team into a juggernaut. And an excellent team will be a force to reckon with no matter how their stadium plays. But a team can gain an edge by tailoring their team to their park, or their park to their team. And in a game where the qualitative differences between teams separated by half a dozen or so games in the standings are miniscule, every tiny edge adds up.

Frayed Knot wrote: But even if that's true, is that a constant trend or just a one-year variation? Even if it's true -- what's their definition of a pitcher's park? Because there are pitcher's parks, and then there are cavernous parks.

Ceetar wrote: but mediocre teams aren't competing for championships anyway. Yes they are. A team doesn't even need to win 90 games to have a strong chance of getting into the post-season anymore. And an 87 win wild card team might really be a very lucky mediocre 81-81 team in disguise.

Ceetar wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm sort of filing this under General Wilpon Incompetence. You'd figure as real estate people that they'd at least design a stadium correctly but it was so wrong right off the bat. Generally I don;t like the idea of adjusting for the sake of an advantage -- you'd figure, be a good team and learn to adapt to the environment you play in -- but I guess as a means of correcting for the huge mistake they made designing it it's OK. There was nothing _Wrong_ with either of the configurations. They were just different. I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work. This is what happens when you give Jeff Wilpon free reign to design stadiums and generally, lord it over MBA's and Ivy League grads at team executive meetings. It'll be fun rooting for this team when Fred retires and Sandy's gone.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Is there a written rule explaining specifically why a proposed dimension change might be denied? I know, for example, that there are minimum home run distances that a team must comply with. Are there other objective criteria that a team must meet to qualify? Or is the enforcement somewhat arbitrary as well, allowing the league to deny the change "just because"? You know what? I bet there's a rule requiring a team to stick with their dimensions for a period of time before altering them again.

Is there a written rule explaining specifically why a proposed dimension change might be denied? I know, for example, that there are minimum home run distances that a team must comply with. Are there other objective criteria that a team must meet to qualify? Or is the enforcement somewhat arbitrary as well, allowing the league to deny the change "just because"?

Maybe this'll start a trend where teams alter their field dimensions every single season based upon the composition of their rosters. Why not? It's a cutthroat win at all costs game where teams and players use every possible advantage to try and squeeze out even the tiniest edge. And it's permissible.

Complete the sequence: [fimg=533]http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/2013/05/26/images/mlbf_27442955_th_35.jpg[/fimg] Craig Anderson Randy Jones Paul Wilson Calvin Schiraldi Phil Hennigan Wes Gardner Greg Burke ???????????

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I get the sense that in general a lot of organization are rethinking how they do shit as a lot of best-laid plans seems to have gone kablooey this year especially. The so-called "good teams" are out of the playoffs, and a lot of clubs that were nominally trying like the Braves and Jays and MFYs were just so meh. Not just this year. The wild card format has profoundly altered the formula for trying to win a World Series. Before the wild card, a front office needed to build a team that, on paper would be expected to win about 95 games in order to have a reasonable chance at the WS crown. 95 wins is about what it took to win a division. But with the wild card in place, a team with less than 90 wins could be expected to play the wild card round. This is a significant change in team construction because those marginal wins above, say, 87 or 88, are the toughest to acquire. And those marginal wins are not as important as they were pre wild-card, if you believe that post-season baseball is a coin-flipping crap-shoot. Big market, heavy spending teams like the Yankees and Dodgers might be disappointed in qualifying as a wild card, given their payrolls. But the new dynamic is great news for the present Mets who, because of their disastrous finances, can't compete economically with the other big market teams. Me, I think baseball playoffs are a total crap-shoot, no matter who's playing whom, so I don't see anything as having gone "kablooey".

And they've got the coolest scoreboard in all of the [crossout]post-season[/crossout] playoffs.

The Royals are one game away from completing a stunning sweep of the Orioles.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/14/the-hitting-coach-yankees-mets-are-both-pursuing/ KANSAS CITY, Mo. � Dave Magadan has had preliminary discussions with the Yankees and Mets about their hitting coach vacancies. �I have been called about that, it�s in the preliminary stages and that�s all I can say about it,�� Magadan told The Post when asked about talking to the Yankees. Asked about the Mets, Magadan said, �Same thing, preliminary phone calls to see if I had interest.�� Magadan, a former Mets first baseman, is currently the Rangers� hitting coach, signed through the 2015 season. However, with the manager�s job open in the wake of manager Ron Washington resigning, the Rangers have granted their coaches permission to talk to other clubs. �They are letting all their coaches, under contract or not, talk to other teams because of the manager situation,�� Magadan said. The Yankees� job opened last Friday when Kevin Long was axed with a year left on his contract. The Mets fired Dave Hudgens in May, and his replacement Lamar Johnson isn�t coming back. Magadan has been a hitting coach with the Padres and Red Sox and Rangers. It is believed the Braves also have interest in Magadan. Should Magadan leave the Rangers, it would create a possible landing spot for Long, who has received several inquiries since his eight-year gig with the Yankees ended.

Assuming everyone's healthy on Opening Day, I'd bet that Harvey won't get the start. I'd bet on either Niese (seniority) or deGrom (best Mets pitcher, 2014 and possibly, reigning ROY).

Frayed Knot wrote: Saw some guy on the news the other day with his bald dome adorned to be a replica of Tom Brady's football helmet. The team emblem was where it was supposed to be, the logos in the right place, the number, etc. (didn't check to see if it had the green sticker to designate that Brady is one of the two on-field guys allowed to have a radio receiver in his helmet). What a fuckin' dope!

Mackey Sasser 944 Jason Phillips 791 Mike Vail 584 Mo Vaughn 566 Barry Lyons 545 Damion Easley 509 Brian Schneider 505 J.C. Martin 421 Hawk Taylor 417 Nick Evans 386

Mackey Sasser 944 -- the champ!! Jason Phillips 791 Mo Vaughn 566 Barry Lyons 545

Edgy MD wrote: It's cool that you show Mo and Bono actually on the bases. How vulnerable they look out there. I was looking for that. How vulnerable do you suppose the ground underneath Mo is?

As soon as someone guesses the Met atop this list, I'll turn over all the other cards, if not sooner. Probably.

Jason Phillips 791 Mo Vaughn 566 Barry Lyons 545