batmagadanleadoff

He's kinda useless against lefties. Not as bad as Francouer against righties, but pretty bad, with an atrocious batting eye for the strike zone against southpaws. But not a bad 2012, split-wise. I hope Collins moves him down in the lineup a few slots against LHP's: Grandy's numbers justify that treatment. They actually really don't. He hasn't had a platoon issue since 2010. He hit lefties better in 2011, and hasn't shown a significant difference, overall-performance-wise, over the last two years. That was a typo. I meant to write "not a bad 2011, split-wise", instead of 2012. Not only was Grandy uncharacteristically good agsainst lefties in 2011, but by many measures, even better against lefites than righties. Still, there's not much overall success against lefties, although almost all of it is most recent. A new trend? A fluke season+? TBD I disagree with a lot of the comments made in the various Grandy threads about how Citi Field is gonna knock down his HR output, and thus, by implication, his effectiveness. CF may indeed reduce his home HR output ... but so what? That's only half of the analysis. If CF reduces Grandy's home HR's by more or less the same rate CF reduces everyone else's rates, than Grandy is no less effective a home HR hitter than he was pre-CF. His reduced output would be countered by the fact that his HR's would have more value in, presumably, a scarcer run environment. If Grandy's home HR's are reduced by a significantly greater rate than is to be expected because of CF's dimensions, then that would be a problem. You may be right. Some posit that his changes in approach since joining the MFYs (see: platoon improvements) included more uppercuts/flyballs. The Fangraphs numbers seem to put the lie to this, but they also show a guy who's striking out at an increasingly-alarming rate, and popping up a little more. I don't know the future. I don't know when Grandy begins to decline, or how rapid that decline would be once it begins, if it hasn't already begun. Oh, it has. You're probably right on this one. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt of last season's injuries. But I can't hide his diminishing speed and quickness, nor can I lay that on a coupla fluky HBP's. This thread (and the Young thread, and all other who should the Mets get threads) is like a Rorschach. The more I think about it, the more irreconcilable opinions I can come up with. And ultimately, those opinions probably tell me more about myself than about Granderson. So after all of the financial wrist wrangling and Madoff imposed austerity, and after all of the waiting for the Bay and Santana and Castillo contracts to come off the books, what do the Mets finally do? They give out $16M a year to a player that'll be 33 years old before next season even starts.

LWFS's gonna be in for a rude awakening. (So was I, when I looked up Keith's dWAR years ago).

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Brings useful skills to the table, and provides the potential to be Byrded in July or August if he goes well and we do not. Like. He might hit 40 HR's, too. Or win the MVP. But if I was a betting man, I'd say that the likeliest outcome is that Young'll suck, and so will the Mets.

He's kinda useless against lefties. Not as bad as Francouer against righties, but pretty bad, with an atrocious batting eye for the strike zone against southpaws. But not a bad 2012, split-wise. I hope Collins moves him down in the lineup a few slots against LHP's: Grandy's numbers justify that treatment. They actually really don't. He hasn't had a platoon issue since 2010. He hit lefties better in 2011, and hasn't shown a significant difference, overall-performance-wise, over the last two years. That was a typo. I meant to write "not a bad 2011, split-wise", instead of 2012. Not only was Grandy uncharacteristically good agsainst lefties in 2011, but by many measures, even better against lefites than righties. Still, there's not much overall success against lefties, although almost all of it is most recent. A new trend? A fluke season+? TBD I disagree with a lot of the comments made in the various Grandy threads about how Citi Field is gonna knock down his HR output, and thus, by implication, his effectiveness. CF may indeed reduce his home HR output ... but so what? That's only half of the analysis. If CF reduces Grandy's home HR's by more or less the same rate CF reduces everyone else's rates, than Grandy is no less effective a home HR hitter than he was pre-CF. His reduced output would be countered by the fact that his HR's would have more value in, presumably, a scarcer run environment. If Grandy's home HR's are reduced by a significantly greater rate than is to be expected because of CF's dimensions, then that would be a problem. You may be right. Some posit that his changes in approach since joining the MFYs (see: platoon improvements) included more uppercuts/flyballs. The Fangraphs numbers seem to put the lie to this, but they also show a guy who's striking out at an increasingly-alarming rate, and popping up a little more. I don't know the future. I don't know when Grandy begins to decline, or how rapid that decline would be once it begins, if it hasn't already begun. Oh, it has. You're probably right on this one. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt of last season's injuries. But I can't hide his diminishing speed and quickness, nor can I lay that on a coupla fluky HBP's.

