batmagadanleadoff

Because you asked me when I knew, not what I knew. And when I knew is an irrelevant side issue. Besides, you don't need me to tell you that Brooks and Coleman as 2/3 of your outfield is more liability than asset and that Butch Huskey is not the messiah. Let me ask you: Do you like Wilpon? And if so ... always?

During Wilpon's entire stint as owner (minor, major and middle), the Mets have always been the wealthiest team in the NL. The Mets didn't just start to roll in the money a few years ago after the SNY revenue began to accrue. And they don't compete with the Yankees, at least tactically, for more than six games a season -- and even then, only since '97. So who's to blame for the years of bad GM's, bad managers and bad long term planning; the Harazins and Torborgs; the team's inability to parlay the city of NY as a magnet to attract star players. Where should've the buck stopped? The buck stopped at Wilpon's pocket, I say. What's the difference when I knew?

="Kong76"]bmags: I thought that it was primarily Wilpon that once turned the Mets into an inconsequential franchise <<< You did? What year did you start thinking that? After it happened.

I thought that it was primarily Wilpon that once turned the Mets into an inconsequential franchise. I'm not giving him any credit for cleaning up the crap that he made.

="batmagadanleadoff"] Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Updated: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 36 Doubles in 16 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 2.25 doubles/game

The Mets sign first baseman Marv Throneberry, who goes on to prove that not only can you not have your cake and eat it at the same time, but sometimes, you can't even have your cake. ="The New York Times"]The Mets team for which Throneberry played was the first in the history of the franchise. It was a patchwork of over-the-hill veterans, in-their-prime underachievers and not-yet-ready castoffs from the more established major league teams. The Mets won 40 times, lost 120 times and no team ever lost more games in a season. Oddly enough, that season was Throneberry's best. He hit 16 home runs, drove in 49 runs and had a batting average of .238. Symbol for the '62 Mets But it was impossible to talk about the folly of the 1962 Mets without mentioning Throneberry, whose ineptness afield was matched by his shortcomings as a base runner. In a game against the Chicago Cubs, he hit what appeared to be a game-winning triple with the bases loaded and two outs. The problem was that everybody in the dugout noticed that he missed touching first base. When the Cubs' pitcher tossed the ball to the first baseman, the umpire called Throneberry out. The inning ended and the runs didn't count. Casey Stengel, the grizzled manager of the Mets, couldn't believe it and began arguing with the first-base umpire. As they exchanged words, another umpire walked over and said, "Casey, I hate to tell you this, but he also missed second." Not surprisingly, whenever Stengel lamented, "Can't anybody here play this game?" the target of his plea often was Throneberry. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/25/obituaries/marv-throneberry-60-ex-met-had-best-year-in-team-s-worst.html

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied.

Is this a trivia question? And if so, is there a Met theme (thread title)?

