batmagadanleadoff

Jose Feliciano's "controversial" rendition of the Star Spangled Banner at Game Five of the '68 World Series that, reportedly, had veterans throwing their shoes at their TV sets. [youtube:2n3yoqty]x1ZQawbo4Mo[/youtube:2n3yoqty]

I can't argue with 2012. But to tell you the truth, I look at his regular 2012 stats, and can't make them jibe with his WAR #'s, even though he was terrif in '12. So I look, and I look. And then I take a closer look and I see that the dWAR portion of his WAR is off the charts. Not Brooks Robinson off the charts, but amazing for Wright. Go figger.

Ceetar wrote: David Wright was tied for 5th in wRC+ last season. in 2013, a full season, he was 4th in fWAR, though 15th in wRC+ (this is all of MLB) those are absolutely better than All-Star numbers. 2012-2014 he's 9th in fWAR. (bold italics added) But 2013 wasn't a full season. Wright didn't even play enough to qualify for the batting title. He played 112 games. He missed 50 games. Granted, some of his rate stats were superb ... but the league's best players also have 150, 200 and even more PA's than Wright did.

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out that Wright's problem is some nagging injury that would resolve itself if only he were DL'd, but that the FO would rather part with their grandkids than have attendance drop some more, which is what the FO worries will happen if Wright is DL'd. But who knows? It could be anything. He's getting older no matter what. And truth be told, the last time Wright was a superstar was seven seasons ago. So that's a lot of decline right there. Well we KNOW he has multiple nagging injuries. We KNOW he's been a superstar the last two seasons (though missed some time last year). So it's hardly a jump to think the injuries are sapping him some this year. We disagree on the meaning of "Superstar". I think superstar is higher than an all-star. And being a "mere" all-star is no knock, which is what I think Wright was in some of his recent years.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turns out that Wright's problem is some nagging injury that would resolve itself if only he were DL'd, but that the FO would rather part with their grandkids than have attendance drop some more, which is what the FO worries will happen if Wright is DL'd. But who knows? It could be anything. He's getting older no matter what. And truth be told, the last time Wright was a superstar was seven seasons ago. So that's a lot of decline right there.

Coach Lamar Johnson: It's Wright's shoulder. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-insider-hitting-coach-david-wright-shoulder-sore-article-1.1916732 Mets hitting coach Lamar Johnson says David Wright is still dealing with shoulder pain The Mets captain is hitting just .266 with eight home runs and in the midst of a career-long 143 at-bat home run-less streak. On the West Coast, Wright reiterated strongly that the shoulder was not hindering him. David Wright experienced neck spasms that forced him out of Sunday�s game against the Dodgers, but his bigger problem seems to be his left shoulder. Wright won�t admit as much but hitting coach Lamar Johnson said that he feels Wright is still dealing with pain. �When your shoulder is hurt, it�s really tough,� Johnson told Metsblog. �It�s hurt in his left shoulder and that�s where your swing starts, with your left side, your left hand getting to the ball. �Its been tough because he�s been trying to play through that. It�s just been a real tough haul because it�s hard to get a consistent swing when you�re in pain.� The Mets captain is hitting just .266 with eight home runs and in the midst of a career-long 143 at-bat home run-less streak. On the West Coast, Wright reiterated strongly that the shoulder was not hindering him. �When I�m able to be (in the lineup), then I expect I can produce,� he said. The third baseman said the neck spasms made it hard for him to turn his head Sunday, a problem he also had last year. But he was optimistic he would be back in the lineup Tuesday night when the Mets open a three-game series against the Braves at Citi Field. The Mets provided no update on Wright on Monday. The team would not say if he was examined by doctors. Wright initially injured his shoulder in mid-June, sliding head-first into second base. He aggravated it later in the month and missed seven games. Collins feels Wright tweaked his swing when initially dealing with the pain and now is searching to rediscover his old swing. One opposing pitcher who faced Wright this season said he thinks the third baseman is �trying to pull everything.�

