batmagadanleadoff

Must be all that South Beach supermodel hounding.... Despite Poor Numbers, Miami Also Has Harvey�s By ANDRE C. FERNANDEZ Published: August 1, 2013 MIAMI � Matt Harvey has mystified plenty of hitters throughout his 2013 All-Star season. But a victory against the last-place Marlins, the worst-hitting team in baseball, continued to elude Harvey, the Mets� ace, on Thursday afternoon. Harvey looked like his usual dominant self for five innings, holding the Marlins to one hit on 79 pitches, 52 of them strikes. But with the Mets unable to back up their starter with any runs of their own, Harvey unraveled in the sixth inning, which led to a 3-0 loss at Marlins Park. �It�s not like I take this team any differently than any other of my starts,� Harvey said. �It just happens that this team finds a way to squeeze out some runs.� The Marlins, who entered the game with a major-league-worst .231 batting average and 241 runs, broke the scoreless tie with three runs on four hits in the inning to come out with a split of the four-game series. For only the third time in 22 starts this season, Harvey failed to complete six innings. All three of those starts have come against the Marlins at Marlins Park. �Matt certainly deserves a better fate than he�s had,� said Terry Collins, the Mets� manager. �The teams that are a little more aggressive swing and miss,� Collins added. �These guys don�t swing and miss. They put the ball in play. They hit the ball to all fields, so they�re a little tougher for him.� Harvey did strike out eight Marlins and walked none, but he lasted only five and two-thirds innings, giving up five hits and hitting one batter. In four starts against Miami this season, Harvey is 0-1 with a 3.52 earned run average. Harvey is 8-2 with a 1.98 E.R.A. against everyone else. The Mets fell to 5-10 against the Marlins this season. �You can get to that point in the game and you can see his ball start to come up,� Collins said. �He had two or three sliders that didn�t have much depth to them. One of the things we�re trying to get him to understand is that he works so hard and throws so hard that late in the game, sometimes it�s easier for him if he gets easy outs early on. When you see his breaking ball flattening out, he�s running out of gas.� Marlins pinch-hitter Juan Pierre and the rookie left fielder Christian Yelich led off the sixth with back-to-back singles to put runners on first and third. Harvey almost worked his way out of trouble, recording outs by getting Adeiny Hechavarria to line out to short and striking out Giancarlo Stanton. But first baseman Logan Morrison lined an 88 mile-per-hour changeup to right field to score Pierre. �My job is to go out and put up zeros regardless of whatever is going on,� Harvey said. �I�m going to say that until I�m blue in the face. Obviously I didn�t do that today, and I�m not happy about it.� After Harvey hit third baseman Ed Lucas on the next at-bat, Marlins second baseman Donovan Solano fouled off five pitches until finally hitting a single to right that scored two more runs, finishing Harvey�s afternoon with the Marlins leading, 3-0. �I wasn�t able to make my pitches when I needed to,� Harvey said. �The ball came up, and I left it over the middle quite a bit. It was just one of those days it happened in the sixth inning. Other times I�ve been able to work through it.� The Mets wasted a few chances to give Harvey an early lead, leaving nine runners on base through the first six innings. Justin Turner, who started at second for Daniel Murphy, delivered a two-out single in the third inning as the Mets continued to work high pitch counts off Koehler, who was not nearly as efficient as Harvey, yet managed to keep the Mets off the board. The Mets loaded the bases in the third inning after David Wright drew a walk and Marlon Byrd was hit by a pitch. But Ike Davis continued his season-long struggle, leaving the bases loaded by popping up in foul ground to third baseman Ed Lucas. Davis also came up with runners on first and second and two outs in the top of the first,�We�re just not driving in runs and we have to figure out what we�re doing here,� Collins said. �If we knew what it was, we�d fix it. We�re not driving them in. There�s nothing wrong with our approach. We�re not putting good swings on pitches we can hit. We�re fouling pitches off we should be hitting.� http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/sports/baseball/harvey-is-again-foiled-by-lowly-marlins.html

Edgy MD wrote: I didn't speak to you agreeing. I merely hoped you got it. Apparently not. Apparently not. I cant agree or disagree if I don't even know what I might want to agree or disagree with. You can go back now to guard duty over the point of this conversation, which is apparently sealed inside of a mayonnaise jar inside of an Egyptian tomb, circled by evil spirits and buried 300 feet deep in somebody's backyard.