He's kinda useless against lefties. Not as bad as Francouer against righties, but pretty bad, with an atrocious batting eye for the strike zone against southpaws. But not a bad 2012, split-wise. I hope Collins moves him down in the lineup a few slots against LHP's: Grandy's numbers justify that treatment. I disagree with a lot of the comments made in the various Grandy threads about how Citi Field is gonna knock down his HR output, and thus, by implication, his effectiveness. CF may indeed reduce his home HR output ... but so what? That's only half of the analysis. If CF reduces Grandy's home HR's by more or less the same rate CF reduces everyone else's rates, than Grandy is no less effective a home HR hitter than he was pre-CF. His reduced output would be countered by the fact that his HR's would have more value in, presumably, a scarcer run environment. If Grandy's home HR's are reduced by a significantly greater rate than is to be expected because of CF's dimensions, then that would be a problem. I don't know the future. I don't know when Grandy begins to decline, or how rapid that decline would be once it begins, if it hasn't already begun. I understand the risks involved in acquiring a 33 year old. So does everyone else here. I don't expect Granderson, by himself, to make the Mets a contender. But I'm glad the Mets made this deal happen.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I nuetrally like it. Obviously Grandy Man is better than no Grandy Man, and is much prefereable to some other considerations but he could easily be a bomb. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times....

How the hell do I know if the Mets should sign Granderson? If I had a crystal ball, the last thing I'd be doing is posting on this forum.

metsmarathon wrote: do you guys really need another clue after all i've given you? over the course of the mystery met hitter's career, he was lucky enough to play enough seasons to get his name on a hall of fame ballot. You already told us that he played for 16 seasons. So the HOF ballot clue wasn't much of a clue. Not that I need a clue. I'm boycotting the rest of this quiz. Remember? I'd figure it out in 5 minutes if I really wanted to.

Like the Mets have anyone better than Granderson that can play the outfield. And if he should suck three years from now, what with him being 31 and all right now, maybe three years from now, the Mets can start acting like the big boy franchise from New York City that they're supposed to be, and just dump Granderson for the next big thing. They surely have no problem charging their fans about the highest ticket prices in the National League.

G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: If I'm right, it's only because of those baseball card threads I did last season.... Moises Alou ....> Excellent guess... You're too kind. It was a bad guess for the category "didn't face the Mets before expansion". I was so psyched to remember that Moises was a Pirate for about three seconds at the start of his career, that I forgot that he then went to the Expos, and played against the Mets plenty.

Ellis Valentine was a pretty good player who, undeservedly, got the superstar treatment because Bill James hadn't gone mainstream yet. (See, also, Garvey, Steve for an extreme example of this '70s phenomenon)

[fimg=300:1eufa16o]http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120914120351/uncyclopedia/images/b/b5/Exploding-head.gif[/fimg:1eufa16o]

I'm boycotting the rest of this quiz because Angel Pagan made the top 10. Your list is FUBAR.

If I'm right, it's only because of those baseball card threads I did last season.... Moises Alou is your guy who didn't face the Mets until expansion to Miami/Denver.

Prior to interleague play, and not including the 1974 and '75 seasons, I don't think Shea had an edge over YS. It's true that Topps couldn't photograph NL players in YS -- but that advantage was offset by the fact that Topps couldn't photograph AL players at Shea. Isn't this obvious? Does this need to even be posted? And then, as Edgy pointed out, after the '76 season, the AL would have a team edge over the NL that would last until '93. But to be sure, someone should count the cards. What era? I dunno. Let's go '70's. Because that's when I collected cards more than ever.

