batmagadanleadoff

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: ... Justin Turner's batting fifth. Why oh why oh why? I think Turner intends to smash a pie into the face of the Braves pitcher, thus setting up the Duda.

Edgy MD wrote: ... Justin Turner's batting fifth. Why oh why oh why?

The good news is that Marlon Byrd's batting seventh. The bad news is that Marlon Byrd's batting seventh.

History in the Making for Marlon Byrd 03 May 2013 by Howard Megdal in Today's Mets headlines What outfield? I�ll tell you what outfield. It�s May 3, and Marlon Byrd is already close to setting a team record. Marlon Byrd, thanks to his strikeout on Wednesday, has now struck out in 12 straight appearances. This has mostly come in starts, but he�s also come off the bench for clutch strikeouts in a pair of games during the streak. No, he isn�t atop the team leaderboard just yet. In fact, if we include pitchers, he has a good distance to cover to match Gary Gentry�s 21 straight games with a strikeout, from May through September, 1969. The Mets won the World Series that year, you know. Coincidence? But let�s limit things to hitters. Where does Byrd�s streak rate? Just ahead of him, with 13 straight, are Ed Charles, 1967, Tommie Agee, 1970, Dave Kingman 1976, David Wright, in 2010 during his 161-strikeout year, and Lucas Duda, in the last 12 games he played in 2012 before getting sent down to Triple-A. Of that group, only Kingman walked less than Byrd over a similar span, and Kingman hit four home runs. If Byrd can strike out Friday, Jeff Kent�s 1995 streak of 14 is in reach on Saturday. Should he reach that, he�ll be trying to strike out Sunday to tie David Wright�s 15 straight in May 2010 (what an odd 2010 Wright had!), along with the 15 straight strikeout games for Kirk Nieuwenhuis had from April 24 through May 9, 2012, as major league pitchers began to find the holes in his swing. If he can strike out through the weekend, tying the team record for non-pitchers will be a single K away. It is held by: Todd Hundley, during his difficult 1998 comeback while simultaneously learning left field, Ryan Thompson in 1995, Dave Kingman from September 1975 through April 1976 (32 strikeouts in 16 games! Kingman always went big), and Donn Clendenon in September 1969. A month later, Clendenon was the MVP of the World Series. Will the same be true for Byrd? Hard to imagine, since the World Series isn�t played in June. But no one thought the 1969 Mets would win it all, either. What outfield! http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/05/03/history-in-the-making-for-marlon-byrd/

metsmarathon wrote: fine. harrumph. john franco for his infamously wobbly noggin. We'll take that as the winning guess. John Franco is next in line. The first six Mets are the last six to be honored with stadium give-away bobbleheads.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Wait... Darling comes after Piazza? Yeah. The sequence is Seaver - Staub - Hernandez - Alfonzo - Piazza - Darling - ??????????????

metsmarathon wrote: why not. he placed 22nd in the mvp voting in 1990, after all. I'm sorry. I can't give you credit for that answer.

metsmarathon wrote: dave magadan Why?

Who is the next Mets player in the sequence below? Why?

Did you say out of town scoreboard? Here's a get out of town scoreboard:

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You figure we got CF covered now between Lagares, Valdy and Byrd in an emergency. Cowgill is just extra. One of the saddest things ever written about the Mets.

Today in the world of Harvelous Harv Harvey, our hero, the 15th seed, squares off against San Francisco 49er quarterback prodigy Colin Kaepernick, the #2 seed, in the Battle of the Future Stars. Future?, asks I. From bloggers in their pajamas in their momma's basements: "Futures" Stars: Bracket Competition Round 1: #2 Colin Kapernick v #15 Matt Harvey VOTE Our next matchup in the "future starts [sic] bracket competition" is between the 2nd seed Colin Kaepernick, and the 15 seed Matt Harvey. This is an interesting matchup because of the hype of Matt Harvey thus far in the season and because Colin Kaepernick almost hoisted up the Lombardi trophy in his first season as a starter. Reason to pick Colin Kaepernick (2 seed): Kapernick [sic] led the San Francisco 49ers to the superbowl [siccer] in his first year as a starter. In 2012, Kaepernick threw for over 1,800 yards, 10 touchdowns, and had a QBR of 76.8. He was drafted by the 49ers, out of the University of Nevada, in the second round of the 2011 draft. He sat his first year behind Alex Smith, but in year two after Smith got injured, Kaepernick came in and took over the team. His first start as an NFL quarterback came on monday night football against the Chicago Bears. kapernick threw for 243 yards, two touchdowns, and had a QBR of 97.5. In the superbowl, kaepernick was reciliant [siccest] when his team faced a 22 point deficit after a kickoff return for a touchdown to start the second half. Kaepernick has a bright future on a team that will be good for years. Reasons to pick Matt Harvey (15 seed): Matt Harvey is very new to the national stage. This year he has deifintely made a name for himself, with major sports analysists saying he and Steven Strasburg will be fighting for the games next big pitcher. Harvey has the size of a star athlete, standing at 6' 4", 225 Lbs. So far this year, Harvey is 4-0 with a 1.56 ERA, 46 strikeouts, and a 0.82 WHIP over 6 starts. He has decent speed on his fastball but a killer slider that keeps batters guessing. http://thecolumn.sportsblog.com/post/41512/future_starts_bracket_competition_round.html