When it rains, it pours. Bob Klapisch rains on David Wright's parade. And by "rain", I don't mean "soft rain". Klapisch: Is Mets� David Wright done at 31? August 25, 2014, 11:29 PM Last updated: Tuesday, August 26, 2014, 9:03 AM By BOB KLAPISCH RECORD BASEBALL COLUMNIST The Record Doesn�t it already feel as if David Wright�s prime was in a past lifetime, hazy and barely remembered? He�s only 31, but lately has hit as if he�s in decline, or at the stage of his career when minor injuries are a chronic drag on his offensive performance. Either way, Wright has become one of the Mets� most serious concerns. Crazy, isn�t it, that Wright did the Mets a favor by signing an eight-year, $138 million deal in 2012. Nice guy that he is, Wright deferred $8 million of that salary so the Wilpons could emerge from the Madoff cesspool. Both sides took a gamble on this deal. The Wilpons made Wright the richest player in franchise history, figuring he�d be the cornerstone of their rebirth. And Wright? He assumed the Mets would get to the playoffs while he was still in the sweet spot of his productive years. Turns out, both sides are disappointed in each other. Wright had to think the Mets would be in better shape by now. Instead, they�re the National League�s second-lowest-scoring team since the All-Star break, reeling toward a sixth straight losing season. Failure is so deeply woven into the Mets� culture that no one seems particularly traumatized: There�s no outrage from Terry Collins, no protest from Sandy Alderson, not a word from ownership. It�s just business as usual, as fans are promised � once again � better baseball next year. It�s always next year in Flushing. But 2015 means Wright will be a year older and more brittle, that much further from his peak, when pitchers feared that massive uppercut in his swing. It used to be, make a mistake to Wright, especially if you allowed him to extend his arms, and you�d pay with a blast to right-center. But Wright is only a shell of his former, line-drive-hitting self. He hasn�t hit a home run since July 11, a span of 143 at-bats, and is batting .200 since the All-Star break. The fact that Wright is still batting in the No. 3 spot speaks of Collins� loyalty to his slugger, although that soon may change. Starting tonight against the Braves, Wright and Daniel Murphy could flip-flop in the Nos. 2 and 3 slots, and even that change isn�t radical enough. What�s wrong, exactly? It could be a bad neck or a shoulder strain or both. If so, it makes less and less sense to keep sending Wright into battle. The Mets� final month has been rendered meaningless, destined to be played in front of thousands of empty seats at Citi Field. If Wright needs a few days off, he could benefit from skipping September altogether and prepare for spring training in Port St. Lucie, Fla. That�s when we�ll learn if Wright is being taken down by a more insidious enemy � old age. Let�s be clear: Wright is anything but old. He�s remarkably fit, even for someone past his 30th birthday, and always had led a clean life. There�s nothing Wright has done in his career to suggest he won�t bounce back. Yet, talent evaluators see a number of red flags when they size up the swing. �[Wright] has always been long to the ball, but lately it�s without that explosiveness,� one scout said. Another said Wright was in his �late prime� on opening day, but has since revised that assessment to say the slugger�s best days are behind him. Again, it could be the pain Wright feels in his neck or the tightness in his shoulder. Only Wright knows what it feels like swinging the bat. But subtract even a millisecond of reflex time and that long swing no longer covers the strike zone as it once did. Suddenly, Wright has holes that can be exploited, especially fastballs up and in. Even when he makes contact, Wright seems softer. His home run ratio is down to a career-low 1.5 percent, which is why opposing managers no longer fear him. Case in point was the Dodgers� willingness to pitch to Wright in the seventh inning Saturday night, up by only a run. The Mets had the tying run on second with Murphy due up, but he was intentionally walked despite the fact that he represented the go-ahead run. It was Wright whom Don Mattingly preferred to face � a decision that worked perfectly. Wright struck out as the Mets were defeated. Wright, to his credit, stood at his locker afterward and acknowledged how much he�s hurt the Mets in the last two months. �The numbers speak for themselves right now,� Wright said. �Obviously, it�s something where just as I don�t feel good at the plate, the other team can probably see that I don�t feel very good at the plate.� That�s what pains the Mets; Wright is the ultimate good guy, as liked and respected as anyone in the National League. But unless he starts hitting, the Mets are unlikely to reverse their downward spiral and will finish anywhere from 8 to 10 games under .500. That�s an embarrassing outcome, considering Alderson was talking about a 90-win season back in March. It wasn�t believable then, but who really thought the Mets would be 14� games out of first place before Labor Day? Mets fans have every reason to be churning in frustration, but it�s Wright who�s on the clock. He keeps waiting for the Mets to break through, even if they�re asking a tough question of their own: Will Wright still be an asset when we finally turn into contenders? http://www.northjersey.com/sports/klapisch-is-mets-david-wright-done-at-31-1.1075959