Edgy MD wrote: Got to happen, but it doesn't need to happen in front of a camera. Of course it does. You're old, man.

seawolf17 wrote: I've always maintained that the overwhelming majority of card photos from that era were taken in New York and Chicago. NY and the Bay Area (SF/Oak)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Queens over Bronx? Well, Shea was shiny and new, then, right? Yes. But did it matter? Other than two seasons, Topps wasn't going to get any pics of American Leaguers at Shea.

[youtube:3mwtv5ix]UNbxMCwSD7Y[/youtube:3mwtv5ix]

You know that the guy's just chomping at the bit to ridicule the Mets off-season pickups, but he's gotta bite his tongue for now because the team still has -- according to the team, anyway -- about $25M more to play with. So we get this Tejada piece instead, for now.

The Mets' Tejada era continues, after all By Howard Megdal 10:56 am Nov. 27, 2013 Back in the heady days of summer and early fall, when the Mets' pursuit of big-ticket outfielders like Shin-Soo Choo populated some newspapers and Sandy Alderson spoke openly of $100 million payrolls, one thing was all but certain: Ruben Tejada wouldn't be the shortstop in 2014. The Mets made this clear in several ways. Tejada and Ike Davis both struggled early, and both were exiled to the minor leagues for a significant portion of the season, but only Davis returned. Rather than bring Tejada back, the Mets elected to go with Omar Quintanilla for most of the year, even though Quintanilla's present (.222/.306/.283 in 2013) and his future (he just turned 32) didn't suggest he'd be particularly useful. And with a winter of upgrades supposedly coming, it was hard to fathom the Mets wouldn't choose to move on from Tejada and improve upon Quintanilla. So it was sobering to hear Alderson, on Tuesday's conference call introducing the low-rent alternative to Choo, Chris Young, say this about shortstop in 2014: �So is it conceivable that Ruben Tejada or someone within in the organization is playing shortstop for us on Opening Day? I think the short answer is yes. But, again, what we�re trying to do is improve the team as a whole. And so while shortstop is an obvious place for improvement, it�s not the only one. And if we�re successful elsewhere, as many clubs do, they get by on their strengths and hope to be as adequate as possible in those areas where they�re weaker.� It wasn't the most robust vote of confidence, to be sure. And logic would dictate that Alderson speak as positively as possible about his own players. After all, what organization would publicly tarnish one of its own tradeable assets, especially one budget constraints might force them to keep? Here's Alderson, on the need to upgrade at shortstop, way back in October 2013: "Now you look at shortstop and, well you know, can we get by, you can�t get by with multiple positions that way so you know we�ve got to look at it that way and it�s not as easy as just saying well we�ve got to improve the shortshop position, we probably do. Can we go into the season with what we had last year? Well we got by with Quintanilla and Tejada and so forth, but that�s not what we�re trying to do next season so it�s definitely an area we have to look at." And why was the organization so down on Tejada? Alderson spelled that out as well, back in September. "You know, one of the problems with Ruben is, it�s like pulling teeth. Extra batting practice, extra this, extra that, doesn�t happen unless someone else is insisting on it. And that�s what we need to see. We need to see a commitment to improvement." They didn't get to see that much in New York. The team delayed bringing Tejada up to the big leagues until September 10--a maneuver that gave the team an extra year of control over Tejada, in 2017--at the expense of seeing what he could do at the major league level for a meaningful period in 2013. A little over a week later, Tejada broke his leg, ending his season, and his post-demotion evaluation, after seven games. But, even if he'd played out the season, the Mets wouldn't have learned much more in an additional two weeks. Now certainly, there's an argument to be made for putting Tejada into the Opening Day lineup next year. He's just 24 years old. He was a competent major league shortstop as recently as 2012. As Terry Collins put it back in July: "He's not Jose Reyes, but this guy had great instincts to the ball." But, two years after ownership's financial limitations meant letting Reyes, the team's homegrown elite shortstop, go elsewhere, the Mets were supposed to be chasing better shortstop situations than simply hoping the guy who hit .202 last year ,while management publicly disparaged him, (and is recovering from a broken leg) will return to previous form. Instead, Mets fans might want to get used to more soundbites from Terry Collins about Ruben Tejada like this one, back in May, after Tejada failed to get a bunt down. "When I first came to this organization, that was the first thing they talked about was Ruben Tejada, his approach to the game and how it�s so beyond his years as far as his mental approach. But he's had a rough start and hopefully what I saw the last couple of games, he�s starting to see the baseball a little bit better, hitting more line drives. Hopefully he�s back and finishes the season strong because you don�t hit .285 by mistake because he�s a good hitter." http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/sports/2013/11/8536712/mets-tejada-era-continues-after-all

