batmagadanleadoff

I guess that my little joke wasn't that funny.

Is that the same Baseball Prospectus that gave the Mets a 99.64% chance of making the playoffs on September 20, 2007? They're not credible.

I'm with you. I haven't given up. They're six games out of the WC and it's still July. Give up? Tug McGraw would be rolling over in his grave if he heard any of this give up talk.

...

Meche is on the 60 day DL. That might be the best part of the proposed deal.

The Greatest Trade Rumor in Baseball History A rundown of the relevant parties: * Oliver Perez, owed $24/2: Arguably the worst pitcher in baseball, Perez has Steve Blass Disease, minus the connotation of once having good control. Perez allows more homeruns and walks at a per-nine-inning pace than Cliff Lee will allow in the next 5 years. * Luis Castillo, owed $12/2: Castillo's only skill is plate discipline. After losing most of the joint function in both of his knees, his other two abilities, hitting infield singles and fielding, became impossible. * Jeff Francoeur, owed 1/$5 (arb. eligible): Despite consistently being the worst rightfielder in baseball for several years, Mets fans are convinced he would be make a good fourth outfielder on a championship team. He's practically Endy Chavez's cousin: no plate discipline, no speed, mediocre power, average fielder, average contact hitter. * Gil Meche, owed 1/$12: Meche was a pretty good pitcher until ex-Royals' manager Trey Hillman made him throw 200 pitches a game starting in 2008. Now, his contract isn't the only number he and Ollie have in common: * Screen_shot_2010-07-25_at_6 Screen_shot_2010-07-25_at_6 * Kyle Farnsworth, owed $10/2 (option in '11): T3h Pr0f3ss0r is the only useful player in this bunch. He throws about 100 mph in no particular direction, which gives him about 50/50 chance of throwing a strike on any given pitch or having a good year in an particular season. * Jose Guillen, owed 2/$24: Way overpaid, certainly not a starter on a team serious about contending, and prone to the occasional Iron Sheik-esque rant, Jose Guillen is certainly better than Jeff Francoeur. The funniest part about this whole proposed-trade is that, if it happened straight-up three-for-three, the Mets would probably be the winners. Winners, though, only in the sense that they'd have cleared some bad contracts in preparation of building next year's roster. If you bother to consider next year's payroll obligations--Bay for $18M, Beltran for $20M, Rodriguez for $12M, Cora for $2M--it's apparent that having a few extra million or ten was never this team's problem. This trade would just be two organizations flaunting their ignorance to the rest of the baseball world, taking their three biggest failures each and putting them on a pedestal. I'm just worried they might try to swap urinal cakes too, but hit a snag when Kauffman's are discovered to come from a cheaper distributer. http://www.amazinavenue.com/2010/7/25/1587520/the-greatest-trade-rumor-in

I'm not sure it's happened yet. If it has, Rosenthal seems to be the only one who knows about it.

I'm OK with Dickey's removal, too. Maybe Dickey argued vehemently to stay in because he already sensed his game was over. Dickey's become a valuable commodity and it's worth exercising a little bit of caution to protect his health at the expense of what was likely to be, no more than another extra inning and half of pitching from Dickey.

It's not so much that Frenchy's terrific against lefties, but that Pagan sorta sucks against southpaws. Pagan's splits are Backmanesque: He's a minor all-star batting lefty and ineffective batting right-handed.

The first Met teams that I rooted for obsessively had the best one-two relief pitching punch in all of baseball. McGraw and Frisella were unhittable, and pitched whenever the game was on the line, irrespective of the inning. Back then, reliever usage was determined by the pitcher's ability, by the game and base/out situation, and by the identity of the opposing batters ... not by the inning number. We've regressed over the last 20 years. Because it makes eminent sense to match the reliever to the game situation, rather than to the inning.

From "The Greatest Game Ever Played" thread: batmagadanleadoff wrote: In an extra inning game, I'd use my most effective available reliever -- effective defined by the circumstances (opposing batters, base/out situation) as much as by the pitcher's own abilities. Given the sudden death-like nature of extra innings, I can't see holding back on the most effective pitcher. Your team won't bat in the 11th inning if you're losing after 10 innings. Here's what I think is wrong with Jerry and Dan's thinking: Let's assume that Perez was destined to give up that home run no matter when he appeared, and that K-Rod could pitch no more than one inning. K-Rod, by pitching a scoreless 13th, extends the game for at least another inning, and gives the Mets at least one more half inning to score. If the Mets score one run in the 14th, than the home run that Perez would yield is not necessarily the walk-off game winner. And if the Mets put up a crooked number in their half of the 14th, the Dodger solo homer doesn't even tie the game. It's not only about maintaining the tie. A tie at the end of the extra inning necessitates another inning, and another scoring opportunity for the road team.

