batmagadanleadoff

Met OPS leader 1. Mets who led in OPS after leaving the Mets 2. Kevin Mitchell (1989)(Edgy DC) 3. The rest of the Mets OPS leaders 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Edgy DC wrote: Met OPS leader 1. Strawberry Mets who led in OPS after leaving the Mets 2. 3. The rest of the Mets OPS leaders 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Hey rulebreaker you!! If you're going to guess the Met who led the league in OPS as a Met, you'll have to include the season to receive credit!

Centerfield wrote: I'm really disappointed that Sandy and company screwed the pooch on this one. The time to get this deal done was last winter. They could have locked him up for less money. Stupid. How many here were all for signing Reyes before this season started, especially given Reyes' most recent injury issues?

Between 1946 and 1952, Stan Musial and Ralph Kiner took turns in leading the NL in OPS (On Base Pct. plus Slugging Pct.): Musial led in every even year while Kiner took the odd years. From 1918 through 1931, Babe Ruth led the AL in OPS every year but one -- 13 out of 14 seasons, including a Major League record seven straight seasons. Ty Cobb, led the AL in OPS an impressive 10 times; Cobb's first season as OPS league leader (1907) and last (1925, interrupting Ruth's run) are 18 seasons apart, the longest gap for any multiple OPS league leader. The 2011 OPS leaders are currently Prince Fielder (NL) and Jose Bautista (AL). The list of season OPS leaders is comprised almost entirely of splendid players; Hall of Famers and at-their-peak superstars. Splendid player Splendid Splinter Ted Williams himself led the AL in OPS 10 times, including four straight seasons right after Ted's return from active duty in WWII (1946-1949). Trivia Ten Mets led their respective leagues in OPS. Only one of those Mets led the league in OPS while playing for the Mets. Only two Mets led the league in OPS while playing for another team after having played for the Mets. Who are they? One guess per post. If you're guessing the Met who led the league in OPS as a Met, you'll need to include the correct season with your guess to receive credit. Met OPS leader 1. Mets who led in OPS after leaving the Mets 2. 3. The rest of the Mets OPS leaders 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: That's how I see it too. The agent talks to the club, and he either comes to Jose and says "We have a deal" or he doesn't? I agree. I'd guess that Reyes "no contract talks" is just a negotiating tactic.

I wonder if with today's news that Reyes won't entertain contract talks until after season's end, we are now past the rubicon where the Wilpons' self-centered actions to retain majority ownership of the Mets are inconsistent with the well being of the team itself. If it should become known that Einhorn would otherwise be willing to pay for Reyes' next Mets contract but for the fact that Einhorn is primarily hoping that the Mets flounder enough to force the Wilpons to sell their shares of the team -- then maybe it's time for the Wilpons to sell now. Not that this would ever happen, I know. Someone's gonna have to pry the Wilpons' cold and clammy death grip from the Mets before they're gotten rid of.

Here's an overlooked category that Reyes has been leading the league in for most of this season: The media should take note.

Allen Barra chimes in: Jose Reyes: A Franchise Player the Mets Can't Possibly Replace? By Allen Barra Mon., Jun. 20 2011 at 2:40 PM ?Judging from the enthusiasm being displayed on the radio call-in shows, Mets fans may be putting a little too much stock in Jose Reyes' resounding statement on Friday that he's not going to go with Scott Boras as his agent in upcoming contract negotiations. That is, if they are assuming that because he's not signing with Boras, he's going to remain a Met. Yes, players have made promises in the past and then switched agents, but I don't recall any being quite as emphatic as Reyes: "No chance. I am happy with my agent." That's because he knows his agent, Peter E. Greenberg, is very good and has had much more experience dealing with the Wilpons than Boras has. Reyes is also smart enough to understand that it's the attractiveness of the client that makes for the deal, not the agent. Or simply put, Jose knows that given the kind of year he's having and considering the sparseness of available talent at perhaps the game's key defensive position, he brings a lot to the table for negotiations with any team. In fact, he brings much more to the Mets' table than they're likely going to want to deal with. There's been some recent talk of the Mets signing Reyes for a second straight three-year contract extension before the July 31 trade deadline -- or even before the end of the season -- but as Tyler Kepner puts it in Saturday's New York Times, "The Mets may stay close enough to contention that they will keep Reyes ... But even if they offered Reyes a new contract before the end of the season, why would he accept? Why, indeed. How can Reyes possibly find out what he's worth if he doesn't wait until he's a free agent and all interested parties -- i.e., the Angels, Red Sox, Yankees (whom I still insist could shock everyone on this) or possibly even the Brewers, who, though they don't have the revenue of a "big market" team, may have enough to put in a bid for the one player who could put them over the top. (And some are making the same argument for the Rays.) What has changed in the past few weeks about the Mets financial situation that would suddenly make Fred Wilpon eat his words and decide that Jose is worth (as he told the New Yorker a few weeks ago) Carl Crawford money. (Crawford signed a seven-year, $142 mil deal with the Red Sox last winter.) There's something else for the Mets front office to think about. In Sunday's Daily News, Tim Smith spoke to the Mets' all-time greatest franchise player, Tom Seaver -- whom, lest we forget, they allowed to depart New York. (Tom Terrific was in town for Mets-Angels.) Seaver compared Reyes to two of the old Big Red Machine's major stars, Johnny Bench and Joe Morgan: "He's that level of player, but what are you gonna replace him with?" Well, I dunno, Two weeks ago Reyes was having a fine season, but he wasn't leading the National League in hitting and nobody was comparing him to Johnny Bench and Joe Morgan (though I think for much if [sic] his career he's been at or near their level). What a difference a hot dozen or so games and 20 points on your batting average can make. The point is this: Who says the Mets are really serious about having any "franchise player" at all? What are the indications that they're serious about even having a franchise? If they are in as deep a financial hole as they appear to be, they're not going to be bidding for any other free agents besides Reyes, which means, given the apparent dearth of minor league prospects, they plan on taking two or three years off before they really think about building a contender. Why then would Jose want to stick around on a mediocre team that has little chance of making the playoffs even if the Mets did meet his asking price? "The Mets," writes Smith, "have to decide whether their championship hopes rest with Reyes or the pieces they can assemble without him." I'd say that's putting it all too grandly. I'd say what the Mets have to do first is decide whether they really have any "championship hopes" with or without Reyes. If the Mets are serious about being contenders any time in the next three-four years, then there isn't any question that they had better make every effort to convince Jose Reyes that Carl Crawford is soon going to be wishing he was getting Jose Reyes money.