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I'm not saying to open the floodgates, but I don't see the sense in making some people wait 15 years because some people casting ballots don't think more than two people should be inducted in a given year, or they're deciding to take a self-aggrandizing stance. Or, if they're not electing people at all when there are people who are over-qualified on the ballot. The irony is that the writers aren't staving off the floodgates either. In the end, every deserving candidate usually gets in anyway. And to the extent the voters make some mistakes, whether an admission or an exclusion you might disagree with, it's almost always at the fringes, or boundaries of admissions. In the end, the Rod Carews still get in and the Don Bufords don't. So if the voters are withholding votes from knowingly deserving candidates to stem some imaginary tide of entry, it isn't working.

It seems that the older I get, the less I understand. I just took a quick glance at the eligibles and it seems that there's more than 10 that are deserving of enshrinement. If I'm right, then I could justify how some might not get in this year, but only provided that 10 get in. I don't know why some HOF'ers have to wait. Some of your ballots are including a half dozen or so candidates, while at the same time acknowledging that there are other deserving candidates who nevertheless should wait. I still don't know why Yogi Berra didn't get in in his first year of eligibility, or why Tom Seaver is the all-time leader in voting % - with less than 100% of the vote. Seaver should've gotten every vote possible ... along with dozens of other players throughout history. There's probably more than 50 HOF'ers who are no-brainer automatic inner circle MLB'ers who were so great, so transcendent, they make some other HOF'ers look like crapola. Why nobody ever got 100% of the ballot still beats me. Someone left Willie Mays off their ballot? Stan Musial? Mickey Mantle? Explain those omissions to me. Someone doubted Jim Palmer's or Willie Stargell's bona fides? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: NOBODY living ... with a connection to the game was inducted last year. That means ... a logjam for the foreseeable future that might actually work to PERPETUATE what happened for the next ten years or so, at least... and push some of the finest pitchers and hitters in the game-- like, top-5 best EVER-- to the Veteran's Committee, if then. I disagree. I'm not necessarily siding with last year's non-vote or boycott, but it shouldn't create a logjam. Unless every season going forward produces more than 10 new eligible HOF-worthy candidates. And that hasn't happened since the initial inductions. And that's only because there was no HOF prior, and the first ballots represented 50 or so years of HOF-less baseball. If there was a moratorium on HOF admission for the next 50 years, the 2063 ballot would undoubtedly include more than 10 eligible inner circle candidates, too. To the extent the voters might create logjams is not really new. They're already creating somewhat of a logjam by enforcing their own self-invented rules about who deserves to get inducted in their first year of eligibility. I mean, if you think that Jim Rice is a HOF'er, then he should've gotten in immediately. 'Cause he didn't get any better during his retirement, waiting out the HOF balloting process.

dinosaur jesus wrote: I'd bet that there's at least one Met with a golden singing voice, but he won't show it off because of the macho culture he exists in. I bet it's Duda. Something like this. That's so perfect.

What's the rumor with the voters? Are they gonna keep out their steroids suspects for another year?