Some interesting reads from Forbes Magazine: Baseball's Most Valuable Teams Michael K. Ozanian and Kurt Badenhausen, 04.22.09, 06:00 PM EDT New stadiums pushed up team values overall, but one-third of the league saw values drop over the past year. ]The aggregate results of Forbes' 12th annual take on the finances of Major League Baseball show the national pastime has never been stronger. Team values increased an average of 1% over the past year to $482 million, an all-time high. Fueled by more ticket sales and television money, league revenue increased 5.5% to $5.8 billion (our figures are net of revenue used to finance stadium debt). Operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) rose 1.8% to $501 million--another record. But dig deeper and you'll find the overall results are skewed by a handful of teams with great stadiums and cable television deals. Business is tough: Ten franchises saw their values decline during the past year, the most since 2004, and many teams are having a more difficult time selling premium seating, sponsorships and meeting debt obligations because of the bad economy. The net result is a widening gap between the teams at the top and the ones at the bottom. No one is getting richer faster than the No. 1-ranked New York Yankees, whose value shot up 15% this year to $1.5 billion. The Bronx Bombers pulled in $80 million--by far the most in baseball--from their rights fee with the YES Network in 2008 and moved into the most lucrative stadium in baseball this season. (Full disclosure: Forbes has a show on the YES Network.) The new stadium also means the Yankees will have to hand over a lower percentage of their revenue to rivals. Yes, the team's stadium revenue--tickets, suites, advertising, concessions--is likely to go up by more than $100 million this season. But MLB permits teams to deduct stadium-operating and debt expenses from revenue before calculating the amount the league will take from them to subsidize other teams. Last season the Yankees had to hand over $95 million to the league so it could be distributed to teams like the Florida Marlins, Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals and Tampa Bay Rays. In the new stadium the Yankees' deductible expenses will be around $100 million, enough to wipe out the windfall in revenue. No. 2-ranked New York Mets rose 11% and are now worth $912 million. The team is in a sense a mini version of its cross-town rival. The Mets also moved into a new stadium, Citi Field, this year, and the team will get an average of $20 million a year in naming rights and related advertising from the bank. And a great cable deal brought in $52 million last season. The next three most valuable teams--the Boston Red Sox ($833 million), Los Angeles Dodgers ($722 million) and Chicago Cubs ($700 million)--own their stadiums and generate a lot of money from tickets, concessions and sponsorships. And each of these teams generates a pile of cash from cable television. But several teams are falling further behind the firepower of the leading franchises. The San Francisco Giants fell 5% in value, to $471 million. The team's attendance is down since not resigning Barry Bonds after the 2007 season, and the value of its personal seat licenses have decreased 60% to 80% over the past three years. With unemployment in the Motor City at a 25-year high the Detroit Tigers are bleeding money. The value of the Tigers dropped 9%, to $371 million. The Cleveland Indians, victims of declining manufacturing in the Rust Belt, were also whacked by lower attendance and have slashed ticket prices this season to get fans out to the Jake. The value of the Indians slipped 4%, to $399 million. And then there are the Texas Rangers, off 2% in value to $405 million. As part of an effort to renegotiate $525 million in loans related to the Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars, Hicks Sports Group, owned by Dallas billionaire Tom Hicks, did not make a quarterly interest-only payment that was due last month. Hicks said he has been in talks with lenders, not to ask for additional funding for the teams but to restructure the debt or to possibly pay it off if he finds investors willing to buy minority stakes in either team. Even with credit markets tight, recent transactions show that investors believe baseball's prospects are bright. Publisher Tribune is in the process of unloading the Cubs, Wrigley Field and its 25% stake in a regional sports channel in a deal that will value the Cubs at $700 million, including value of the revenue that the team generates from Wrigley Field. The San Diego Padres, along with the operating rights to Petco Park, are being sold for $500 million over five years, giving the deal a present value, net of tax considerations in the transaction, between $400 and $425 million. follow link to article (below), for sub-articles, charts, etc. http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/yankees-mets-baseball-values-09-business-sports-intro.html?feed=rss_business_sportsmoney ___________ Baseball's Best Relief Pitchers For The Buck Peter J. Schwartz, 04.22.09, 06:00 PM EDT Winning teams have good bullpens. Here are the best relievers for the money. ]The New York Mets stumbled down the stretch for a second straight season in 2008 as their bullpen blew 29 saves (the third-worst in baseball) and lost seven games when leading after eight innings. The Phillies, who overtook the Mets to win the division and eventually captured the World Series, were a perfect 79-0 when leading after eight innings. So the Mets opened their checkbook this winter and signed closer Francisco Rodriguez, who set a record with 62 saves in 2008 as a member of the Los Angeles Angels, to a three-year, $37 million contract. Is K-Rod worth the money? In Pictures: Baseball's Best Relief Pitchers For The Buck Probably. That is, if he maintains his recent level of performance. Rodriguez, 27, posted a 2.24 earned run average (ERA) last year (almost half that of the average American League pitcher) and was so effective down the stretch of games that he ranked as baseball�s ninth-best-bargain reliever on our first ever list, despite receiving a $10 million paycheck. So far this season, he has yet to surrender a run in six appearances with his new team. To determine baseball�s best relievers for the buck, we looked at the 58 pitchers who accumulated at least 20 combined holds (when a pitcher inherits a lead in a close game that he does not relinquish before being removed) and saves (when he maintains that lead through the completion of the game) last season. Pitchers were ranked based on saves and holds as well as ERA+, a stat that indexes a pitcher�s earned run average against the league average, while accounting for the differences in ball parks that make some more "pitcher-friendly" than others. Lastly, we compared each pitcher�s pay in 2008 to the median salary of relievers with similar longevity in the league. Veteran players with enough tenure to qualify for salary arbitration or free agency command larger paychecks than younger players, who typically make close to the league minimum. The best bargain in the bullpen is Oakland Athletics reliever Brad Ziegler, who established an American League record for consecutive scoreless innings to start a career with 39 in 2008. Ziegler appeared in 47 games and was named the team�s closer in August, just three months after being called up from the minor leagues. His microscopic ERA of 1.06 was more than three runs better than the American League average, while he earned the league minimum salary of $390,000. One of the most critical roles relievers play is to protect starting pitchers who are closely monitored, held to strict pitch counts and given plenty of rest between games. Reason: their ballooning paychecks, which averaged $4.4 million last year, compared with $3.2 million for the average big-leaguer. Not all pitchers on our list were closers last year. San Diego�s Heath Bell was so efficient as the team�s set-up man that he was promoted to replace all-time saves leader Trevor Hoffman as his team�s closer during the off-season and was selected for Team USA in last month�s World Baseball Classic. His $420,000 salary was less than half that of relief pitchers with similar experience in the league, making him the sixth best value in any bullpen last year. http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/22/best-relief-pitchers-baseball-values-09-business-sports-pitchers.html