I stand corrected. Garber began the '78 season with the Phils, but was traded to Atlanta in June for Dick Ruthven. He received both MVP and Cy Young award votes in 1982, but 1978 was without doubt, Garber's best season.

I was at Shea in 1978 when Pete Rose received many ovations on his way to setting the NL hit-streak record. At this Mets game, Rose passed Tommy Holmes, the then NL record holder. I was appalled at all of the warmth and fuzzies sent Pete's way by the Mets fans in attendance. Up to that point, Rose was the biggest villain in the Mets universe -- Met fans never forgiving him for his playoffs fracas with Bud Harrelson. I stayed in my seat, and did not cheer at all. Rose turned out to be a graceless asshole when his streak ended about a week later: he griped that Phillies' reliever Gene Garber, the last pitcher Rose faced on the day that Rose's streak ended, pitched Rose like it was the seventh game of the World Series, implying that Garber should've tossed Rose a meatball so that the streak could continue. I wouldn't cheer Jeter. And if I had advance warning that the hit was coming, I wouldn't even look. Fuck Derek Jeter.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "I believe what we were looking for there, D, was 'Your Mama.' 'Your... Mama.' You had the last correct answer, so it's still your board." Did you just call me a jerk, too? Because I'm honestly not sure, but would like to know.

The Second Spitter wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: And if Warren Spahn was a Met in the 1950's, he'd'a had the queen's balls. What the fuck does mean? The point was that the were far worse "jerks" on the 1986 Mets that fans chose to ignore because they were a winning team. Bonilla was a scapegoat. batmagadanleadoff wrote: Put me down in the Bonilla was a big freaking jerk who produced for the Mets the first time around camp. Not as half a big freaking jerk as you. I see your logic. Bonilla's not a jerk because there were jerks on the '86 Mets. And me, today I'm a jerk because I think Bonilla's a jerk. Yesterday I was a jerk because I wondered if Wright might've complained in private, to Francoeur about Citi Field. Two months ago, I was a jerk because you cheated on Lunchie's rawk quiz. I'm always a jerk if my opinion isn't consistent with yours, or probably anybody else's. And I'm especially always a jerk whenever I respond in kind, to posters who call me a jerk.

Ceetar wrote: That struck me as a comment on the fans and booing and psyche. but maybe. You might be right. The article doesn't explain whether CF's dimensions, or its' booing fans, or something else is the issue. I assumed Hojo was referring to its' dimensions.

"If Bonilla was on the Mets between 85-90, he could have put up exactly the same numbers and behaved exactly the same way, and he would have been revered by Mets fans on par with HoJo, Dykstra or Mazzilli". And if Warren Spahn was a Met in the 1950's, he'd'a had the queen's balls. Put me down in the Bonilla was a big freaking jerk who produced for the Mets the first time around camp. But back to Bay. And what others are saying about Citi Field: Collins hoped a few games away from Citi Field would be good for Bay, but that hasn't been the case, though [Howard] Johnson [bay's 2010 hitting coach] agreed it's become an issue. "There's no question that now it's a factor," Johnson said of Bay, who had just six homers and 47 RBIs in 95 games before a concussion ended his first season with the Mets last July. "We had a lot of conversations about that last year. Just driving in some runs isn't good enough for him. In baseball, you're paid for what you did in the past. http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/gee_whiz_mets_keep_on_rolling_IKhFwrEhUo67E2LTD2RmlM#ixzz1OyMa9XS1