Edgy MD wrote: So outside of David Wright, the Mets are, at best, league average at every other position, and just as likely, at the bottom, among the worst. That, obviously, includes the outfield. I got nothing against middle-of-the-pack production, and am either happy to get it when it's from a young player who perhaps has something to offer on defense and maybe a spike or two in his future. What's objectionable are the positions on the ass-end, and how they offset the hard-won victories of high-end talent like Wright and Harvey. I hope you get the broader point. Get it? I can't agree or disagree because I don't even what it is. That the Mets had a good July? That we're set at outfield even though it's anchored by a right fielder who turns 36 this month and until this season, hasn't had a good campaign since the Bush administration?

So the issue that really matters is how this outfield is likely to do going forward. I think the issue that really matters is finding a firstbaseman who hits like Jon Olerud. Or Rico Brogna. Or Dave Magadan. Sold or not on Lagares, he has centerfield a lot more nailed down than anybody has first. The defense isn't merely better than Duda, it's been pretty exceptional with him out there, despite Byrd's belly and Young's propensity to play no-doubles defense 24-7. Whatever you think of our outfield, the positions most hurting the team day after day seem to me to be first, shortstop, and catcher. Current standings by position represent the season and not where the team is now (thus, a still-low rating in center), but they're meaningful pictures I think, even if they represent offense only. Third Base: First out of 15 Teams in OPS. Second Base: Seventh out of 15 Teams in OPS. Left Field: Seventh out of 15 Teams in OPS. Right Field: 8th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Catcher: 10th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Center Field: 12th out of 15 Teams in OPS. First Base: 13th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Shortstop: 15th out of 15 Teams in OPS. Funny to see the deadlastness of shortstop. Unlike first and center and even catcher, we haven't had a period of outright crisis there in 2013, just steady bland badness. So outside of David Wright, the Mets are, at best, league average at every other position, and just as likely, at the bottom, among the worst. That, obviously, includes the outfield.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I didn't bring up the point. I know. I was just asking.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: He clearly said (and meant) over the last month. OK. So then what's the point? That the Mets had a good July?

Vic Sage wrote: This shows me (and thanks for doing the legwork) that the current OF is somewhere in close range of the 99-00 teams; slightly better than 2000 and slightly worse (or even) to 1999, depending on which numbers you use and how many OFers on each time you include. But i'll concede is probably slightly better overall, which, to put it in perspective, suggests that this OF is at least comparable to the OF that was considered the reason why those 99-00 playoff teams never make it over the hump, and is an OF generally criticized as being the anchor that dragged those good teams down. I hardly think the comparison to that OF is a ringing endorsement for this crew such that they are worthy of huzzahs from Sandy. I agree. I'm still scratching my head over the accolades suddenly being sent the way of this outfield. I'm supposed to be thrilled because what? --they field better than Duda? You could carry this outfield if these Mets had a catcher that hit like Mike Piazza, a first baseman that hit like John Olerud and a second baseman that hit like Edgardo Alfonzo. But we ain't got anything close to that and these Mets ain't going anywhere this season. So the issue that really matters is how this outfield is likely to do going forward. I'm not sold on Lagares: are you? And as for Byrd, kudos to him but I wouldn't bet anything on a 2014 repeat of what Byrd's done so far as a Met. Nor would I expect it. If the Mets think they're set at outfield, then they're gonna need for the pitching staff to morph into Seaver, Koosman and Matlack, with a Stone-like career year from their 4th starter to contend in 2014.