I don't remember. That's why I omitted that detail.

="Elster88":27yb06f5]Beltran and Pujols are most definitely in the same ballpark. If you use the 1.4x OBP method to calculate OPS then Beltran's OPS is higher than Pujols.[/quote:27yb06f5] The best way to rationalize Beltran having a better season than Pujols is to adjust for Citi Field. To date, Beltran's road stats are significantly better than Pujols'. For what it's worth, Wright's road stats are also among the NL's best, though not nearly to the extent of Beltran's.

By the way, Johan Santana is the NL Pitcher of the Month for the month of April.

Gwreck wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]Ron Darling extols the subtle virtues of being Alex Cora. According to Ron, Cora has intangibles. I like intangibles. I especially liked the intangibles Dwight Gooden had from about the middle of 1984 through the middle of 1986. Bernard Gilkey had some great intangibles in 1996 when he had one of the best Met seasons ever. And Tom Seaver has some set of intangibles also, throughout his entire Met career. I'm with you on this, and was thinking the same sort of thing, but then they flashed his stats for the year and it had an OBP of .412 and an average of .310 something and it occured to me that if that's how he's going to produce -- for now, at least -- I'm fine with him hitting 2nd occasionally. As a Met fan, I hope you're right. But this reminds me of the Billy Martin anecdote when someone was praising the fast start of an historically bad ballplayer to the Yankee manager. Unimpressed, Martin replied that the player sucks, and that he'll be hitting his usual .230 by season's end.

="batmagadanleadoff"]Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Runs: 133 Runs in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 10.23 runs/game 100 Runs in 13 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 7.69 runs/game

="batmagadanleadoff"]Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense. If Gary's reading the Pool, I'd further like to point out that it's not just a question of trading up some HR's for triples. Citi Field is probably murdering doubles more than it's murdering anything else. Shea Stadium doubles that were landing beyond the outfielders on a fly are turning into outs at Citi Field. If those shots are hitting the outfield Citi Field wall on a fly, they would've probably left the yard at Shea. And whether or not a batted ball gets behind the outfield after first landing in front of the outfield has little to do with stadium dimensions and everything to do with defensive positioning, all other things being equal. Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game

Swan Swan H wrote: Santana seems to be in fine form as he gets through a trouble-free first. Time to get Johan the run support he deserves. Wouldn't it be more efficient for the Mets to use up all of their runs when Ollie starts?