Good for Whitey and good for Bucket!

2010 HR's by Mets and Opponents at Citi Field: 46 games/60 HR's -------------1.30 per game 2010 HR's by Mets and Opponents in Met road games: 51 games/101 HR's -----------1.98 per game This season, Citi Field is reducing HR's by a whopping 33%.

It's a good thing that Pagan the .300 hitter sac bunted. Not. Because all of those runners would've scored anyway. And this inning might not be over yet.

Even Wayne Hagin is against that bunt.

The hope here is that Wright hits a lazy fly ball out deep enough to score the runner from third but not good enough for a hit. Because if Wright homers, the play caller looks like a jackass for using Pagan to sac bunt. If Wright homers, they woulda all likely scored anyway.

So's Frenchy's OBP.

Fool!

Jeff Francoeur: Selfish Malcontent: �If there was an opportunity to play more somewhere else, that would be great,� Francoeur told the Daily News. �I love it here, but if they decide to go in a different direction, I would be happy to play somewhere else where there is more playing time.� A couple of things: 1. I don't really care what players say in interviews and I suspect that, by and large, things like "clubhouse chemistry" are inventions created by the media covering a team so reporters can shoe-horn events into pre-defined narratives that have little or no effect on the on-field performance of a team, which is almost entirely determined by talent and chance. I really, really doubt Francouer's quote(s) (or anyone's, really) will have any effect on the performance of the team, so it's really not that important what he says or thinks. 2. That said, there are certain players that would be absolutely crucified in the sports media for saying something like this. I suspect Francoeur will be treated more sympathetically than, say, Gary Sheffield or Oliver Perez, despite his history of whining to reporters when he doesn't get his way. New York Sports Media: I challenge you to be nonsensically reactionary to all players, instead of piling on a few pariahs. (Alternatively, you could take this opportunity to start a new era of sports journalism, in which cooler heads prevail over demagogues and stories are presented with nuance, reason and intelligence. I'll hold my breath for that) 3. Again, not that it really has much (or any) bearing on the team's performance, but if I were Jeff Francoeur, instead of bitching about playing time to reporters, I'd go ahead and shut the fuck up, because I've been absolutely awful this year (and for a good portion of my career). Carlos Beltran has been pretty bad since coming off the DL, but he still has a higher wOBA than me. And there's good reason to believe he'll improve before I will. Of course, Francoeur is not paid to properly evaluate his value, he's paid to play baseball. So, while he's (apparently) really bad at doing both these things, he (correctly, perhaps) sees no need to try to evaluate himself properly. I get this, but I don't get this. Maybe this is just the difference between how professional athletes and us regular shlubs are wired, but I can't see going through life without being self-aware. When I've worked at jobs I've stunk at, I knew it. Hell, when I played sports I stunk at, I knew it. Francoeur, apparently, doesn't know he stinks. Which, I guess, might be a survival tool pro athletes need, although one could argue knowing your weaknesses could lead to improved performances. Anyway, this is a longer post than I intended. No moeur Francoeur, etc, except that he could actually help the team as a pinch hitter/occasional starter vs. lefties. So I hope, despite his comments, he plays well in his new role, or the Mets get a somewhat useful part in return for him. THIS. DITTO. I enjoyed Firecracker's post too, because Francoeur is one of the two 2010 Mets that I hate on a personal level. As a rule of thumb, I generally harbor strong resentments towards players who receive disproportionately positive press in relation to their less than stellar on the field accomplishments. I often wonder whether these players have questionable social personalities and deliberately and consciously manipulate the press in order to generate the unjustified rave reviews that they garner. Sometimes I'm proven wrong -- other times, I have no idea whether I'm right or wrong and admit to myself that I'm going on personal hunches. In Francoeur's case, I've convinced myself that he's a pathological liar, a player that's been pampered and coddled for so long -- like most professional athletes -- that he believes that the press will take for granted anything he says, no matter how idiotic or false or how easily refutable the statement happens to be. I've heard enough of these comments from Frenchy, and all the time gauging his accompanying tone of voice and facial expressions and the surrounding context, that I believe that there's no way even he can possibly believe the truth of what he says. That's all I really wanna say here. Nothing else. I'm not gonna go into the details or share what it is that makes me feel the way I do about Frenchy lest we have another sort of World War that typically erupts after this kind of post. I just can't stand him is all.

Fergie Jenkins?

What it means is that Randolph was the luckiest, no?