Haven't heard from Howie the M. in a few days. Here's Mr. Gloom's piece on the Mets approaching the trading deadline. Just How Short-Term Are The Mets Thinking? 29 July 2013, 11:48 am by Howard Megdal So Anthony DiComo has a report on where the Mets are, roughly two days out from the non-waiver trade deadline. And here�s the portion that is particularly bewildering: �With starting pitchers Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler already entrenched in the rotation and several other promising young arms coming up through the system, the Mets feel they are closer to competing on an annual basis than they have been since the middle of last decade. So they will not do anything to disrupt their roster unless it makes sense for 2014�not for 2015, 2016 or beyond.� The bewildering part isn�t what DiComo is writing, but rather the thinking he is reporting. As argument against dealing Bobby Parnell, I understand it. This is not to say I think the Mets shouldn�t deal Parnell, a fungible asset (closers almost all are), if there is better value to get back. But Parnell is under team control for two more years after this one, and on the strength of his past two seasons since taking up the knuckle curve, he�s a solid bullpen building block in 2014. But Byrd: his value to this team is in 2013. And that�s it. Byrd will be a free agent at the end of the year. The Mets can either bet on him by offering him the one-year deal required to receive compensation if he signs elsewhere, which was more than $13 million in 2012 and which Byrd would likely sign ridiculously fast. (Also, idea that Mets have that $13 million to spend on him is decidedly dicey at this point.) Otherwise, they will have the same chance to sign him this winter as everyone else, getting to decide if a career league average hitter who hasn�t even been that since 2010 is suddenly now a good bet to be well above league average in 2014, his age-36 season. So if they could only receive help for 2015 and 2016: well, those years exist, too. And they aren�t sacrificing 2014 beyond losing out on the added revenue employing Marlon Byrd brings in for 2013. Of course, even that revenue, for years, has been earmarked not for improving the team, but for keeping ownership afloat. And bottom line: that�s the same short-term interests this team has so often followed. When Sandy Alderson has been permitted to think long-term, instead, players like Zack Wheeler and Noah Syndergaard are added to the organization. Both are pretty good bets to at least be around to help the Mets in 2014. Even the idea that there is some value in a better 2013 record leads to the obvious question: why didn�t management take basic steps this winter to try and add outfielders ready to help in 2013 and 2014, for instance, on two-year deals? The result would have improved this team, broadened the talent base of the next team, and made dealing an out-of-nowhere performance like Byrd�s far easier to swallow. The answer, of course, lies north of Alderson, where the wallets were empty. So we are dealing with short-term questions, less than a year out from ownership�s due date on a $320 million loan against the team. Now, that may or may not mean Byrd will be retained. This could all be posturing. We�ll see where things stand at 4 PM on Wednesday. But remember: keeping Marlon Byrd is not about helping the 2014 Mets. And if ownership needs whatever that small marginal revenue is provided by Marlon Byrd, they are again taking it at the expense of the future competitiveness, measured by whichever prospect the Mets don�t receive in return for Byrd, of the on-field team. It�s the same story, large and small, and it has really held this team back for years now. http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/07/29/just-how-short-term-are-the-mets-thinking/

The Mets were everywhere in the year or so following their Miracle of '69. Even Art Shamsky made the cover of a national fashion magazine, sharing the front page with fashion supermodel Lauern Hutton. Here are two Topps vendor retail boxes from 1970. This one features a generic Met: And this one features Tom Seaver on an alternate 1970 Topps card. Actual Topps 1970 Seaver card:

Frayed Knot wrote: But using up an out to move that runner on second with nobody out decreases the overall or total number of runs the team could be expected to score in the inning. Which is something I wasn't arguing. That's right.

MFS62 wrote: He's now 1 for 17. Later Good. So now I can change the thread title to Doo Doo Doo Doo Dah (Heartbreaker)

