batmagadanleadoff

If the Mets can't afford 6/90 then I suspect that the Mets finances are like the economy: they're in far worse shape than they are willing to admit.

metsmarathon wrote: metsmarathon wrote: 2011's best met will be 77 points higher than the 2nd best met, who will be 77 points higher than the 3rd best met, etc etc, until you get to the lowest ranked met, who will be have netted 77 points. therefore, the best met will be 30 times better than the 30th met, and will be 30/29 times better than the 2nd best met. the best met in a 77 win year will be worth 77*30=2130. this makes him slightly more better than the 21-point met on a 106 win team; 106*20=2120. Umm, not quite. The rank each player gets is first squared and then multiplied by that season's wins to get his point total The idea being that the difference between the 1st & 10th best player should be treated as much more meaningful than the gap between the 10th & 20th, or between Mr. 20th & Mr. 30th. And if you're wondering who came up with such a dopey suggestion ... go look in the mirror. that's genius! i couldn't recall if my brilliance was laughed at, or implemented. nice to know it was both. Why is it necessary to manufacture artificial distance between the top players? Some years, the difference in performance between the top two or three Mets is negligible and virtually imperceptible (e.g., 1964), and the rankings should naturally reflect this. In other years, the best Met might be at least twice as good as any other of his teammates (e.g., 1971, Seaver, Tom). But the rankings won't reflect this either, as the best Met's personal base non-win portion of the formula will always be merely 1/29th greater than that of the next best Met.

metsmarathon wrote: since carlton(72) played for the phillies, his score would very likely be zero, as he would go unranked along with all the other mets. but speaking to the general point... 2011's best met will be 77 points higher than the 2nd best met, who will be 77 points higher than the 3rd best met, etc etc, until you get to the lowest ranked met, who will be have netted 77 points. therefore, the best met will be 30 times better than the 30th met, and will be 30/29 times better than the 2nd best met. the best met in a 77 win year will be worth 77*30=2130. this makes him slightly more better than the 21-point met on a 106 win team; 106*20=2120. assuming the met ranking project scales wins up for partial seasons, a met team that goes 59-97 would be calculated as a 62 win team. its best player would score 1860 points. this places him at the same level of the 6th best met in a 77 win team, or the 14th best met on a 106 win team. this was done, among other reasons, to make for simplified calculations, as well as to award players on better teams. the more win s a team has being related to the import of the season, and the ranking of hte players related to the import of the player. to do it differently, we'd probably just look at WAR totals, and that's a little less fun, and doesn't really strike up as much conversation, does it? So then this years' best Met won't score higher than last year's best Met even if this year's best Met played like an MVP and a half and last year's best Met wasn't even All-Star caliber. All because last year's Mets won two more games than this year's Mets.

So if Reyes was 2011's best Met, how does this ranking system measure how much better Reyes(2011) was then say, the second best 2011 Met? Or the 4th best? How does the ranking system measure whether 2011's best Met was better than, say, 1979's best Met? And by how much. I predicted last Winter that so long as the 2011 Mets won more than 60 games, 2011's best ranked Met, according to this system, would score higher than Carlton(72). I wouldn't need to look at any stats or watch one single pitch of one single Met game to know this. In fact, I predict that if the 2012 Mets win more than 60 games, the best 2012 Met will score better than Carlton(72). I don't care how bad or good 2012's best Met will be. Any takers?

[youtube:13ct2k2t]IVxN5iQ_Ri0[/youtube:13ct2k2t] [youtube:13ct2k2t]ymEfMUBVE3A[/youtube:13ct2k2t]

A lot of Twitter noise that Jose is about to sign with Miami. Report: Jose Reyes to Marlins Done Deal Posted by: Howard Megdal - Posted in Business of Baseball, Player moves, Today's Mets headlines on Nov 13, 2011 Both Dino Costa of Sirius/XM Radio and Business of Baseball�s Maury Brown are reporting that Jose Reyes to the Marlins is complete. Terms still unknown, and each has a caveat (Costa says Hanley Ramirez needs to sign off on a move to third base, MLB Network Radio says it pending a physical). I�ve made no secret here and in my other reporting how this seemed to be a near-certainty, given ownership�s financial situation. But my only reaction right now is anger that my daughter won�t get to grow up watching Jose Reyes play on a regular basis. And if the deal is short, for more annual value, as has been rumored, the one remaining reason not to sign Reyes (beware the ides of long-term contracts) didn�t even apply here. Ridiculous. The Marlins first arrive at Citi Field on Tuesday, April 24 for a three-game series. It is a Tuesday-Thursday, so good news for the Mets- they�ll sell plenty of tickets for some weeknight games. But without Reyes, they probably shouldn�t get used to that. http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2011/11/13/report-jose-reyes-to-marlins-done-deal/

Ceetar wrote: I'm not being optimistic about it, I'm simply pointing out that the Mets have little to gain from pretending to find minority investors or from only offering options that are completely unrealistic. Just because a bunch of sports writers don't think it's a good investment that anyone would want to take doesn't mean the millionaires and billionaires out there think the same way. There is just so much murkiness and unknowns there, including not even knowing how the Madoff situation will be settled and for how much. Yes, it seems pretty likely they dropped payroll projections (at least, the numbers they talk about, it's yet to be determined) by 20+ million after they lost Einhorn, but that doesn't mean all is completely doomed and we're just in a waiting game here. And another thing. (As John Madden used to say). The Mets never specifically said that they obtained any additional financing through this plan to sell small shares to investors. They merely said that things were going well, or other words to that effect --- words so vague and open-ended that they could be taken to mean anything. When pressed by the press for more specific information, charming Jeff Wilpon fell back on the privacy bs, essentially stating that it wasn't any of our business to know. So if the Mets did obtain more financing, why wouldn't they come out and say it?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, yeah, but even if they tell us that they have a lot of interest from "minority investors", if their off-season moves are limited to things like coaxing Tom Hausman out of retirement, very few of us will be lulled into thinking everything is okay. I don't know. Just because they can't fool you ....