Yes, because that's a Topps Traded card. His regular series card pictured him as a Red. Yes to the Paciorek question, though. And I really wish Octavio Dotel wasn't a Tiger again this year. I want him to be with a different franchise every year, to make that record totally unbreakable. Beat me to it. Topps 1984 card #242: Topps 1984 Traded Set card # 120T

How much longer can the Mets afford to play Ike Davis? By Rob Castellano on May 1 2013, 9:21p The struggling first baseman has been an albatross around the neck of an already struggling lineup. Remember those salad days of two weeks ago? Back when the Mets were riding high a couple games over .500, leading the major leagues in runs per game, John Buck was hitting about a homer a day, and the only issue with the lineup was that it was actually scoring too many runs to give Bobby Parnell a chance to do his thing. It truly was a golden age. In fact, it was so good that it allowed us to overlook the play of one Ike Davis. Once again, Ike is off to a woefully poor start in 2013 (.165/.265/.318), contributing very little positive value to the Mets lineup. But that didn't matter; the Mets were scoring -- despite Davis -- so all was forgiven. Commentators preached patience with regard to the lumbering lefty -- he did hit 20 home runs in the second half of 2012, after all. It's fair to say that this has been the general sentiment around Davis thus far in 2013; that he's provided decent cause for us to believe that he'll put up the power numbers we expect from him -- even if the shape of the campaign is a little more one-sided than we would like. As Ike himself stated, "I�m on pace to do in home runs what I did last year, and eventually I�ll be a better actual hitter instead of just hitting the occasional home run." But there's a problem with that logic: Carrying Davis until the bat became effective in 2012 was far easier than it will conceivably be this season. Why? No, don't look at the lineup around him; while some of the names and faces have changed, it's still too early to confidently state that either version was or is superior. The answer lies with Davis himself. While we all remember that Ike was awful until around the All Star Break in 2012, what many forget is that while he was being awful he was also getting extraordinarily lucky. What am I referring to? For perhaps the first time in AA history, it's all about the RBIs. Starting to remember? Remember how odd it was that despite the fact that Davis seemingly went a week between hits throughout the first half of 2012, each one seemed to plate a runner or two? Remember how weird it was when the first half gave way to the All Star Break and he actually ranked among the league leaders in RBIs, yet had fewer hits than any qualified batter? So weird was it that at the time I actually put together an infographic emphasizing that fact (click image to embiggen): One half of that diagram remains true this season: Ike currently ranks 216th in the majors in hits. Except this time around, instead of a .907 RBI per hit rate, he's currently driving in .571 runs per hit. (For those who prefer the glass half full, Ike had the same amount of RBIs through 24 games last season as he does now; but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for lightning to strike twice.) Now I am not advocating for any drastic decisions to be made about Davis in the immediate future. In fact, just over a week ago I professed that we shouldn't lose faith in Ike over his propensity for slow starts. I will, however, point out that even with the RBI Fairy on his side, Davis narrowly escaped a trip to Buffalo in 2012. By early June the grape vine was abuzz with a potential demotion, even as his RBI count soared. So the question is, what happens if -- in addition to not hitting -- Davis is also not driving in runs? http://www.amazinavenue.com/2013/5/1/4290684/how-much-longer-can-the-mets-afford-to-play-ike-davis

Swan Swan H wrote: Here's yer outage, my captain says leading off the fourth. I guess that David lurks this forum, too.

Whaddya expect with you know who not pitching today, either? He hardly ever pitches.

