batmagadanleadoff

Wanna know why Hoppin' Rod Gaspar is smiling so much? Read his lips. He's singing: "Who the hell is Frank Robinson?"

Chuckie Baby: You can do better than that!

="smg58":39bribgv]We should have been jealous of the Phillies' bullpen last year, not their position players. They scored exactly the same amount of runs as the Mets did, in a much friendlier park. I'm not sure who'd rather have Victorino than Beltran, or why.[/quote:39bribgv] I agree. Overall, I don't think there's a damn signifcant difference between the Mets and the Phillies. Luck more than anything else, has designated one of these indistinguishable teams as the champs and the other, a bunch of choke artists.

I'd grow bitch tits for $25M a year.

="G-Fafif"]="batmagadanleadoff"] If I was in charge of selecting those historical banners that hang in chronological order outside of Citi Field, I'd include that iconic image (above) of Throneberry lunging in vain for a bad infield throw that's destined to elude the first baseman. And those being the '62 Mets, Bob Gibson might've even scored on the play. That spectacular ineptitude is as integral to the franchise history as any Tom Seaver fastball. Seconded. Honesty in iconography, at least in a context where the wounds aren't fresh and deep, would be appropriate. I'd draw the line, however, at highlighting something recent and hurtful. Yep. There goes Marv, doing what he does best. Or worst. If that image did adorn Citi Field and Marv was still with us, he might remark that "he still doesn't know why his banner hangs outside of the new stadium". ="G-Fafif"] That would be like trying to sell a book to Mets fans by placing Yadier Molina's home run follow-through on the cover. That would just be stupid. I read about your preference for Karl Ehrhardt and Collapse Guy as the cover to your book, and agreed with your thinking immediately. I suppose that your publisher thought that action shots of ballplayers would sell more books. But aesthetically, your idea was the smarter one.

="Edgy DC"]Regarding Wright, I was thinking the stadium eating up his flies to right center may be forcing him to adjust his swing, looking to drive the ball more and loft it less, but I don't know how much that would explain, looking like he is at belt-high fastballs over the outside half of the plate. I was also wondering whether it's the larger Citi Field dimensions that have Wright psyched out. I'm feeling marvelous right now. <-------------------------- If I was in charge of selecting those historical banners that hang in chronological order outside of Citi Field, I'd include that iconic image (above) of Throneberry lunging in vain for a bad infield throw that's destined to elude the first baseman. And those being the '62 Mets, Bob Gibson might've even scored on the play. That spectacular ineptitude is as integral to the franchise history as any Tom Seaver fastball.

I wouldn't give Wright a day off against the Phillies. The New Coors Field at Philadelphia might just be the right tonic to fix whatever's ailing our third baseman. On a somewhat related note, Mets batters are next to last in HR's (Wright: one HR in 21 games) in the NL. This, more than anything else, is likely what's wrong with the offense because, as everyone here knows, HR's have a neat way of putting runs on the scoreboard whle simultaneously maintaining that RISP Avg. at respectable levels. Of course, with almost no Citi Field history as a reference to make some sense of the Mets lack of HR output this season, it's difficult to determine what sort of HR numbers should be expected. TBD.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The Mets offense is second in the NL in runs scored, tied with Philly; the Mets have outscored first place Fla. so far this season. The Cubs are the only NL team to have outscored the Mets. This post was in my head all day long ever since I wrote it because, having watched almost every Met inning of this season, I couldn't reconcile the team I was watching with their outstanding run production. So I checked the team totals again, and I realized that I had made a mistake: I was looking at last season's NL run totals. The 799 runs scored by the Mets should have tipped me off. This year's Mets rank 7th out of 16 NL teams

I wonder if Castro is in Manuel's doghouse to a much greater extent than we might be imagining? Maybe Castro started today only because of the day after night circumstance, but that Manuel is continually stewing about Castro and trying very hard to embarass him. Just an idea.

I didn't like pinch-hitting Santos for Castro. When you're down by one run with the bases loaded and one out left, it's all about getting on base and not making an out. It's about OBA. Castro has very good strike zone discipline; his OBA is typically 100 points higher than his BA. Santos has a terrible walk-rate. Castro is more likely to get on base than Santos, even when accounting for Castro's low BA.

And bunting for a run is nothing like bunting for an out to gain possession of second base.