New & Improved Mejia ... Now with more ingredient Nasty ... Nod to Warthen ... Read all about it .... Is Jenrry Mejia ready to reclaim his phenom status for NY Mets? BY Andy Martino MIAMI -- These two games aren�t stacked on top of one another on the same day, as when Matt Harvey and Zack Wheeler swept the Braves in their �Super Tuesday� doubleheader in Atlanta last month. Plus, the Mets are competing for attention this week with the trade deadline, and the imminent war between Alex Rodriguez and Major League Baseball. Maybe no one is watching Mets-Marlins, save for Jerry Seinfeld, Snooki, Paul Auster and a smattering of bloggers, but Tuesday and Wednesday in Little Havana present another peek at the light for the organization. This one is almost more compelling than that June doubleheader, because it involves not only Wheeler on Tuesday but Jenrry Mejia -- Jenrry Mejia! Remember him? -- on Wednesday. Seriously, it�s crazy that he�s back, and apparently nastier than during his hype days. Wheeler�s sometimes awkward, occasionally spectacular learning process is a compelling storyline this season, and it continued against the Marlins on Tuesday. This game showcased a bit of both, with Wheeler arriving in the seventh inning with a no-hitter, then allowing the Marlins to stomp on him for two fast runs. For a good chunk of what became a 4-2 Mets win, it was must-see. He and Harvey were supposed to be two of the only reasons to watch the Mets this year -- and if we were asked last week to list the next 25, we wouldn�t have thought to include Mejia. Then, last Friday in Washington, one night of darting fastballs and diving sliders changed everything, and Terry Collins had another potential phenom. You have to understand, the Mejia story was over. Once the organization�s top pitching prospect, he had become a nearly washed-up 22-year-old with nothing in his toolbox -- a low-90s fastball with no movement, and secondary pitches that weren�t fooling anyone. Then, in a side-session last September, the pitching coach made a career-reviving suggestion. �When I came here in September last year, Dan Warthen showed me how to throw a slider,� said a beaming Mejia, back in a major league clubhouse. �Then I threw it in winter ball. And now I throw it perfect.� That might read like a boast, but he said it with glee, not swagger. After posting a 5.62 ERA last September, then missing most of the first half this year with discomfort in his forearm and elbow (he needs offseason surgery, but does not consider it major), Mejia seemed cooked for good. And, according to organizational sources, he had Frank Francisco advising him to stay in Port St. Lucie and collect his big league D.L. money, rather than work to return and be optioned to the minors. It impressed the Mets when Mejia opted to tune out Francisco. At one point, staff down in Port St. Lucie began mentioning Wheeler and Harvey as motivation; �three years ago, you were the guy, not Harvey and Wheeler� coaches told him. �Show us you�re still in that league.� Pep talks are nice and all, but no one expected the filth that Mejia brought to Washington in his season debut last Friday. �Outstanding,� Collins said on Tuesday. �Not just the slider. I had no idea he had that curveball. And the change-up was dropping from here to here (the first �here� being a spot near Collins� belly, the second being just above his knees).� �I had seen him throw all those pitches,� Warthen said, �but I had never seen him throw them all together.� Added Mejia: �Now I�ve got my fastball that I had before. A lot of movement. Sometimes the two-seamer -- my normal fastball -- moves like a cutter.� Now listen to a rival talent evaluator. �The breaking stuff had so much movement, wow. He was back. He is still so young. He was in the big leagues when he was 20. He�s still a kid, there is still potential.� Could this be for real? Could Mejia join Harvey and Wheeler as high-end pieces for the future rotation? Warthen stressed caution on that question after just one start, but did say that he was re-thinking his long-held views that Mejia should be a reliever. Another person in the organization, speaking candidly because of a truth serum called anonymity, said, �he is farther along than Wheeler, at least with the secondary pitches. He doesn�t have the velocity that Wheeler has, but has way better command.� Pitching is weird that way. One guy gets all the buzz, and he�s not quite ready to thrive. You forget all about the other guy, because his moment has passed, and then he stages a second act no one expected. For two days in Miami, Wheeler and Mejia are the show.... http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/baseballinsider/2013/07/is-jenrry-mejia-ready-to-reclaim-his-phenom-status-for-ny-mets

Frayed Knot wrote: I think what a run analysis may show is that a bunt in that situation increases the likelihood that you'll score at least one run even if the average number of runs decreases overall -- and the argument can be made that an extra run or two there vastly increases the odds of winning the game so it's the better move than playing for the larger inning. There's two different matrixes for run expectancies. One matrix returns values for likelihood of overall number of runs scored in the inning for each base/out situation. According to this matrix, a sacrifice -- an out --always decreases the likelihood of overall or total runs scored in the inning. The second type of run expectancy matrix provides the chances of each specific base runner scoring. According to this matrix, a runner on second base with nobody out, who is then sacrificed to third base is likelier to score. This is the only instance when a specific base runner would be likelier to score after advancing one base on an out. So if you're playing for one run, (e.g. as the home team in a tie game after the eighth inning) it makes some sense to try and sac bunt the runner on second if nobody is out. But using up an out to move that runner on second with nobody out decreases the overall or total number of runs the team could be expected to score in the inning.