No Quality Control 01 May 2013 by Howard Megdal I�m genuinely surprised by the number of people who think Terry Collins should be fired today. This is a roster that nobody can win with. I can�t say that with absolute certainty, since we haven�t seen any other manager try. But I�m hard-pressed to understand why anyone thinks so. Look, even Sandy Alderson understood how limited the roster was this winter. And either he made a conscious choice to not spend money he was offered, which strikes me as ridiculously unlikely, or the huge financial limitations of the team�s owners is once again manifesting itself, this year a bit earlier than in past seasons. What do you think? People have been comparing this awful loss Tuesday night on Twitter with other recent awful ones. It�s pretty simple: when a decision is made to stock a major league roster with players that really aren�t major leaguers, some of the results are going to be utterly absurd. Anthony Recker is 29 years old. His career OPS+ is 41. So he�s got to be here for defense. And his passed ball/wild pitch combo last night certainly didn�t meet the minimum standard for defense-first catcher. But really, we know why he�s here. Anthony Recker makes the league minimum, and the Mets were able to sign him on a minor league deal. So many of the true howler losses happened for the same reasons. No money for a center fielder? Well, Mets have a Jordany Valdespin hanging around. Let�s see what happens when they stick him in center field, despite a complete lack of minor league training? This is what happens. Basic building of pitching depth was missing in 2012. Remember Chris Schwinden? Freely available. Remember Collin McHugh? He happened to be in the system. This is not a plan, by the way. This is triage. Can only afford one lefty reliever? Well, abuse him. Then the next guy. What other options do you have? This isn�t anything new. It isn�t about Terry Collins, or Sandy Alderson. No left fielder? Put Daniel Murphy there. Let�s see what happens. No backup first baseman? Let�s see what happens when Jeremy Reed, a career outfielder, gives it a go. Hey, Lucas Duda can hit. Maybe he can play right field! Oh, right, he can�t. Maybe left field? This is the pernicious result of ownership starving the team of resources. At the top, there�s no ability to add star power, so things like the pursuit of Michael Bourn become a sham. No free agents left? Fred Wilpon has money again! (Except he doesn�t.) But the rest of the roster is filled not by need, or by basic attempts to compete, but with bits of string. And the shocking losses shouldn�t come as a shock to anyone. Rebuilding does not have to mean forgoing even basic attempts to compete by bringing in talent on short-term contracts, or building minimal depth to withstand any injuries. �I�m pissed off. I�m extremely pissed off,� Collins said after the game. He�s smart enough to know who to be angry at. Are you? http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2013/05/01/no-quality-control/ This is what I say. Fire Byrd, ferchrissakes!

There's a power outage in Wright's game. Isn't it obvious? Permanent talent shift? Can't blame Citi's old dimensions anymore, right?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: But once the game went into extras he should have made fewer pitching changes. This, I totally agree with.

The Mets haven't had a manager as good as Collins in more than 10 years. And it's not even close. This matters nothing as far as Terry's job security goes, and it's not even a compliment to Terry. But I'm just sayin', is all.

How does a team get to the 16th inning if they're "winning throughout"?

Why can't they fire Byrd?* He's on pace for almost 500 plate appearances. Who the hell here wants to see that? Raise your hand if you do. *For starters. Then fire some other starters.

Edgy MD wrote: Because most of the time you _don't_ use those guys. Why carry the 25th man that's only pitching in blowouts or if the game happens to go 15? If he's good enough to use regularly, you're going to find him innings to pitch regularly, and if he's just eating space to save waste innings.. Terry Leach appeared in 52 games in 1988. Darren Oliver in 45 games in 2006. Pat Mahomes appeared in 92 games between 1999 and 2000. These appearances covered a large amount of innings, which served the team. The were not "eating space to save waste innings" (not sure what that means but still), but rather held a little bit more in reserve than other pitchers to be used when a long outing or emergency start might crop up, sparing perhaps several pitchers who maybe are more effective but trained for shorter appearances, and are used with less reserve. There was a pretty demonstrable benefit. There's some truth to what cee sez. Starting pitchers pitch less innings these days. So relievers, it follows, pitch more frequently. And so the trend is to stock the rosters with shorter relievers who can pitch on more days, if not more innings. Hence, the lack of longer relievers, at least relative to the way things used to be 15 or 20 years ago and before that. Edgy MD wrote: Having starters pitch fewer innings, and having relievers pitch fewer innings, screws you at two ends, leaving a mushy middle where lesser pitchers get a disproportionate share of high-leverage innings compared to prior years, to say nothing of a less versatile roster. It screws you at three ends. Because now you need more pitchers. So you have less position players. A player that's not good enough to play every day probably won't make the team unless he can either backstop or play multiple positions. And even then, the bench is still shorter, so a manager has less managerial options. Which is soemwhat ironic because the more pitching changes there are, the more pinch hitters a manager'd like to have. This dramatic change in the makeup of a team really justifies roster expansion to 26. But that'll cost each team an average of over $1M a year between salary expenses, travel costs, extra uniforms and extra salami and lettuce at the post-game buffet. And it's always all about the lettuce. The other lettuce.

TransMonk wrote: Off-day Harvey: Harvelous picks up a tenth of a bbRef WAR point on an off day, and now leads all major leaguers in the category, even Clay Bucholz. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2013-batting-leaders.shtml I'm almost as impressed by our old friend Car-Go sitting there at #2. Dang. It's his D. (0.8 dWAR)