Because it's about time, even if no one here really knows .... http://online.wsj.com/articles/is-mets-david-wright-playing-hurt-or-just-playing-poorly-1409013537 plus, this graphic that illuminates why the Mets are sucking so bad lately. [fimg=233]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3838/14857169859_1aed3b7868_b.jpg[/fimg] Mets Captain Can't Wright the Ship The Question Is Whether He's Playing Hurt or Just Playing Poorly By Jared Diamond connect Aug. 25, 2014 8:38 p.m. ET LOS ANGELES�For anybody who follows the Mets, David Wright's departure in the third inning of Sunday's game elicited relief more than concern. His exit meant an injury, and maybe an explanation for what has become a miserable season. Clinging to the idea that neck spasms could be causing the worst slump of Wright's career sure beat the alternative possibility: that at age 31, in the second season of an eight-year, $138 million contract, the captain's skills have already eroded. But after the game, Wright did what he always does: He deflected and he downplayed, the same way he handled the balky left shoulder that likely started all his troubles. He insisted that he would play Tuesday, when the Mets return home to face the Atlanta Braves. He again refused to blame his production on his health. At this point, the Mets had better hope that he's lying. Because if this is what a healthy David Wright now looks like, they have a bigger problem on their hands than they could have ever imagined. "You like to think that you can try to make it the whole year without feeling pain, but that's probably not going to be the case," Wright said. "This year has just been frustrating with some of the injuries and some of the bothersome things that have happened." Bothersome, but not crippling, at least in Wright's judgment. So he remains on the field, entrenched in the most important spot in the lineup, even as his performance suffers. His presence at third base may not be hurting the team�what are the other options?�but it certainly isn't helping. Over the past month, Wright has been arguably the worst regular offensive player in the major leagues. Among players with at least 100 plate appearances since July 26, he ranks last with a .231 slugging percentage and second-to-last with a .492 on-base-plus-slugging-percentage. He has just one extra-base hit during the month of August and hasn't hit a homer since July 11. The slump has dropped his on-base percentage to a career-low .324, especially troubling considering that Wright had a combined .307 batting average and .391 OBP in 2012 and 2013. But the year before that, in 2011, Wright injured his back early in season and saw his batting average fall to a career-low .254 after he emerged from the disabled list. As in 2011, it seems easy to attribute his issues this year to an injury�in this case his shoulder, which he hurt while sliding headfirst into second base at a muddy Citi Field in June. He missed seven games at the time but avoided the disabled list. During the All-Star break, he received a cortisone shot to relieve the pain. Nonetheless, the Mets and Wright adamantly deny the shoulder's impact. In fact, manager Terry Collins said Sunday that Wright "doesn't even get treatment on it anymore," though Wright can frequently be seen in the clubhouse icing it. Wright, meanwhile, dances around questions about his condition, often resorting to one tried and true line: "If I'm in the lineup," he said last weekend, "I expect to produce." The closest the Mets will come to admitting that Wright's shoulder has affected his production is to say that the initial injury caused him to alter his swing mechanics, something he has yet to correct. "I think that was an issue, and I think he's changed his swing because of that," Collins said of Wright's shoulder. "Now I think he's created a bad habit." So now what? If Wright is healthy, what can the Mets do to snap him out of his malaise? Clearly, something has to change. Opposing teams no longer fear Wright. On Saturday, Dodgers manager Don Mattingly walked second baseman Daniel Murphy intentionally in a crucial situation just to face Wright. (He struck out.) Wright is also seeing strikes 47.5% of the time, up from 46.1% last season. Collins could sit Wright for a few days, for mental reasons if not physical ones, but neither party sounds especially open to that approach. To Collins, top players work out of their struggles at the plate, not on the bench. "David Wright at 80% is still probably better than anybody else I can put in there," Collins said. "The fact that he's been a star and he's not hitting is an issue because he's a star. And he's our star." Collins could consider moving Wright around in the batting order, perhaps switching him with Murphy, the No. 2 hitter. But he wouldn't drop a player like Wright out of the middle of the lineup, no matter how poorly he is hitting. It would show panic and lead to an outcry. "Where are you going to hit him?" Collins said. "Because ultimately, somebody else is going to have to pick up the slack." For now, Wright will play. His neck injury shouldn't keep him away for too long. It would take something much more substantial to drive Wright from the field. The Mets can only hope he rediscovers his form. If not, all their years of rebuilding could go for naught. They need Wright�the old Wright. "I'm not having any fun," Wright said. "The team is not having fun."