Bay's career Mets stats are very similar to Cleon Jones' dreadful 1967 season, Lee Mazzilli's 1977 rookie campaign and John Stearns' 1979 season.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The other thing to consider here is that Bay was expected to provide a lot more offense than Jim Fregosi was. I do think that Jason Bay is the worst free-agent signing in club history. The salary is very high, and the production (if you want to call it that) is very low. What can compare to this? Roger Cedeno was a flop, but not so high-priced. Bobby Bonilla? He was a jerk, but he produced. Same with Vince Coleman, although his best days were behind him. Who else is in the conversation? Glavine? Pedro? Tom Hausman? It's hard to argue that any of them turned out worse than Bay has so far. I agree. Nobody's even close, considering the money paid to Bay, his lack of production, and what was reasonably to be expected of Bay.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I think they should just put up a fence; no major reconstruction required. Run a fence (and make it look like the one at Shea!) from left field to right field, however many feet in from the existing walls. The walls are so high that people in the seats would be able to see over the fence, and there would be no ambiguity about home runs. They'd either land in the seats or in the gap between the fence and the wall. And that gap would be a great spot for Joe Pignatano to grow tomatoes.

Edgy DC wrote: I have an opinion --my opinion-- that Citi Field is detrimental to power hitters. Great. Everybody agreed with you before the park even opened. Is this the "one comment per topic" rule?

Edgy DC wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Wow. The word of Jeff Francoeur. Talk about selective data. Come on. Take it easy and come back to shore. There's no solid ground at all under your feet. What's wrong with that theory? Wright confides to Frenchy. Frenchy disses Citi Field, couching Wright's gripes as Frenchy's own opinion. And how is this "selective data"? Or any kind of data? It's --possibly-- one baseball player's opinion that Citi Field's dimensions are ridiculous. Because you typically responded to self-serving quotes out of Francouer's mouth last year with "I see through that **********." Now that he's gone, the sudden creditiblity of these opinions are useful to your agenda. This is obvious if you'd take a step back. I'm not sure how this became a referendum on Wright fucking himself, but no, I'm not in favor of that. I don't have an agenda. I have an opinion --my opinion-- that Citi Field is detrimental to power hitters. David Wright might share my opinion. Francoeur --possibly-- might have been speaking on behalf of his buddy Wright when he said that Citi Field's dimensions are ridiculous and that Wright must be suffering to play half his games there. Francoeur no longer has any skin in this game, thus reducing the possibility that his comments about Citi Field were self-serving. But only Frenchy and Wright know for sure whether Frenchy's recent Citi Field comments were based on actual remarks Wright made. Am I now obligated to dismiss every one of Francoeur's ideas and opinions till the end of time, just because I generally dislike him? Are you saying that Francoeur must be wrong about Citi Field because I called him a **********? Because the issue here ... the topic of discussion ... is Citi Field's dimensions -- not that I think that Francoeur is a ********** scrub. Besides, Frenchy can hit a baseball a lot better than I could, Major League scrub and all. I have no idea what you mean by a "referendum on Wright fucking himself", or why that comment even appears as a response to something I wrote, especially since I would excuse Wright --and Bay-- if it should become known that either of them indeed altered their swings as a response to Citi Field's more spacious dimensions. But you could do better than to challenge my posts on vague and conclusory objections that I have an agenda, whatever that even means.

Gwreck wrote: They should change the rule re: fan interference. If it happens in your park, the visiting team gets the more favorable call. This should properly incentivize teams to correctly enforce a zero-tolerance rule for interfering with balls in play. But the visiting team's fans are known to invade the home team's ballpark. This might encourage Phillie fans, for example, to purchase strategic seats at Citi Field.

Ashie62 wrote: Aren't you all getting tired with this one? Bill James would be rolling over in his grave. If he were dead. Park effects are everything.

Edgy DC wrote: Wow. The word of Jeff Francoeur. Talk about selective data. Come on. Take it easy and come back to shore. There's no solid ground at all under your feet. What's wrong with that theory? Wright confides to Frenchy. Frenchy disses Citi Field, couching Wright's gripes as Frenchy's own opinion. And how is this "selective data"? Or any kind of data? It's --possibly-- one baseball player's opinion that Citi Field's dimensions are ridiculous.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: Do you have any specific instances of where a player has said how he would adjust his swing if he noticed he wasn't hitting it out? I'm not aware of any. I doubt that a player would admit to altering his swing to make up for the HR's he thinks he'd otherwise lose to Citi Field. The player wouldn't want to be perceived as blaming a stadium for his diminished production; it goes against baseball's unwritten code that looks down on a player who makes excuses for his play, even when those excuses have merit; and he'd probably be admitting to ignoring instruction or advice from the coaching staff. On second thought, a few weeks ago Jeff Francoeur speculated that David Wright must be suffering from having to play half his games in the cavernous Citi Field. It's possible that Frenchy was speaking from actual private comments Wright made, rather than opinion. Frenchy is in a position to know, given that Frenchy and Wright became Mets buddies and socialized together frequently.

metsmarathon wrote: you seem to miss my point. my point in looking at the home run tracks is to look at what would happen if the hitter did not adjust his approach. of the 36 homers jason bay hit in 2009, how many would still be homers if he struck them all in citi field. Gotcha.