batmagadanleadoff

OlerudOwned wrote: They'd got a plenty big lead on pitchers, but they're about even with hitters in the 8th spot (with LaRussa and Yost dragging down the position by sticking pitchers in there) and significantly worse than every other place in the order, making your second point something of a wash. It doesn't matter how much managing you do, having the middle of the order come up in the 9th is a matter of fortune. I agree. No one can dispute the huge offensive upgrade in pinch-hitting for the pitcher. But the pitcher's slot doesn't come up in the ninth inning any more so than in the eighth or seventh innings. And the other pinch hitters are usually bench players. Do you think that Marlon Anderson strikes fear into the heart of the opposing manager?

The pitcher's batting slot isn't any more likely to come up in the ninth inning, as opposed to the eighth or seventh. Therefore, the idea that the pitcher will not bat in the later innings does not, by itself, justify the opponent's predetermined use of its' best reliever in the ninth inning. I don't believe that pinch hitters who bat for someone other than the pitcher are used significantly more frequently in the ninth inning.

By the ninth inning, it's entirely random as far as what part of the batting order will bat. Pinch hitters? They're usually bench players anyway.

OlerudOwned wrote: I think we might all be arguing slightly different things here. Since I started it, I'll tell you what I'm sayin': That it's no harder to get a batter out in the ninth inning, than in the sixth, or seventh, or any other inning, all things being equal. Obviously, it's harder to protect a smaller lead than a larger lead, but that was never the point of discussion, which should be obvious by reading the posts in question together.

Good thing they blew it open in the 8th, what with their CLOSER on the DL.

OlerudOwned wrote: Playing to the point we all seem to be making: Atlanta's best reliever is Mike Gonzalez. He's lefthanded. But with the game on the line, they go to the "specialist" Ohman against Delgado to presumably save Gonzalez for the 9th inning. Yeah, whoops. Exactly. That 8th inning was where the game was on the line, where the most damage could've been done. And Delgado was 3 for 9 against Ohman going into that last at bat. Strange game from Cox, who is no slouch. He also sac bunted in the first inning. Unless that batter was going solo.

AG/DC wrote: But it is different. Not always, but ninth innngs with small leads tend to be different from sixth innings with large defecits. ="batmagadanleadoff"]And sixth innings with small leads differ from ninth innings with large leads. And so ......? Why would it be harder to retire batters in one inning as opposed to another based upon the existing run differential?

="AG/DC"]Closers don't tend to enter ninth innings with large leads. Can you please dial down the sarcasm? But three run leads going into the ninth are large. There's absolutely no reason why the team's "Closer" gets to notch this particular one-inning save more than any other pitcher on the team. So how come you don't like my shoelace post?

AG/DC wrote: But it is different. Not always, but ninth innngs with small leads tend to be different from sixth innings with large defecits. On edit: doesn't mean I don't agree that closers are overblown. Actually, I believe saves are overblown. Yous post keeps on changing on me. I agree with your on-edit point. There's nothing necessarily wrong with using your best reliever in the ninth inning. But when the starting pitcher is removed after the fifth or sixth inning, so that the manager absolutely knows that his bullpen will need to pitch three or four innnings, it makes little sense to decide three or four innings in advance, that the most effective reliever will only pitch the ninth, without any consideration for the developing game situation.

AG/DC wrote: But it is different. Not always, but ninth innngs with small leads tend to be different from sixth innings with large defecits. And sixth innings with small leads differ from ninth innings with large leads. And so ......?

AG/DC wrote: But it is different. Why? Is the centerfielder required to defend the ninth inning with his shoelaces tied together?

Tatis' first inning two out double that cost the Mets a run when it bounced into the stands is looming large.

During a pre-game press conference today, Wagner said that he wasn't necessarily any better than any of the other Met relievers, but that he has this "Closer" title because he pitches the 9th inning, perhaps implying that the Closer title gives him an extra and undeserved aura of superiority. Notwithstanding Wagner's obvious modesty here (he really is better than the other Met relievers, even if he says otherwise -- Wagner jawbones even when says things against his own interest), I wonder if there wasn't some subconscious slip that pitching the ninth inning is no different than pitching any other inning. I suspect that pitchers privately know this to be the truth, but claim otherwise out of self-interest because of the disproportionate amount of money they earn for simply racking up Saves. To me, this closer business is so overblown.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Gotta like how "forearm pain" is finally revealed to be "elbow pain." If it's Wagner, it was probably brain pain all along. Isn't the elbow bone connected to the brain bone?

="G-Fafif":3srniaav]Now that you mention it, I thought the font was the tiniest bit off on METS on Franco. Kudos for bringing it to the class' attention.[/quote:3srniaav] It is and good eyeballs. I know that '70 set inside out. Those were the first cards I ever collected, and I believe that those cards dominated my life that year. I got a horizontal Mets team picture with the "Worlds Champions" designation over the top in the very first pack I ever bought. Some way to start, huh? The '68 lettering on the mock Murray is off, too.

