batmagadanleadoff

I no longer give a shit about how other fans root so long as they're not vomiting in my vicinity. I used to, and I may one day give a shit again. But not right now.

If you're interested in a no-pulled-punches account of Derek Jeter -- and who here isn't? -- then get the 2011 Baseball Prospectus annual. I'll quote BP's Jeter entry below. Anyone who would rather wait until they buy their own copy of BP can skip the rest of this post. . . . . . . . . . Jeter led the Majors in ground-ball percentage. This was not just a mechanical failure, but a seeming inability to drive the ball. Perplexingly, Jeter got off to a great start, hitting .330 in April. By the end of the [2010] season, the little September hot streak (.342/.436/.392 in Jeter's final 19 games) that followed his reluctant turn to Kevin Long was the subject of great rejoicing throughout the land -- in between, the shortstop had hit only .247/.321/.337, and the cheering for a few paltry singles should have been embarrassing to all involved, given the heights from which Jeter has descended. The same reticence should have been observed by coaches and managers who voted for the Gold Glove; though Jeter made few errors, he also reached relatively few balls. Even if one makes the optimistic assumption that Jeter can turn his offensive game around, a third rebirth of his glove would be unprecedented. For years, Jeter's bat more than made up for the singles he allowed with his leather. That is still true, but the margin is shrinking and will soon vanish altogether. Despite this, as the offseason commenced, Jeter pushed for a contract of four years and up, which suggests at least one of the following: (A) while Jeter may be the closest thing the modern Yankees have to Joe DiMaggio, he lacks DiMaggio's sense of dignity; ( never mind winning, it's money that matters; (C) the emperor has no clothes but doesn't know; (D) the emperor has no clothes but doesn't care. The Yankees more or less satisfied him, giving him three years and a player option for a fourth, in the hopes that he will play as no aged shortstop has played before. Why is it each is the last to find That his legs are gone - that his eyes are bad, That the quicker reflexes have left his mind, That he hasn't the stuff he one day had, That lost youth mocks, and he doesn't see The ghost of the fellow that used to be? Grantland Rice, To Any Athlete

DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...*4/1/111004/3/113004/6/1151324/8/1171234/14/11133374/17/11164404/24/1122 (9-13)644 In winnable games, Terry Collins apparently prefers to use his relievers based on the inning number rather than the game situation. For now, Beato is the 7th inning guy, Izzy the 8th and K-Rod is the closer instead of the ace reliever. K-Rod's most recent finish presented Collins with ideal conditions for using K-rod in the 8th inning: the Mets were up by one run and the D-Backs heart of the lineup was due up. Instead, Izzy pitched the 8th and K-Rod came on in the 9th to protect a two-run lead (the Mets added an insurance run in their half of the 8th) against the bottom of the D-Backs lineup. *Remainders are always lopped off and never rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Frayed Knot wrote: metsmarathon wrote: i also think the current playoff scheduling is a farce. they should be playing 7 games in 8 days, not two weeks, or whatever it is. the playoffs should be as a continuation of the regular season in terms of pacing and scheduling. no modern pitcher should be getting three starts in a series with any semblance of his normal rest. THAT is the biggest problem. MLB (like virtually every sport except for The Masters) lets TV dictate their schedule instead of the other way around. And it's on the way to the bank that ML owners are crying about all those off days being dictated to them. They'd play one playoff game every two weeks and in snowstorm if it was more profitable than the status quo. If they're letting, then there's no dictatorship.

I'd buy this in book form, even though I'll surely have read most, if not all of it, online.