Ron Darling extols the subtle virtues of being Alex Cora. According to Ron, Cora has intangibles. I like intangibles. I especially liked the intangibles Dwight Gooden had from about the middle of 1984 through the middle of 1986. Bernard Gilkey had some great intangibles in 1996 when he had one of the best Met seasons ever. And Tom Seaver has some set of intangibles also, throughout his entire Met career.

I'm afraid you did.

I count seven Met HR's at CF through 12 games - Delgado (2), Castro, Tatis, Santos, Wright and Sheffield each with one HR. [u:1thgf3q8]Some early returns[/u:1thgf3q8]: Citizen's Bank Park: 48 HR's in 14 Phillie Home Games (Phillies and opponents); 3.43 HR/game 33 HR's in 10 Phillie Road Games (Phillies and opponents) - 3.3 HR/game Citi Field: 19 HR's in 12 Met Home Games (Mets and opponents) - 1.58 HR/game 22 HR's in 13 Met Road Games (Mets and opponents); 1.69 HR/game Coors Field: 21 HR's in 9 Rockie Home Games (Rockies and opponents) - 2.33 HR/game 40 HR's in 16 Rockie Road Games (Rockies and opponents); 2.5 HR/game Candlestick Park, I still call it: 14 HR's in 14 Giant Home Games (Giants and opponents) - 1.00 HR/game 22 HR's in 11 Giant Road Games (Giants and opponents); 2.00 HR/game Miami: 21 HR's in 11 Marlin Home Games (Marlins and opponents) - 1.91 HR/game 27 HR's in 16 Marlin Road Games (Marlins and opponents); 1.69 HR/game

Art Shamsky Ambushed by Ex-Wife: the Video. (Temp Tycoon?)