Gwreck wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Not only is he having, by far, the worst season of his career Baseball-reference says David had a WAR of 2.8 in 2010; and 2.5 so far this year. (He also had 2.0 in 2011, but only played 100 games that year). slash lines 2010 .283/.354/ .503 --- 131 (OPS+) 2014 .268/326/.371 --- 100 (ops) I don't see how his 2010 WAR (WAR rate really) could be worse than this year's. Wright even received some MVP voting in 2010. Must be the shady and mysterious defensive part of the WAR that's boosting his 2014 WAR rate to the point that you could suggest that 2010 is his worst season. And even so, his past WAR's are irrelevant to the claim that he's one of baseball's worst third baseman this year. Among the 24 qualified third baseman, Wright ranks 14th in AVG., 18th in OBP, 21st in SLG., 20th in OPS, and 21st in RC27. We're less than two weeks away from Labor Day and he's still on pace to hit just 10 HR's. You think this isn't his worst season?

Frayed Knot wrote: Fman99 wrote: Wow the Captain is scuffling these days. Scuffling? He'd have to improve ten-fold just to get to scuffling. That's about right. Not only is he having, by far, the worst season of his career, he's also one of the worst third baseman in all of baseball by almost every rate measure among those (31 of those) with enough PA's to qualify for the batting title. Even the canard that David Wright, at 80%, is still better than most third baseman -still repeated frequently- is happy horseshit in 2014.

Kind of ironic how Keith Hernandez comments on how much of a shell of his former self Brian Wilson is ... just as David Wright is about to take an at bat.

Frayed Knot wrote: L/R swapping/matching-up See post above yours.

Terry Collins leads the league in times he uses a pitcher to face just one batter.

Edgy MD wrote: By "leads" do you mean mostest, or most successful?\ Most. I'm gonna post the answer in a few minutes, so guess now or never.

You guys should nail this quiz 'cause you sure as hell do a lot of complaining in the IGT's whenever Terry pulls one of these moves, which, according to Grantland, Terry does more frequently than anybody else.

There's a school of thought that sez that a manager should figure who his best available eight players are, organize them in lineup order and then sit back and let them play while doing as little as possible throughout the rest of the game. If you ask me, it's a somewhat simplified way of expressing a theory that has a lot of ring to it. OE The answer I'm looking for has nothing to with bunting.

Light analytical piece about "meddling" baseball managers here, ranking managers across a range of moves such as pinch hitting, sacs, intentional bb's and seven other categories. John Gibbons is Grantland's most meddlesome manager. Terry Collins ranks 9th, much closer to the top than to the bottom. But there's one category that Terry leads all other managers in, and more or less blows away the competition. What's that category? No peeking.

Edgy MD wrote: I think a notable thing is that, since 1979, the top team is not necessarily the top team. You mean 1969, but I get you. It was theoretically possible for one of the NL playoff teams to be merely the 7th best team in the league, and 8th best in the AL (1977-1993). What are the odds of that? I'll tell you. With two six team divisions, the odds of the leagues six best teams playing in one division and the worst six teams playing in the other division are 462-1. With two seven team divisions, the odds of the leagues seven best teams playing in one division and the worst seven teams playing in the other division are 1,716-1.

For the same reasons that Vic states, I prefer the current WC system to the older one. (Like I'd prefer knee replacement surgery over having my eyeballs gouged out). But overall, no matter what WC sysyem they're using in baseball, it's too many playoff teams for my blood. I don't like postseason baseball because I think it's a total crap-shoot. Only twice during the 19 Wild Card era World Series, have the best teams in each league vied for the title. It happened in the WC era's first WS (1995), and it happened last year. Only six of those 19 WS were played between two of the best four teams in baseball. The 1973 Mets rule! No, I'm fine with that, despite the slight bias. That was a rare occurrence. I don't have anything against upsets, or an unexpected team winning the crown. But those events should have their place. If it happens too often (and I think it does in baseball - and I don't necessarily mean an 82 win team in the WS, -- but a non-elite team taking the title) it cheapens the game.