Nymr83 wrote: why do you hate the hit and run more? I'm glad you asked. Long answer. Because hitting a baseball is the hardest thing in all of sports. I can trot out the cliches about hitting a round ball squarely, or that the best batters fail 70% of the time, but you've, no doubt, heard all of those. But here's how hard it is to hit a baseball: even at the major league level, where rosters are comprised of the best 300 or so hitters (non-pitchers) in the world, most of MLB's non-pitchers suck at hitting. Most hitters suck. Most Major League hitters suck. With the bat, they're liabilities to their teams. Half of all hitters suck and every single team's got 'em. And of the other half, a good percentage of those hitters struggle. In any given season, the number of ML hitters that can reliably and reasonably be counted on to hit well are probably less than 100, maybe even closer to 75. The pitch comes in too darn fast and the batter has no idea where the pitcher intends to throw it. To counter this seemingly insurmountable pitcher's advantage -- to even the odds, or at least make them less unfair -- the ball-strike count has developed over the course of baseball's history so that a pitcher needs to throw three strikes to retire the batter. Even Babe Ruth would be inept were in not for this rule that allowed him and every other hitter a measure of pitch selection and even failure before the at-bat is resolved one way or the other. David Wright is David Wright only because he doesn't have to swing at every pitch. When a manager calls for the hit and run, he essentially eliminates the hitter's best tool -- the right not to swing at a pitch. The pitcher now has a tremendous advantage, while the batter is obligated to connect under the worst conditions possible. The batter has to swing at a pitch that might be unhittable in order to protect a less than ideal baserunner that's off and running. They don't publish hit and run stats, probably because one can't say for sure whether the hit and run play was even on, but to my eyes, the typical result is a foul ball that adds a strike to the count and tips the odds that much more in favor of the pitcher.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy DC wrote: I'm not sure I get that. The Wild Card team is forced to play another round of playoffs, thus restoring a motive for a team that has clinched a Wild Card spot to continue to pursue the division. That's correct. But after the pure WC round, one WC will stil remain in each league. Given the high degree of luck that occurs in a baseball game, more so than in any other of the team sports, the odds of a WC team making it to the WS, and also winning the WS, -- in my opinion -- are 4-1 -- or even money, or no worse than the odds of the best first place team team in the league winning the Pennant. This is what happens when you have relatively good team playing a few games against each other in a game where luck is prevalent, and decisive to a much greater degree than in other sports. As I see it, the best baseball team has no significant advantage over a WC team in one series. For the record, there have been 16 World Series in the Wild Card era. A Wild Card team has appeared in the WS nine times out of 32 spots (2 x 16 WS), slightly better than one in four. A Wild Card team has won the WS four times out of 16 WS -- precisely one in four. That a Wild Card team is even allowed to participate in MLB's post=season dilutes the concept of WS champ. Points well taken, BML. But a crappy division winner getting to or winning the WS doesn't dilute the concept already? For sure. And you don't even need a crappy first place team to cheapen the season. Right under our own noses, for example, the 2006 Mets seem to be mostly remembered for just missing the WS and for Beltran taking a third strike on the last pitch of the NLCS. We should instead remember the 2006 Mets as the best team in baseball that season. This cuts both ways. We have our Miracle of '69 and no one can take that away from Mets fan notwithstanding what the results would've been if the Mets and Orioles could've vied for '69 WS champs 100 times instead of just once.

Edgy DC wrote: So now their odds are cut from one in four to one in eight, or probably more like one in ten, considering the disadvantage of having to survive an extra series while the other teams rest. TBD.

Edgy DC wrote: I'm not sure I get that. The Wild Card team is forced to play another round of playoffs, thus restoring a motive for a team that has clinched a Wild Card spot to continue to pursue the division. That's correct. But after the pure WC round, one WC will stil remain in each league. Given the high degree of luck that occurs in a baseball game, more so than in any other of the team sports, the odds of a WC team making it to the WS, and also winning the WS, -- in my opinion -- are 4-1 -- or even money, or no worse than the odds of the best first place team team in the league winning the Pennant. This is what happens when you have relatively good team playing a few games against each other in a game where luck is prevalent, and decisive to a much greater degree than in other sports. As I see it, the best baseball team has no significant advantage over a WC team in one series. For the record, there have been 16 World Series in the Wild Card era. A Wild Card team has appeared in the WS nine times out of 32 spots (2 x 16 WS), slightly better than one in four. A Wild Card team has won the WS four times out of 16 WS -- precisely one in four. That a Wild Card team is even allowed to participate in MLB's post=season dilutes the concept of WS champ.

Rockin' Doc wrote: What ever happened to the hit and run (or the run and hit)? I know that the players of today are, as a whole, more into swinging for the fences (contact be damned), but there has to be a place for the hit and run in today's game.* *Now there is a sentence to drive an English professor mad. I hate the sac bunt and I've beaten that topic to death on this forum. I hate the hit and run even worse than I hate the sac bunt.

This sucks. Any day now, Selig will cite, as inspiration for this idea, the super secret fan poll that nobody's allowed to audit and no one even remembers taking place, where the fans demanded this. Apparently, hardly anyone that posts here voted for expanded playoffs. Fman99 wrote: I like it just fine. Give the division leaders a clear advantage over the wild card. The plan is for the two Wild Card teams to meet in the first playoff round. After one of the WC teams is eliminated (in each league), we're right back where we are now: one WC team and the three division leaders. This is going to dilute the already diluted races for first place.