Edgy DC wrote: Me too. But even if you don't have all that going for you, you can watch the video of that play over and over.... It wouldn't be the same. In 1986, I had what I believe was a powerfully accurate feel for whether Mookie would beat out an infield grounder almost from the instant the grounder was struck ... because I'd been watching Mookie's entire career to that point, without any significant lapses.

Edgy DC wrote: I also continue to feel that the error was a grossly exaggerated part of the rally. Not only had the tying run scored, but I think Mookie beats the play to the bag (although he might not of with a better firstbaseman able to play that ball more aggressively). Also, I think that wild pitch was a passed ball, and Gedman (it was Gedman, right?) has sort of escaped history on that score. I can still remember the thoughts going through my head as the Mookie/Buckner play was still unfolding. I thought for sure that Mookie was going to leg out a single, even if Buckner fielded the ball perfectly. I was a hardcore fan then, as I still am, and I thought I had seen enough of Mookie running over the years that I had an excellent sense of processing all of the elements of the play -- Mookie's speed, the speed and direction of the grounder, where Buckner was positioned, etc. -- to determine that Buckner couldn't have done anything to prevent Mookie from reaching safely.

metirish wrote: Him and Murphy hitting together gets me excited. If we return the same starting nine with this guy what's the lineup? Yeah. And then the Mets'll sign Albert Pujols. And after that, Reyes'll say that he wants to stay because when you're a Met, you're a Met all the way.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I deserve an honorable mention for that You do. You really do.

Edgy DC wrote: Smoley crap! Black drop shadows are out! So now the Mets'll look even more ridiculous when they match their dropped drop shadow tops with the black caps with the neon electric NY logo. It's a half-assed move.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yakult Swallows outfielder, walks a lot, line drive spray hitter, 3 time Gold Glove centerfielder. Mets apparenty interested So if he's any good, how the hell are the Mets going to get him? What am I missing?

Chico Walker is the other 21 for 22 Met. Ron Hunt stole 21 bases for the Mets but was caught stealing 23 times.

I'll post the remaining answers shortly. As some of you already noted, the Torre era de Roulet Mets sucked at stealing bases (among other things -- every other thing, really). Stearns was also an extremely overrated base-stealer. Though he was faster than the typical catcher, the Mets, overall, would've been better off had he never attempted a single steal. But Elliott Maddox. Holy moley!

Jason Bay is one of the right answers. He succesfully stole 21 bases out of 22 attempts for a 95.5% rate. One other Met also stole precisely 21 bases out of 22 attempts to match Bay. The answer to the lowest Met is the only player in franchise history to have stolen at least 20 bases as a Met, and whose caught stealing total exceeds his stolen bases.

All wrong answers.

Which Met has the highest lifetime successful stolen base/attempts percentage (Met stolen bases/attempts only; min. 20 stolen bases)? There's a two way tie for the top Met. Which Met has the lowest (same category/parameters)?

Ceetar wrote: I'm not being optimistic about it, I'm simply pointing out that the Mets have little to gain from pretending to find minority investors .... Not true. They have everything to gain from pretending that their situation is rosier than they know it to be. They're still selling tickets .. always selling tickets ... which generate parking revenues, and food and souvenir sales, yada yada. And they're still selling advertising. That's how the team makes the money. The bleaker the picture, the less likelier it is that fans will commit to tickets now, before next season even starts. This is a business. The Wilpons are in it to take your money, not to tell you the truth.

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. How do you know? Err? I was listening? Everyone said the same line "Why would someone want to give the Wilpons money if these are the circumstances..etc etc" They weren't right then, so why should I think they're right now, about a significantly smaller sum of money? The Mets may indeed have sold some minority shares. But I don't know that. And I don't think that you know, either. You read the press simply questioning the value of the new offerings and then chose to jump to an optimistic conclusion. When the Mets open the books, or some minority shareholder comes forward to openly discuss his or her new acquisition, or we have some other compelling evidence, then we'll know. Until then, all we have is Jeff's say so. The Mets declined comment. [but] Mets COO Jeff Wilpon said the auction to sell the minority stakes was going very well. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/mets_next_pitch_WTbeypwaj93Lp1Mb58gOQN#ixzz1dEM3pw6F

Cespedes might be all that. But I could edit a highlight film to make Benny Agbayani look as good as Babe Ruth. (And Benny's got the stomach part down pat).

Ceetar wrote: No one thought they'd ever find a minority investor either. Ultimately they did though. How do you know?

Ceetar wrote: Wouldn't [the Mets] have reached an agreement if they were desperate? after all, it wasn't Einhorn (supposedly) that caused it tfail. I'm guessing that, contrary to the MetSpeak, it was Einhorn that broke off the deal, not the Mets. I'm guessing that in the end, Einhorn found the Wilpons to be untrustworthy, making promises on the one hand, and then on the other hand, working behind Einhorn's back to undermine those same promises.