MFS62 wrote: ="TransMonk"]Bunt single: the speciality of any #3 hitter. Mantle did it many times. And I remember Gene Mauch having the first four (or was it five?) batters bunt against a dominating pitcher who gave his team problems. It may have been against Jim Bunning when he was with the Pitates. IIRC they all got on base. A nice way to rattle a young pitcher. Later Can't complain about a base hit. Murphy's not a 30 HR guy anyway and in this stadium, might not finish the season with 10. Bunting for a hit is nothing like bunting for an out.

Edgy DC wrote: Nothing I've written suggests I claim to know that. Though I feel certain Manuel would have lifted him before allowing that to happen. As it is, a bunt single and a rolling groundout indicated no signs of an implosion. I agree with you on that. But no manager should be waiting for the implosion to happen before relieving the starter. The trick is to anticipate the meltdown before it ever happens. Things didn't work out for the Mets yesterday. That's all it is. Edgy DC wrote: When your third reliever, on the other hand, is on a track to give up six runs, it's then harder to lift him because you're already three pitchers deep into the pen. Isn't this hindisght? Green was "on track"? Are you saying that everyone but Manuel knew that Green was going to have a terrible inning before it ever happened?

I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches.

Edgy DC wrote: (1) It's hard to draw any conclusion from that sample size. I think it's ideal to have a pitcher have his worst inning before being lifted. But what if a pitcher's worst inning is the one where he gives up six runs? A pitcher might lose effectiveness during his start gradually, or all at once. How do you know that Livan wouldn't have imploded had he been left in?

="Ceetar"]... my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore. Actually, the way the Mets used to run the bases under Willie gave me a nightmare. It seemed as if that team couldn't go one week without having one of their own thrown out at the plate by four or five footsteps.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I know. And it's frustrating. I hope I live long enough to see the next innovative manager who'll dare to undo what LaRussa did. And I'm kinda disappointed that Bobby Valentine wasn't that guy. I agree. I think that the way to fix this is by increasing the starting pitchers' workload, rather than by having your 6th or 7th inning reliever go longer. (We're talking about workloads here, I assume, and not about the Save stat dictating pitcher use ... right? )

SteveJRogers wrote: Time to SQUISH THE FISH! You always say that every time we play Fla. "Let's squish the fish".