If you're playing for one run with the top of the lineup ... If you're playing for one run when your leadoff hitter leads off the inning by getting on base, then you might as well just forfeit the game. Don't even show up. What's the point?

Edgy DC wrote: G-Fafif wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: When he was on, he could carry the team all by himself. Other than Piazza, I can't think of any Met more powerful than Delgado. For only a few stretches -- Kingman in 1976, Strawberry in 1990, Piazza in 2000 -- the Mets have had that "put the team on my back" guy. Never did I see anybody fill that role the way Delgado did for approximately half a season in 2008. It was thrilling to watch. Lee Mazzilli, July 1980. Not a half season, but up to that time, I didn't know a Met could have a month like that. Good one. Maz was en fuego that summer. What about Hendu, July 1977? Not as awesome as Maz80, but as magical a month as any Met ever had.

When he was on, he could carry the team all by himself. Other than Piazza, I can't think of any Met more powerful than Delgado. For only a few stretches -- ... Piazza in 2000 -- the Mets have had that "put the team on my back" guy. Never did I see anybody fill that role the way Delgado did for approximately half a season in 2008. It was thrilling to watch. Brook Fordyce, and only Brook Fordyce, is why I own this baseball card:

Another point to make is that the #2 slot in the batting order isn't (like many managers play it) for the leftover guy, the batter that's not quite awful enough to bat eighth. When the guy at the top of the lineup leads off by not making an out and your #3 hitter is on deck, you're poised for a big inning. If Collins doesn't have enough confidence in Thole to get a hit in that situation, then Collins shouldn't have Thole batting second in the first place. Because, why put what you believe to be a severely flawed hitter in between your leadoff hitter and the meat of the lineup? The #2 slot is no place for a crappy hitter. Trying to find a way to blame all this bunting on the Wilpons. Haven't quite managed to figure it out yet, but I'm sure someone will. Here's something: Small ball became a large component of the Mets offense instantly as soon as the Wilpons acquired a 100% ownership interest in the Mets. It's been that way ever since*. *Except for the Jerry portion of the 2008 season.

Ceetar wrote: The Mets will be fine even if [K-Rod] vests, and having 17.5 million coming off the books in 2013 helps flexibility in that year too.. Why don't the Mets guarantee K-Rod a hundred million dollars for next season? Because, think of all the money that'll then come off payroll for 2013. And us fans won't have to worry about the number of games K-Rod finishes this season.

Even if Pagan's not an everyday outfielder, he still brings a lot to the table. He does enough things well enough that he's an asset if used properly. But I wouldn't want him at the top of the lineup against lefties just like I wouldn't want to see David Wright converted to a relief pitcher.

Ceetar wrote: I state that he's better than he's shown in 16 games because his numbers are worse than all his numbers everywhere, and that he'll get at least one hit off a left-handed pitcher this year and I'm the one spinning things? Pagan is an asset against LHP because he won't go hitless against them?

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: You could certainly point to his splits, but no matter how you spin his 1000+ AB with the Mets as 'flukish one season" he's not going to go the entire season without a hit against a lefthander. You're accusing someone else of spinning things here? Because no one's doing it? Who?

Ceetar wrote: You could certainly point to his splits, but no matter how you spin his 1000+ AB with the Mets as 'flukish one season" he's not going to go the entire season without a hit against a lefthander. You're accusing someone else of spinning things here?

I'm always disappointed to read or hear the Baseball establishment include Pagan in the mix of best Mets. It reminds me of the bad de Roulet years when Youngblood and Stearns vied for best Met vet. It's not a perfect analogy but it's close enough. I see Pagan as a 4th outfielder and if he's a best Met candidate, the team's in big trouble. I probably said this about a jillion times already but I'll say it again, mainly because I've yet to hear it from the media -- but Pagan murders the Mets against LHP.

DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...*4/1/111004/3/113004/6/1151324/8/1171234/14/11133374/17/1116440 *Remainders are always lopped off and never rounded up to the nearest whole number.

DATEMETS GAMES PLAYEDGAMES K-ROD FINISHEDON PACE TO FINISH...4/1/111004/3/113004/6/115132*4/8/1171234/14/1113337

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah, my point was that we can't count on all 3 of those guys hitting at the same time I knew that. Maybe the defense will pick up just in time for the hitting to slow down.

George Storkopolous