BTW, I didn't create that mock Franco card. (Though I would never pass up the opportunity to otherwise mock Franco!). Apparently in the 1990's, there was a magazine that would create cards of contemporary baseball players in the format of older style Topps cards. Topps Football Doc

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I applaud Willie for trying to mange as if they were not specilists, but I think they see themselves that way anyway. Since I'm the guy that can't say anything nice about Willie if my life depended on it, I'll say this not nice thing about Willie: I wouldn't applaud Willie for that because the Mets had their share of bullpen specialists whether Willie liked it or not: guys that dominated righties but couldn't get a lefty out even if that lefty was Al Leiter, and lefty specialists. What would be the point of using specialists to their weaknesses? Beats me, but this is all from the same manager that sac bunts in the first inning of a game being played in Colorado and bats David Wright seventh for more than half a season, all with the Wild Card within reach.

="Frayed Knot"]"When you give up runs in bunches, your ERA will look worse than your overall peripherals would imply" Which is clearly what's happening here. Our pen's baserunners allowed is almost exactly average but the pct of those runners who score is way outta whack to the point where it's cost them around 20 runs allowed and maybe 3 or 4 wins above what they "deserve".... We also shouldn't forget that ERA isn't necessarily the most effective way of measuring relievers. The Met bullpen has surely allowed a good number of inherited runners to score. This, of course, wouldn't show up in the bullpen's ERA.

="seawolf17":i1xi1mc7]Yeah, but that's his actual 1970 rookie card, so that doesn't count.[/quote:i1xi1mc7] Nice one! You're looking kinda Francoish yourself these days. I sometimes hate the way these Met ranked avatars change so frequently. I look at the Franco pic, and I assume it's Vic Sage. G-Fafif Aug 19 2008 02:10 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="G-Fafif"]A request to BG to consider expanding the portfolio for future Schaefer winners to include designs from ... '70. Great job! Love the lack of cap and almost team-indifferent gear. That's 1970 Topps all the way. ]Yeah, but that's his actual 1970 rookie card, so that doesn't count. Line of the week...at least! G-Fafif Aug 19 2008 02:14 PM ="metsguyinmichigan"] The 1972 Seaver is my favorite card of all time. Forever high on the '72 Seaver, since it was a Kid Rock special -- took all summer long to track it down. Also in everlasting love with this one: Favorite cards 1 and 1A, I'd say. batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 02:56 PM BTW, I didn't create that mock Franco card. (Though I would never pass up the opportunity to otherwise mock Franco!). Apparently in the 1990's, there was a magazine that would create cards of contemporary baseball players in the format of older style Topps cards. Topps Football Doc G-Fafif Aug 19 2008 03:01 PM Now that you mention it, I thought the font was the tiniest bit off on METS on Franco. Kudos for bringing it to the class' attention. batmagadanleadoff Aug 19 2008 03:02 PM ="G-Fafif":3srniaav]Now that you mention it, I thought the font was the tiniest bit off on METS on Franco. Kudos for bringing it to the class' attention.[/quote:3srniaav] It is and good eyeballs. I know that '70 set inside out. Those were the first cards I ever collected, and I believe that those cards dominated my life that year. I got a horizontal Mets team picture with the "Worlds Champions" designation over the top in the very first pack I ever bought. Some way to start, huh? The '68 lettering on the mock Murray is off, too.

="G-Fafif"]A request to BG to consider expanding the portfolio for future Schaefer winners to include designs from ... '70.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Any interest in Al Reyes? He refused an AAA assignment and became a free agent. Averages a whiff an inning over his career and has "closing experience" which you know appeals to the Mets. Plus you know our Reyes Factor isn't high enough. Omar's dream is to one day field an all Reyes team. Rodriguez would work for him, too.

Ryan Church has now missed slightly more than half of this season.

="smg58"]Part of that could be bad luck.... When I saw the relief stats posted, bad luck was the first thing that came to my mind, as well. The numbers (other than runs allowed) don't stand out as being significantly bad and in fact, are somewhat comparable to the Mets starters stats (again, other than runs allowed). But relievers, for example, can get called upon to complete the last three innings of a game and in doing so, allow three hits and two walks. If those runners allowed are spread out over the three innings, the bullpen might come away scoreless. But bunch up those same runners in one inning, and the result could be disastrous. Or two pitchers might each yield a HR and three walks in the same inning but based on the order of events, one pitcher allows four runs and the other allows just one. I haven't looked, but there's a SABR stat - ERC (Earned Runs Created Average) - which calclulates a pitcher's ERA on the number of runs a pitcher ought to have given up based on the # of singles,doubles, walks allowed etc, rather than on actual runs allowed. It's the pitching corollary to RC for batters.

Argoogleeoog Reyes makes the last out. He gets more plate appearances today than any other Met. Brilliant.

metirish wrote: Not shitting you but John Mayall popped into my head , I knew I had see that before. Don't see. Listen. In that album is the sound ("THE SOUND!) that made the Gibson Guitar Company and launched a whole generation of guitar players. Mayall's the first guy. Clapton's reading the Beano. On the other side of Clapton is John McVie, the "Mac" in Fleetwood Mac.