batmagadanleadoff

BI'll and Chris Short.

Hector Santiago.

=roger_that post_id=192315 time=1746987858 user_id=128] =ashie62 post_id=192295 time=1746984814 user_id=90] =ashie62 post_id=192292 time=1746984524 user_id=90]Steal 2nd Acuna

=roger_that post_id=192282 time=1746981260 user_id=128] Why is Nimmo starting against a lefty? You may ask. It's because he has a small difference against lefty pitching. His OPS against lefties is in fact the same (.769) as his OPS at home.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Canning looking solid again. Arguably the biggest surprise on this team in 2025. The biggest surprise is that Soto plays every day. Who would've imagined.

=roger_that post_id=192282 time=1746981260 user_id=128] Why is Nimmo starting against a lefty? You may ask. It's because he has a small difference against lefty pitching. His OPS against lefties is in fact the same (.769) as his OPS at home.

=roger_that post_id=192285 time=1746982606 user_id=128] =roger_that post_id=192282 time=1746981260 user_id=128] Why is Nimmo starting against a lefty? You may ask. It's because he has a small difference against lefty pitching. His OPS against lefties is in fact the same (.769) as his OPS at home.

=roger_that post_id=192253 time=1746968057 user_id=128] Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters.

Next, Holmes and Megill are on track (with 42 and 2/3rds and 40 and 2/3rds IP) to qualify for the ERA title. Canning will join them if he pitches over 5 innings today, giving him 41 IP in 41 games. Senga and Peterson will also qualify over the next few games by pitching 4 or 5 innings. I don't know the last time the Mets had five qualifying starters. There's no need to calculate anything whatsoever to determine which pitchers are on track to "qualify". Here's how it works: any pitcher that's qualified today is on track to "qualify" at season's end. Any pitcher who isn't "qualified " today is not on track to "qualify" at season's end. No math needed. I hope this was helpful..

Like I said: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=192122 time=1746828881 user_id=68] I wish there was a baseball rule that would allow Brett Baty to take every single at-bat.

I wish there was a baseball rule that would allow Brett Baty to take every single at-bat.

Hank Sauer Yes, SteveRogers. The Mets should give Brett Baty regular playing time because ... wait for it ... Hank Sauer. On what planet, SteveRogers, does someone who's been as horseshit as Baty has - for four seasons now -- get regular playing time on a pennant contending team? Maybe if Baty was a generational prospect with a Hall of Fame ceiling like Willie Mays or Bryce Harper and right out of the box, he gets to play. And even then, all bets are off after shitting the bed for four years and running. As if there's no downside. What happens if the Mets give Baty another two or three hundred plate appearances and he continues to negative WAR it? When do the Mets decide to either cut ties with Baty or demote him to AAA, where he can get the at-bats he'd need to hopefully, improve his game without hurting the big club? And the thing is that Baty could continue to suck, or he might develop into the next Joe Morgan. Or anything in between. But nobody knows what Baty's baseball future is gonna be. Especially Mr. Hank Sauer. Nobody knows shit. This is all about validating Mr. Hank Sauer's personal hunches. Hank Sauer. Oh my. LOL, I was just answering for FMan the question Ashie asked about the Syracuse player he was talking about. I know. lol. I wasn't really referring to you when I was referring to you. That "addressing you by your name" thing is a running gag. I simply used your post as a springboard. Your post was convenient because it embedded several other "relevant" posts. The only reason Baty got any playing time in the majors this season is because of injuries. McNeil was hurt at the start of the season and now Winker's hurt.