="Rotblatt":3kqfq8r2]The premise is, California falls into the Pacific, prompting a guy in Brooklyn to try and bring the Dodgers back.[/quote:3kqfq8r2] The timing couldn't be better, what with Ebbets Field having been rebuilt. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 09:28 AM They should also bring back the New York Giants and the Philadelphia Athletics. metirish Apr 29 2009 09:37 AM I love the premise , wish I could help. Best of luck on everything. Good to see you too MFS62 Apr 29 2009 10:56 AM Send me a PM. I rooted for them. The idea of LA falling into the sea brightened my day. Barry Newman was wrong. Later Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 12:00 PM Any relation to Randy Newman? MFS62 Apr 29 2009 12:10 PM ="Frayed Knot":3pbzhvkb]Any relation to Randy Newman?[/quote:3pbzhvkb] Oops. Good catch. Yeah, the guy who sang "I Love L.A." Sorta' killed the joke, didn't it? (Blushing) Later Rotblatt Apr 30 2009 07:26 AM Thanks for the well-wishes, everyone! I'm having a blast writing it--at least, when I don't feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall. MFS62, a PM is on its way! Themetfairy, I might like to pick your brain anyway--there are some second-generation fans in book as well, and some questions are already coming to mind. If you're up for it, let know! TheOldMole Apr 30 2009 07:52 AM I lived and died with the Dodgers, and would be glad to help. TheOldMole May 01 2009 08:22 AM Why are the Brooklyn Dodgers in the non-baseball forum? Doing a search for something to give Rotblatt, I ran across this. http://beemp3.com/index.php?q=duck+dodgers+opening&st=all Do a ctrl-F for Tad. TheOldMole May 01 2009 08:23 AM Unfortunately, you can't actually get it. Edgy DC May 01 2009 08:33 AM Bumped over. G-Fafif May 01 2009 12:41 PM I don't know if you're going to be able to get old Brooklyn Dodgers fans to talk about what it was like to root for the Brooklyn Dodgers. They're a pretty reticent lot by nature. I know of one who works on Roosevelt Avenue in Flushing, however, and he has constructed a very nice memorial to his childhood team. Seriously, though, I'd suggest getting in touch with occasional 'Pooler Dana Brand who is descended from that side of the Met family and wrote about it a bit in Mets Fan. I'd also suggest contacting NYC/baseball historian Peter Laskowich who has some first-hand experience in this realm (and knows a ton besides). Best of luck. Sounds like a great idea. HahnSolo May 01 2009 12:49 PM My dad was an enormous Dodger fan (tough thing as a kid growing up in the Bronx). Subways to the game as a kid, sneaking in, the whole bit. He's probably a little old to talk with you directly, but I could forward on a few questions to him if you'd like. Rotblatt May 02 2009 08:24 AM ]Why are the Brooklyn Dodgers in the non-baseball forum? Doing a search for something to give Rotblatt, I ran across this. http://beemp3.com/index.php?q=duck+dodgers+opening&st=all Do a ctrl-F for Tad. Hah! And as a bonus, at the bottom of the page you linked to is the Brooklyn Dodgers Jump, with vocals from Branca, Furillo and Palica. Brooklyn, Brooklyn, hear us while we say, Brooklyn, Brooklyn, just for you we play. You're the very greatest borough in the USA Brooklyn, Brooklyn, you ain't got no squares. Brooklyn, Brooklyn, you got no longhairs. Yeah, it might be a little dated. is pretty old skool too. I also found this on YouTube, but I did a double take when they got to O'Malley, and at Koufax, realized it must be an LA Dodgers song. G-Fafif, thanks for the help! I'll reach out to both of them. Hahn, I'll PM you just a couple questions if you're sure you don't mind. Ashie62 May 03 2009 08:22 AM Sorry..New York Giants fan here.. hated Dodgers & MFY's Kong76 May 03 2009 10:45 AM I didn't open this thread until a couple of hours ago, with all the J.R. Rotunda stuff and Mets fans all riled up I figured it was more on that. Good luck with the book, Rot ... there are so many people who do interesting and productive things here, it makes me feel lazy sometimes. My Mom was a Dodger fan (even though growing up in Manhattan) and she used to tell me from time to time about her father sending her down to the corner to get a container or two of tap beer from the bar (boy, how times have changed) and they would listen to the games on the radio. She didn't talk about her father much (he died young) but thinking back many years later (she passed away in the early 90's) that memory lit her up for a few a few minutes when passing it along. I wish I was more tuned into base- ball history back then and engaged her in more conversation. In the 80's her interest in baseball was rekindled and she watched about 150 Mets' games per season. It brought us closer together again, I was a bit of a wild man in the 80's and it gave us a common interest. I've always felt some kind of connection to the Brooklyn Dodgers and I think it's one reason I'm not at all appalled by the new stadium. I'm cer- tain my Mom would approve and I wish I could take her to see it.

Edgy DC wrote: ="batmagadanleadoff"]This makes sense, but only in hindsight. If Jerry knew ahead of time that Green would give up four runs in one inning, then Green doesn't come in. And if Green pitched a scoreless inning in a 4-3 Mets win, nobody complains. The idea isn't to know ahead of time what's going to happen. The idea is to know what is most likely to happen when taking a given course. More pitching changes increases your vulnerability to blow-ups. Yes. And obviously, Jerry didn't think that Green would get tagged for four runs in one inning. I'm not gonna blame Jerry for Green's bad inning, either. By the way, from June 17, 2008 (Manuel's first day as Met manager) through the end of last season, the Mets had the best record in the NL. The Mets would have clinched their division outright about a week before the regular season ended had Willie's Kids managed to win at Manuel's clip. I'm not convinced that, all things equal, increasing the number of pitchers used is detrimental.