Ceetar wrote: I believe the run expectancy matrix suggests that bunting with first and second and no outs actually leads to more runs than not. Impossible. I don't even need to look at any matrix to know this. How can an out increase the number likelihood of total runs scored in the inning? Unless the batter bunts with the bases loaded and the fielder takes so much time to get the only out at first base that in the meantime, all three runners score.

I always knew there was a Met on the 75 box but I didn't think it was Webb. I thought it was a generic Met. Your theory makes more sense to me. Mets Card of the Week: 1975 Hank Webb box October 3, 2012 By Doug Parker Back in the spring of 2011, I did a piece on Hank Webb. This past May, I wrote about a 1970 Topps box. Well, today is the Reese�s Peanut Butter Cup moment. The moment that I stumble into the path of a random stranger, we collide awkwardly, and then exclaim in sequence �You got Webb on my box!/No, you got box on my Webb!� This moment comes courtesy of the 1975 Topps wax box, which in both its regular and mini configurations carried an image of Hank Webb hurling a pearly white sphere straight at the young consumers of the day. Lost to the mists of time is why Topps saw fit to use an image of Webb. He put up decent numbers in Tidewater in 1974, but nothing good enough to qualify as a top-tier prospect. And anyway, what did we know of top-tier prospects in 1975? Back then, new players just kind of showed up, and Ralph/Lindsey/Bob gave us the scoop. Topps would go on to feature an airbrushed Brooks Robinson on the 1976 wax box, but they were up to their old tricks in 1977, using a shot of journeyman OF Bob Jones. This practice of picturing relatively low-profile players continued until the early �80s, when Topps appears to have finally recalled what it knew full well back in the �60s: superstars sell. Nonetheless, I find this period in their history kind of charming, and I�m very happy that one of our own Mets made the cut in 1975. Because Hank Webb and a Topps wax box are indeed two great tastes that taste great together� http://mets360.com/?p=13061

Fman99 wrote: Fman99 wrote: 1-2-3 in the 6th. Just 66 pitches so far. Gary proves, once again, that he's lurking in the CPF as he cites the low pitch count just now. HI GARY! Plus that Willie Montanez riff from last inning (See Sucking in the Seventies thread).

Edgy MD wrote: Does your collection include vendor boxes? I collect only Mets cards. But yes, I have the Webb box, and some other boxes featuring Mets. The 1970 Topps box features a 1970 style Tom Seaver baseball card, but not the actual Seaver card from that set. There's a mid-1980's Fleer box featuring Gary Carter, too. The Webb Topps box is one of the oddest pieces of Mets memorabilia I've ever come across. Topps' decision to feature Webb on that box defies explanation.

Nymr83 wrote: I already said the player retired after that 1975 season, the next hint: he played his entire career for the same team. This eliminates both McCarver and Mota.

The answer would have to be some guy who came up in the late '50's. Tim McCarver comes to mind, but he was still a teen-ager when he debuted. Manny Mota came up around that time, but I'd guess that Mota was in the top 10, but not the oldest '75 NL'er

This thread now goes to 11!

In 1975, as in all other years from that era, you could buy your baseball cards in a retail store, typically a candy store or luncheonette type deal. The cards usualy came in packs of 10, and the packs themselves were contained in a rectangular vendor's box. The boxes would usually depict either a baseball superstar of the day or a generic make-believe baseball player. Here's an image of the 1976 Topps box, featuring a logo-less image reversed Brooks Robinson. Here's a 1972 Topps box, featuring a generic baseball player: Anyway, in 1975, Topps featured, on their retail vendor box, a relatively unknown rookie from the NY Mets. Fella by the name of Webb.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Did anybody here collect baseball cards in 1975? Well? Anybody?

Did anybody here collect baseball cards in 1975?