batmagadanleadoff

One problem with the "is it a fluke" analysis is that it's premised on the idea that this year's Barajas is the same as the previous Barajas'. Only older. But who knows whether Barajas perhaps altered his approach this year, or is suddenly in the best shape of his life, or is a late bloomer? Or a late boomer. Past performance doesn't necessarily guarantee future results. Anyone waiting for Mike Scott to regress to his mediocre mean in May of 1985 had no way of knowing that Scott was beginning a run of success that would make him one of baseball's best pitchers in each of the next five seasons. Same for Koufax in '61.

....yet all of it fails to measure up to the war of words touched off by the decision to remove John Maine after five pitches on Thursday night. Maine failed to reach 85 mph on any of his pitches, including the fastballs, and was quickly removed from the game by Jerry Manuel and pitching coach Dan Warthen. After the game, they cited the lack of velocity, a lackluster bullpen session before the game and an altered delivery, two things that made them think Maine was injured and trying to pitch through the pain. Catcher Rod Barajas also said Maine didn't look right, but Maine was less than thrilled with the team's decision-making. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/Even-When-the-Mets-Win-They-Lose-94569669.html �If he�s throwing that way, then there�s got to be something incorrect in that arm,� Warthen said. �Something�s not feeling correct. John�s a habitual liar in a lot of ways as far as his own health. He�s a competitor and a warrior. He wants to go out there and pitch. But we have to be smart enough to realize this guy isn�t right, the ball�s not coming out of his hand correctly.� In the bullpen, Maine convinced Warthen that he could pitch, but he and Manuel were skeptical. So while Maine was warming up for the bottom of the first inning, they had Valdes preparing in the bullpen, which Maine noticed. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/sports/baseball/21mets.html Do you know what an 85 MPH fast ball is? It's a pitch that even Bud Harrelson could clout over the outfield wall. It sounds like Jerry didn't wanna wait until the Mets were down by three or four runs before pulling Maine.

So what has Maine done lately to deserve this unwavering confidence that he thinks he's entitled to? He's been ineffective for the most part. It sounds like he painted Manuel and Warthen into a corner. If Maine was left in there to continue and pitched dismally, or worse, injured himself, who the hell knows if he'd then be claiming that he was mishandled because the team ignored his medical condition? Jerry's damned either way, it seems.

Ceetar wrote: I don't see how any of this chaos is going to look good for Manuel who can't control a clubhouse apparently.... Maine says he thinks Manuel has no confidence in him. (True or not, we all, including Manuel, want Maine to do well. What does letting him think this accomplish?). I'd like to see Maine do well too. I'd also like to see Ollie Perez regain his form before the team dumps him. I rooted for Mark Bomback. And Juan Berenguer. And Eric Hillman and Gene Walter and Casey Fossum and every other tomato can that was a tomato can in a Met uniform. None of this entitles these pitchers to an indefinite number of starts.

Gwreck wrote: You realize that's a Wallace Matthews idea you're putting in support of your point, right? That back page is from September of 2008. I'm not defending the 2010 Jerry.

I'm on board for Jerry's firing ... his tactics are just too absurd. But I'm disagreeing with everyone who thinks he's worse than Willie, or that he's doing things that even Willie never did. Twice, Willie sac bunted in the first inning of a road game against the Rockies ... Jerry's got nothing on Willie. I'd also add that Jerry's being unfairly punished for last year's lost season of injuries, even though management openly denied that they'd blame the manager for 2009. If 2009 never happened ... if these six weeks of play came on the heels of the end of 2008, the call for Jerry's head wouldn't be as heated as it is.

Too close to call. King and Garces are neck and neck.