A name I know well - his number 9 is retired in Syracuse and there used to be a high end restaurant/lounge in the RF corner named after him (it's now the "Metropolitan Club" I believe). Who is that? Hank Sauer Yes, SteveRogers. The Mets should give Brett Baty regular playing time because ... wait for it ... Hank Sauer. On what planet, SteveRogers, does someone who's been as horseshit as Baty has - for four seasons now -- get regular playing time on a pennant contending team? Maybe if Baty was a generational prospect with a Hall of Fame ceiling like Willie Mays or Bryce Harper and right out of the box, he gets to play. And even then, all bets are off after shitting the bed for four years and running. As if there's no downside. What happens if the Mets give Baty another two or three hundred plate appearances and he continues to negative WAR it? When do the Mets decide to either cut ties with Baty or demote him to AAA, where he can get the at-bats he'd need to hopefully, improve his game without hurting the big club? And the thing is that Baty could continue to suck, or he might develop into the next Joe Morgan. Or anything in between. But nobody knows what Baty's baseball future is gonna be. Especially Mr. Hank Sauer. Nobody knows shit. This is all about validating Mr. Hank Sauer's personal hunches. Hank Sauer. Oh my.

The Athletic had a piece published yesterday or today featuring a few baseball players who are struggling according to traditional stats but whose peripheral and modern stats remain high (barrel rate, hard hit rate, chase rate, BABIP, a few others). The theory is that those players will likely bounce back. Brandon Nimmo was the featured player in the article.

I remember the rookie trophy on Chet's Topps baseball card more than anything else about him. [FIMG=277]https://cdn10.mavin.io/production/soldItems/156322451/images/image-0.jpg[/FIMG]

Frayed Knot wrote: Cubs: 22-16, 1st place NLC, 3.0 G ahead of Cincy - They score a lot, 5.87 R/G (NL Avg = 4.53) tops in either league - About average pitching so far but are now dealing with several starters out, Shota Imanaga and Justin Steele most notably, and Saturday's starter is listed as TBD - Pete Crow-Armstrong is giving them power, speed, and defense even as his free swinging ways keeps the OBA down (.303) The Cubs steal a ton of bases; more than any other team. That's their defining trait this season.

Frayed Knot wrote: But so far it's an 0-6 disaster with one game left. The pitching has been more or less decent [4.33 RA/G] but they've scored just NINE total runs! Talk about a NOffense! Marcel Ozuna is their leading hitter at .214 (also .214 SLG) and the team as a whole is slashing .137/.238/.220 // 458. That's a 38 OPS+ Meh. Every team will have had a five or six game losing streak by season's end. So the Braves had theirs out of the box. After starting 0-7, the Braves are now 17-18 and playing typical Braves baseball.

... does this guy take a hint ...by his earnest constant updating on things that are only good for a chuckle once or twice until late August/early September, or the All-Star Break if historic achievements are legitimately on the line. You got that right. Here's another doozy: Despite our stellar record to date, we're actually doing worse by the Pythagorean method, which puts us about two games better (24-11) than our record of 22-13... Really? Two games off of Bill James' Pythagorean Theorem? In a sport that likely has two or even three times more luck than any other major team sport or Olympian event? Two games? Two whole games? This is nothing but noise. Much ado about absolutely nothing. And Bill James' Pythagorean Theorem is not even a real theorem, let alone a real mathematical formula -- it's a theory -- an estimate. It's not an algorithm that's supposed to generate a specific and precise mathematical result -- like the real Pythagorean Theorem that yields the exact length of a hypotenuse. Bill James "toy" estimates the number of wins a team will have at season's end. It's a fun tool. And who's to say which teams are lucky or unlucky? How do you really separate luck and randomness from the final result? Were the Pirates really lucky when they won the WS in 1960 despite being thoroughly outscored cumulatively? He might as well write a treatise on discovering that he got 40 french fries in his large McDonald's french fries box when he usually gets 39 french fries.