="Frayed Knot":3pl3u7wr]1) Let's see how this place plays over an entire season before we declare it (or YSIII for that matter) to be an extreme park in any direction. Traditionally Shea played like a better hitter's park in the Summer than it did in April & May.[/quote:3pl3u7wr] I totally agree with this, and should've added to my post that my ideas, (or anybody else's) would take a few years to confirm or refute. seawolf17 May 06 2009 08:18 AM Edited your poll for you. Mendoza Line May 06 2009 08:29 AM ="sharpie":1tdtxzbf]Fewer homers, more triples. More triples = more fun. You'd rather have MFYIII where pop flies to right end up going out? Not me.[/quote:1tdtxzbf] What he said. Also, based on the small sample size, it looks like CitiField will favor teams with: (a) key offensive players who combine power and speed (like Wright, Beltran, and to a lesser degree Reyes) ( key pitchers who tend to give up fly ball outs (like Santana) (c) good defensive players in the outfield (like Beltran, Church, and...OK, two out of three ain't bad). So I'm not complaining yet. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 06 2009 08:49 AM Not that this means anything but: HRs through 12 home games 2009 Mets 6 Opponents 12 Total 18 Games with no home runs: 2 HRs through 12 home games, 2008 Mets 10 Opponents 10 Total 20 Games with no home runs: 3 IOW, there's hardly any difference that couldn't be explained by Wright's poor start (he had 4 in the first 12 home games last year; only 1 at home this season) batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 09:05 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on May 06 2009 09:14 AM I count seven Met HR's at CF through 12 games - Delgado (2), Castro, Tatis, Santos, Wright and Sheffield each with one HR. [u:1thgf3q8]Some early returns[/u:1thgf3q8]: Citizen's Bank Park: 48 HR's in 14 Phillie Home Games (Phillies and opponents); 3.43 HR/game 33 HR's in 10 Phillie Road Games (Phillies and opponents) - 3.3 HR/game Citi Field: 19 HR's in 12 Met Home Games (Mets and opponents) - 1.58 HR/game 22 HR's in 13 Met Road Games (Mets and opponents); 1.69 HR/game Coors Field: 21 HR's in 9 Rockie Home Games (Rockies and opponents) - 2.33 HR/game 40 HR's in 16 Rockie Road Games (Rockies and opponents); 2.5 HR/game Candlestick Park, I still call it: 14 HR's in 14 Giant Home Games (Giants and opponents) - 1.00 HR/game 22 HR's in 11 Giant Road Games (Giants and opponents); 2.00 HR/game Miami: 21 HR's in 11 Marlin Home Games (Marlins and opponents) - 1.91 HR/game 27 HR's in 16 Marlin Road Games (Marlins and opponents); 1.69 HR/game John Cougar Lunchbucket May 06 2009 09:06 AM I was afraid I missed one Met HR too. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 09:08 AM I'm afraid you did. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 05:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 06 2009 06:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense. If Gary's reading the Pool, I'd further like to point out that it's not just a question of trading up some HR's for triples. Citi Field is probably murdering doubles more than it's murdering anything else. Shea Stadium doubles that were landing beyond the outfielders on a fly are turning into outs at Citi Field. If those shots are hitting the outfield Citi Field wall on a fly, they would've probably left the yard at Shea. And whether or not a batted ball gets behind the outfield after first landing in front of the outfield has little to do with stadium dimensions and everything to do with defensive positioning, all other things being equal. Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Ashie62 May 06 2009 06:43 PM Thanks for editing the poll. Almost all true fly balls are outs..Gaps are unreachable. batmagadanleadoff May 06 2009 08:02 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Runs: 133 Runs in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 10.23 runs/game 100 Runs in 13 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 7.69 runs/game Edgy DC May 06 2009 11:17 PM I like big parks and I cannot lie. batmagadanleadoff May 09 2009 04:54 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"] Here are the Home Road split for Mets doubles to date: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 22 Doubles in 12 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 1.83 doubles/game Updated: 47 Doubles in 13 Mets road games (Mets and opponents) 3.62 doubles/game 36 Doubles in 16 Mets home games (Mets and opponents) 2.25 doubles/game Elster88 May 12 2009 09:54 PM I wouldn't even consider this "anecdotal evidence". Maybe call it just "anecdotal". Delgado and Beltran hit balls that would've been home runs in Shea. Wright did the same on Monday. All three were doubles. I don't have a point. But sadly, Pujols or Zimmerman's extra home runs might make a difference when MVP voting comes for Beltran. I'm surprised how much I want a Met to win the MVP and how much I want Santana to win the Cy Young.

Coors Field is unique - Deep outfield walls, but also combined with a thin air that reduces the break on a pitch, thus increasing the number of well-hit balls. Coors Field, post-humidor, is still the best hitter's park in all of baseball. Pre-humidor, it was a freak show -- nothing like it in the history of baseball -- playing half your games at Coors pre-hum overa full season would increase a player's BA by about 40 points. (one point per game played divided by two to account for road games). I think that Citi Field will play like a 21st century version of the Astrodome -- a park that will reduce run scoring dramatically, despite increasing triples. Yesterday, Gary Cohen remarked that the increase in triples at Citi Field will offset the drop in Home Runs. I disagree with his observation. Strongly. The only Citi Field triples that will increase offense, relative to Shea, are those CF triples that would have been Shea Stadium doubles. Some CF triples would have been HR's at Shea -- this obviously constitutes a reduction in offense. But the key here is that every single CF triple would have been a hit in Shea. Citi Field is not converting any Shea Stadium outs into triples. On the other hand, every single "lost" HR at CF represents a reduction in offense. And while some of those lost Shea HR's are playing as doubles and triples at CF (still a a reduction in offense) other lost Shea HR's are being converted into outs -- a drastic loss in offense.