Edgy DC wrote: You know, giving up four runs in seven innings with just your starter is inherently better than giving up four in seven by your starter and two relievers, because in the latter case you still have all your bullets. And yeah, it costs you an extra at-bat by your pitcher to get there, but still. This makes sense, but only in hindsight. If Jerry knew ahead of time that Green would give up four runs in one inning, then Green doesn't come in. And if Green pitched a scoreless inning in a 4-3 Mets win, nobody complains. The obvious point here is that Jerry took Livan out thinking that at that point in the game, Fla. would have a tougher time scoring against the Mets pen than against Livan himself. The real issue in yesterday's game is that Green had a very bad (and costly) inning, and for the season, that the starting pitching after Johan has been unreliable to a man -- 80% of the starting rotation isn't getting the job done. The Mets offense is second in the NL in runs scored, tied with Philly; the Mets have outscored first place Fla. so far this season. The Cubs are the only NL team to have outscored the Mets. Jerry, and the Mets, are for the most part, stuck with the trio of Maine, Pelfrey and Perez this season. I'm not ready to blame Jerry for their struggles just yet.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":a2fq11ee]Jerry had a bad stretch of bunting calls this season already -- made worse by failures to execute the sac properly. We lost the first game of the first series against these Marlins because of it (I contend).[/quote:a2fq11ee] I don't remember that one. Any details? John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 28 2009 07:37 PM Top 6th: NY Mets - D. Meyer relieved A. Sanchez - C. Beltran homered to deep left - R. Church singled to left - B. Schneider sacrificed to pitcher, R. Church to second - L. Castillo flied out to center - G. Sheffield hit for J. Maine - G. Sheffield intentionally walked - J. Reyes flied out to right 1 runs, 2 hits, 0 errors NY Mets 1, Florida 2 metirish Apr 28 2009 07:39 PM It must be the heat , batmag advocating bunting in any shape or form beats all out. duan Apr 29 2009 06:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Top 6th: NY Mets - D. Meyer relieved A. Sanchez - C. Beltran homered to deep left - R. Church singled to left - B. Schneider sacrificed to pitcher, R. Church to second - L. Castillo flied out to center - G. Sheffield hit for J. Maine - G. Sheffield intentionally walked - J. Reyes flied out to right 1 runs, 2 hits, 0 errors NY Mets 1, Florida 2 em, so what would you rather - Brian Schneider actually try to get a HIT?????? John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:24 AM Talk to the guy who wrote out the lineup card. Oh wait, that's Jerry too. metirish Apr 29 2009 07:27 AM One of the things I and many others liked about interim Jerry was his pushing of the starters to go deeper into games , to dig deep as it were. Full Time Jerry has a quick hook. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 07:29 AM He also has a different bullpen this year. Maybe he was pushing his starters out of a feeling of necessity that he doesn't feel this year. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:30 AM Too passive with O, too defensive with pitching. Altogether too tentative a gameplan, not gangsta, very wussy and worthy of an 8-10 record. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 08:56 AM A disaster I think Manuel's been a disaster. I wasn't unhappy with Willie myself, but when it seemed likely a change is what this team needed, I wish they had done it. Instead they stuck with a familiar guy, a guy who'd been with the team for the collapses, as well as supposedly being the guy who was pushing for the 9th inning decisions in game 7 in '06. To me he's a guy who never trusts his players, to a point that he actively doesn't trust them and instills no confidence in them. I think they should've brought in someone from outside the team, with a fresh perspective, and had him work with Wright and Reyes to lead the team that way. Instead, Manuel has been second guessing Reyes and Wright since he got here. The big thing is his over use of the bullpen and how matchup happy he is, to a fault. I also have issues with how un-aggressive this team seems on the bases. Whether it's the lack of stolen bases, or not going first to third. I've heard Manuel say that he's told Reyes to pick his spots more. In previous years, _every_ body was bouncing around the bases, threatening to steal, taking big leads, distracting the pitcher so that it was rare that a pitcher was on the mound without at least some distraction with a guy on base. Even pitchers were doing it! Remember how we ran all over Chris Carpenter impressive streak of not allowing a lot of stolen bases, and how he hasn't been the same since? It's never too early to fire Manuel. duan Apr 29 2009 09:08 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":lsilnwnf]Talk to the guy who wrote out the lineup card. Oh wait, that's Jerry too.[/quote:lsilnwnf] I'd blame Omar Minaya for the Schneider/Castro catching corps first. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 09:16 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 29 2009 09:30 AM I'll bite. Yeah, I'd rather let the Schneid swing the bat than bunt. And I'm looking to put Church in motion. The pitcher had given up a homer and a single and was on his last batter if he couldn't get an out, so why give him one? Schneider has the hole to shoot for and a pitcher on the ropes. Meyer hasn't had a much better career than the Schneid. And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something? duan Apr 29 2009 09:26 AM ="Edgy DC":vwalgcck] Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:vwalgcck] is he ever not? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 29 2009 09:29 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]Perhaps I've already forgotten, but I don't recall Jerry bunting this season to the point where it's a nuisance. Schneider has already been called upon to sac bunt twice. So have Super-Hot Slappy Castillo and Ryan F-ing Church. Oh, and welcome Abordick, Ceetar. How do you REALLY feel about Jerry Manuel? Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 09:31 AM Re: A disaster ="Ceetar":3kc4se6w]I think Manuel's been a disaster. I wasn't unhappy with Willie myself, but when it seemed likely a change is what this team needed, I wish they had done it. Instead they stuck with a familiar guy, a guy who'd been with the team for the collapses, as well as supposedly being the guy who was pushing for the 9th inning decisions in game 7 in '06. To me he's a guy who never trusts his players, to a point that he actively doesn't trust them and instills no confidence in them. I think they should've brought in someone from outside the team, with a fresh perspective, and had him work with Wright and Reyes to lead the team that way. Instead, Manuel has been second guessing Reyes and Wright since he got here. The big thing is his over use of the bullpen and how matchup happy he is, to a fault. I also have issues with how un-aggressive this team seems on the bases. Whether it's the lack of stolen bases, or not going first to third. I've heard Manuel say that he's told Reyes to pick his spots more. In previous years, _every_ body was bouncing around the bases, threatening to steal, taking big leads, distracting the pitcher so that it was rare that a pitcher was on the mound without at least some distraction with a guy on base. Even pitchers were doing it! Remember how we ran all over Chris Carpenter impressive streak of not allowing a lot of stolen bases, and how he hasn't been the same since? It's never too early to fire Manuel.[/quote:3kc4se6w] Welcome Ceetar, nice virgin post. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but you state your case well and I like your avatar. duan Apr 29 2009 09:38 AM sorry I should point out I'm not actually disagreeing, more mocking schneider. Who, frankly is worse then useless, this season it being him rather then any old league average hitter has cost us .533 runs per game, this season it being him rather then any old league average catcher has cost us .464 runs a game. And I know it's a small sample size, and I know his back and calf are hurting him. He's just a terrible offensive player. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 29 2009 09:41 AM ="Ceetar":2ojhbd60]Remember how we ran all over Chris Carpenter impressive streak of not allowing a lot of stolen bases, and how he hasn't been the same since?[/quote:2ojhbd60] Although the thought that Reyes makes him wake up in night sweats is a pleasant one, his "not being the same since" might have something to do with, you know, the shoulder and elbow injuries. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 09:45 AM What's MM's right hand doing here? Ceetar Apr 29 2009 09:54 AM ="Edgy DC":250omu6m] What's MM's right hand doing here?[/quote:250omu6m] Icon inspired by this Kurt Snibbe post and the lion's new 'fiercer' logo: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=snibbe/090421&sportCat=nfl Yeah, Carpenter probably isn't waking up with nightmares about Reyes, but my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 09:59 AM ="Ceetar"]... my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore. Actually, the way the Mets used to run the bases under Willie gave me a nightmare. It seemed as if that team couldn't go one week without having one of their own thrown out at the plate by four or five footsteps. RealityChuck Apr 29 2009 10:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1qfj9mu7]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:1qfj9mu7] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury. Rotblatt Apr 29 2009 10:10 AM ]Lifting a starter after six with 100 or so pitches and a five-run lead just fries my butt. Totally. He's been too quick to yank starting pitchers (up to and including Johann), and while, yes, our bullpen is better this year, if we overwork our relievers, it won't stay that way. I'm not a fan of the bunting either, but I feel like he's been better than Willie on that front, and leaving his decision to stick with Green last night aside, his bullpen management has been better as well. So I'm going to go with, he's an improvement, but he could be better. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:20 AM With the way this new park looks like it's going to play , a lot of doubles and triples , it would seem to suit smart aggressive play . I would like to see Beltran and Reyes play with more abandon . Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:21 AM ="RealityChuck":3pp7aa9r]="Edgy DC":3pp7aa9r]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:3pp7aa9r] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:3pp7aa9r] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 10:32 AM ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]="RealityChuck":27hreoq1]="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM 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. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"]] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM 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. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="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?

I hate bunting and yes, I think I've made that very clear on this forum. I'm a blunt bunt hater. Even when a successful bunt, executed under the right circumstances, increases a team's chances of scoring one run, the out still reduces the chances of scoring every potential additional run in that inning. But this year's Mets might be better equipped for one-run strategies as an endgame at Citi Field. (Did I qualify that properly?) I would never want to go back to Willie's idea of sac bunting immediately before the meat of the order is due up, under any circumstances, but I could tolerate the sac bunt with the lower half of the order as an intelligent one-run late inning strategy, when done right. By the way, I wrote about Citi Field being death on Home Runs in my last post and I would like to add that I've seen enough (small sample size and all) to predict that Delgado will lead the team in HR's and that no Met will hit more than 25 HR's this season. It's a small sample size to the last week in April, but dimensions are dimensions.