Swan Swan H wrote: I can't see how guys like Murphy and Pagan can like him. What does that mean? Why those two guys? And what insight are you using to make such a determination? Because Murphy's injury is Jerry's fault. Because it's Jerry's fault that Ike Davis has developed into one great baseball story. I also blame Jerry for the avatars not working. What? I gotta explain it to you?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yep, you're right. (Tables 4 and 5 being especially pertinent.) But hey-- if, like MerkinChin, you're playing that game, why not get the bird in hand? If you're playing for just one run, and you've got a guy up who's been having trouble making contact all game/all season (so far), then why don't you squeeze the run in? Because GMJ's having trouble making contact!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Agree strongly. It's like JM's managing the game to get to the bullpen (which he equates with the win), rather than to actually win. He does roughly the same thing with offense, too, on a more microcosmic scale-- put the team in position to score a run, rather than working to actually plate runs (bunt to advance the runner, not to score the runner, e.g.). I agree. I dislike managers that are compelled to manufacture runs by calling for some play or tactic. I prefer a manager who can organize his nine starters into a reasonably efficient batting order, and then sit back and do nothing more than watch the batters do the rest. I don't remember a thread here on the hit and run but I detest that play as much as the sac bunt. I could also care less about the stolen base, though I won't complain when the steal is successful. I think that these plays are relics from a style of baseball that is now somewhat antiquated. Along these lines, one of the game's best managers is Manuel. The one down in Philly.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Maybe there are statistics that bear it out, but I'd still rather take my chances to let Carter, Wright, and Ike have a chance to get a hit and score the run than take 1 chance at a sac-fly with David striking out so much and Wagner being a strikeout guy + 1 chance for a left-handed rookie who has never faced him before to get a hit. It just seems that Manuel needs to sit back, and let his players win or lose the game. Maybe their is something to the idea that if you spend so much of your time asking your players to make intentional outs (sac flies, bunts), then they tend to make outs. That's really completely silly, but I just don't like the intentional out, and I think even with the runner on third with less than 2 outs (as has been a problem for years) the Mets should really ignore trying to do anything than get a hit. Stop trying to do something specific with the ball and just hit it. Every run-expectancy matrix* I've ever seen shows higher expected-runs numbers (and therefore, higher run-expectancy, if you're looking forward) to a no outs/man-on-second (1.17-1.20) situation than a one-out/man-on-third one (.97-.98). I mean, the odds are pretty damn good either way, but all else being equal, not giving up the out is usually the smart way to go. *Compiled backward from actual results, per year. So, this juice is made from actual-- not theoretical-- fruit. You're probably looking at run-expectancy matrixes that indicate the average total number of runs scored in an inning, given the base-out situation. I was referring to run-expectancy matrixes that give odds for scoring a specific number of runs (e.g., one run, two runs, etc.) in the inning. The different matrixes (and results) can probably be reconciled as follows: By successfully bunting a running to third base with the first out of the inning, the team increases its chances of scoring precisely one run in that inning. However, by sacrificing, it also dramatically reduces its chances of scoring any additional runs in that inning. I guess it's a variation on the old a bird in the hand theme. Even though the bird isn't yet in the hand.

I'd trade Reyes for Hanley in a heartbeat. It's a no-brainer and it also means that the Marlins will never do it. But you never know. We got Hernandez for a lot less mainly because Keith fell out of favor in St. Looey.

EdgyDC wrote: By the way, Matthews sac bunted on a pitch that was high and outside and ball four by a wide margin. Unless Castillo was running on that pitch, I don't see why GMJ couldn't improvise on Jerry's call in order to work out the walk. With a 3-1 count, GMJ should have anticipated the possibility that the next pitch might miss the plate by far. OE: What I'm sayin' is that GMJ's at bat was worse than Jerry Randolph's call.I'm almost sure Manuel prefers the successful sacrifice to the walk there. I doubt it. Why don't you invite Jerry to the forum so that he could set the record straight? EdgyDC wrote: Billy Wagner has 22 K's in 14 innings and would be the Mets best reliever if he was only a Met.Maybe, but it's a trap to allow ourselves to think more relievers and better relievers are the answer. I don't see any trap. I'd rather have better relievers than worser relievers.