Frayed Knot wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport. Sure you did. You didn't specifically use the word 'unique' but you did say that the amount of luck involved in determining the outcome of any game was "significantly more so [in baseball] than in any of the other major team sports" which was the major turn-off for you about baseball's post-season. Not really. I was super fine with the way things were before expanded playoffs, even though whatever luck exists in baseball is the same with or without wild cards. It's the wild cards that turned me off -- not the luck. Baseball's a long season and the luck gets more or less sorted out over as many as 162 games, so I reasoned. And even though the playoffs and World Series are a crap-shoot, at least the old playoffs system virtually ensured that it would be contested between the elite teams. I don't see this happening under expanded playoffs, and to my way of experiencing the game, the wild cards have cheapened the game to the point where it's ruined my enjoyment of the post-season. I understand what you mean when you say that the best NFL teams don't always win the Super Bowl, but it's not a proper comparison, again, to my way of seeing things and experiencing the game. First off, I wouldn't attribute that to luck as much as I would to a very short season, and a single elimination playoff tournament. Secondly, who's to say who the best NFL teams are? They play 16 games. That's the whole season. 16 games. That's not even three weeks of a baseball season. And I can cherry-pick different three week stretches of a baseball season to prove just about anything I want to. If the 2014 baseball season was comprised of the first three weeks of the season, for example, Clayton Kershaw goes from a pitcher on the verge of completing one of the most dominant seasons ever, to someone who doesn't throw a single pitch and has "DID NOT PLAY" instead of stats on the 2014 line on the back of next year's baseball cards. If I pick a more recent three week stretch, the NY Mets, a bad baseball team, suddenly appear to be World Series Contenders and the local tabloids are writing about Lucas Duda as if he's the second coming of Babe Ruth. See what I mean by "16 games"? Last year, the Arizona Cardinals didn't even make the playoffs even though they won seven of their last nine games, including a win at Seattle. Who's to say that if the NFL was 40 games long, the Cards don't win the title running away? It's not luck, but not enough games. I suppose that I'd feel safe saying that the team that went 12-4 was better than the 6-10 team. But ranking NFL teams three or four games apart based on the ridiculously small sample size that constitutes an NFL season is, I think, a fool's errand. And I accept all of this in the NFL because there's nothing that can be done about it. NFL teams can't play 162 games, or 82, or probably even 20. So I accept those limitations. But as far as baseball goes, I can't get it out of my mind that they ruined a good thing with the wild cards.

They should draw a line in the sand. Literally. Only when the baserunner passes that line is the catcher prohibited from blocking the plate without the ball. [fimg=366:2f2rvcxv]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5568/14740917969_206667664a_s.jpg[/fimg:2f2rvcxv] (Can't figure out why my flickr pics are showing so blurry.)

I don't want life from my sports. I get enough life from life.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: You raise an interesting point in one of your other posts. Why don't the dominant baseball teams win 70 or 75% of their regular season games, as do their counterparts in the other major American team sports? I've got a few theories. Baseball is a less-true game, right? And luck is a leveler, isn't it? Bingo! I'm with you on that one. Also, an elite player has less of an overall impact in baseball. A basketball team, for example, can run its entire offense around a Michael Jordan or a Lebron James. Dick Butkus or Patrick Willis can play just about every snap. But a baseball team can't have its superstar hitter take 15 or 20 at-bats a game, can't even have its superstar hitter take the key at bat in a game, unless that hitter is available to pinch-hit, and can't have its ace start every game.

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm just disagreeing with the notion that baseball's post-season 'randomness' is particularly unique, and when similar arguments for one is often used against the other. [Random Sportscaster]The reason I hate baseball and refuse to talk about it is that these number geeks have ruined the whole sport ... so let's get back to our discussion QB Ratings and RPI Indexes[/Random Sportscaster] Well, you seem to be disagreeing with me. And I never said anything about "uniqueness", or compared baseball to any other sport. You seemed to have set that up one, and then sucked me in. I simply said that the expanded playoff system in baseball was a big turnoff for me, and that it exacerbates what I consider to be a problem with the sport -- that the ratio of luck to skill in baseball is greater than my tastes would prefer. I don't understand why my point should be diminished because of things you point out in some of the other sports. You raise an interesting point in one of your other posts. Why don't the dominant baseball teams win 70 or 75% of their regular season games, as do their counterparts in the other major American team sports? I've got a few theories.

But the company still exists. http://www.chicobailbonds.com/