The thing is, I think that very often, people equate the terms luck and randomness. Luck and randomness are not synonyms. They mean different things. I think that the terms are frequently equated because so often, the two words appear together in the same sentence and so close to each other: luck and randomness. This leads to flawed or incorrect conclusions. A pitcher who averages precisely seven strikeouts per start will have starts where he strikes out more than seven batters and starts where he strikes out less than seven batters. And this variance in strikeouts per start will not always necessarily be the result of bad or good luck. There are probably an infinite number of factors that would affect and determine how many batters that pitcher fans in one start, including the quality of the opponent, the weather, the stadium, the pitcher's overall health and well-being on the day of his start, his mental well-being, what he ate and drank in the last 24 hours, how much sleep he got, etc. etc. The Dodgers are one of baseball's best teams, maybe even the very best team. And the White Sox are probably the worst team in baseball. But if the Dodgers and White Sox were to play each other exclusively all season long, 162 times, the Dodgers would not go undefeated. The Dodgers wouldn't win all 162 games. The White Sox would win their share of games. And the White Sox wins wouldn't all be attributable to luck. It wouldn't be the case that every time the White Sox beat the Dodgers was because the Sox got lucky or that the Dodgers were unlucky. There would be days when the Sox were simply better than the Dodgers. There would be days when Shohei Ohtani took the mound and didn't have anywhere near his best stuff. This happens. Baseball players aren't robots. There would even be some days when the Sox absolutely demolished the Dodgers without having gotten "lucky". That's randomness.

Frayed Knot wrote: Just saw the bomb from Pete , wow Wow indeed. But of course we've seen shots similar to that from him before. The real news is that the guy's hitting .349 and leading the league in hits as we creep closer to the not insubstantial sample size of the 1/4 mark of the season. How often does one see a leader in base hits from a guy who's not only a power hitter but is also on pace for over 100 walks? (y'know, except for Judge) And while I don't expect to see numbers like these at the end of the season, he has clearly closed up some holes in his approach. Right now he's on pace for 112.5 walks over a full season which is around 60% above his career average (67) and almost as far above his previous high (72) while simultaneously cutting his K-rate from >150/season down to around 110. Edgy MD wrote: His newfound ability to recognize and spit on the slider away has been a delight. Alonso has a reputation as a hard worker who puts in the time and effort to improve his game. Over the years, I've read and heard many Mets insiders make unsolicited comments to that effect. Motivated by his disappointing 2024 season and the subsequent contract impasse that unfolded, Alonso had reportedly spent this past off-season determined to improve his pitch recognition. And going by the results so far, it seems that Alonso's hard work has paid off. This is easy to see just with your own eyes. He's laying off a lot of bad pitches that he might have swung at in the past. Good pitch recognition is the key foundation to hitting successfully in the Majors. Good pitch recognition produces a domino effect of positive results for the hitter -- most obviously in an increase in bases on balls. Alonso's walk rates are up this year. And also in better contact and better batted balls. It's harder to hit a pitch that's out of the strike zone effectively. Also, being able to recognize the nature of a pitch in flight is the best way to wear down an opposing pitcher: not by deciding ahead of time, to take a pitch sight unseen before the pitch is even thrown.

=kcmets post_id=191848 time=1746558730 user_id=53] I've seen the Chiefs referenced a bunch of times in other discussion and now it's here in a thread title. What do the Chiefs have to do with anything? I may just be thick, but the reference has flown right over my glove and it's rolling around on the warning track.

Jesse Winker expected to be out for 6-8 weeks.

What the hell is this? [FIMG=666]https://metspolice.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ChatGPT-Image-May-5-2025-at-06_46_21-PM.png[/FIMG]

The 1969 Mets were very good and yes, very lucky, though it's probably sacrilegious to say that in these parts. But this isn't that surprising. To be extremely succesful, to win 100 regular season games and then two short series against very good teams, you have to be good and lucky. If the Mets and Orioles were to play each other exclusively in 1969, 162 times, the Mets don't win even half of the games played. Also, Tom Seaver didn't deserve to win the Cy Young award that year. He led the league in wins and back then, wins were everything to an awards voter. A pitcher who led the league in wins was the odds-on facvorite to win the Cy. And if a pitcher back then led his league in wins while pitching for a first place team, he was a virtual lock to win the Cy, all boxes that Seaver checked. That's what mattered mostly to voters back then. And Seaver also had the best back story in all of baseball as the leader, spiritually and on the field, of a beloved fairy-tale team that would write one of the most feel-good stories in baseball history. But Seaver wasn't better than Bob Gibson in 1969.

How fortunate that the Mets might replace Winker with a player who isn't even half as good. Lucky us Mets fans.