Frayed Knot wrote: I get the stereotype about middle of the diamond guys supposedly being better bunters, but I"m not sure how it applies to yesterday's top of the ninth: GMJ is an outfielder. Well, he's still a middle outfielder therefore he was born with the speedy/slappy/gritty gene meaning that bunting in innate with his kind. By the way, Matthews sac bunted on a pitch that was high and outside and ball four by a wide margin. Unless Castillo was running on that pitch, I don't see why GMJ couldn't improvise on Jerry's call in order to work out the walk. With a 3-1 count, GMJ should have anticipated the possibility that the next pitch might miss the plate by far. This was my biggest problem. Once the count got to 2-0 is there anything wrong w/Jerry REMOVING the bunt now that his batter has a supposed edge? Geez, zone on an outside pitch and try to take one to RF. It'll still get the runner over and maybe you'll get a hit by accident. And that's the larger problem, not just that he chooses the "wrong" strategy but that he won't deviate from it even if circumstances change. I edited my post, apparently while you were writing your response. I blame GMJ more than Jerry. Unless Castillo was running on the 3-1 count, GMJ's allowed to take a ball, even with the sac bunt on. He already drew three balls before he bunted.

The corollary to that line of thinking is that everyone who plays in the middle of the diamond automatically knows how to get down a bunt, something which Jerry - along with a number of others - clearly buys into. I've made my piece with Manuel, I think. I mean, he is exactly what he is*. There's almost no point in getting upset with it**-- if he continues to make these sorts of mistakes, and a weird string of freakish luck doesn't grant the Mets more victories than they're due, he's gone. The thought that keeps me up is that in looking for his potential replacement, Mets upper-level management probably isn't looking for someone who doesn't buy into this crap; they're merely looking for someone who probably seems a contrast, personality-wise, and will "make (this crap) work" (i.e., get lucky, get wins). *I hate this locution, and its overuse to the point of distorting whatever meaning it originally had... but it's wholly appropriate here. **I reserve the right to make bitchy IGT comments when I'm having a strong adult beverage at home while watching/otherwise taking in the game. I get the stereotype about middle of the diamond guys supposedly being better bunters, but I"m not sure how it applies to yesterday's top of the ninth: GMJ is an outfielder. I would've preferred that GMJ didn't sac bunt with Castillo on second. In Jerry's defense though, sac bunting a runner over to third base from second base with no outs is the only instance where the team at bat increases its chances of scoring one run by making an out. I don't like that play with the team's best hitters due up, but playing for one run with one inning left and K-Rod in the pen has its merits. By the way, Matthews sac bunted on a pitch that was high and outside and ball four by a wide margin. Unless Castillo was running on that pitch, I don't see why GMJ couldn't improvise on Jerry's call in order to work out the walk. With a 3-1 count, GMJ should have anticipated the possibility that the next pitch might miss the plate by far. OE: What I'm sayin' is that GMJ's at bat was worse than Jerry Randolph's call. Billy Wagner has 22 K's in 14 innings and would be the Mets best reliever if he was only a Met.

Where's the roster pinch? I get the impression that Mejia's getting somewhat of the kid glove treatment usage-wise ... that Manuel is reluctant to use him in certain spots. Mejia's the least used of all pitchers that have been on the roster since opening day. If Mejia truly is getting the kid-glove treatment, the Mets can no longer afford to carry him and garbage time Ollie simultaneously.

The Mets haven't said this, but it's possible that the main reason for Mejia's demotion might be Ollie Perez's refusal to be sent down. As it is, the Mets hands are tied behind their back if they're forced to squander a roster spot on Ollie, who will now likely be limited to garbage time. There's no way that the team can also afford to carry Mejia, who's being coddled, presumably because of his youth and inexperience. Just because they didn't say it, doesn't mean it ain't true.