batmagadanleadoff

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Bob Alpacadaca wrote: If the thread annoys you, why do you keep reading it and posting in it? Because disagreements and differences of opinion are far more interesting to read. What would a book or a movie be without a conflict? Sure, but that's not what's happening here. And people know what you do to people who disagree with you. You're dead wrong on what it is that I think you're suggesting.

Larry Miller is correct! Also, astoundingly, there has never been a Steve Miller in big league history. Hint: https://i.imgur.com/h42lRT5.png> [FIMG=355]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54498762778_fa08913e9f_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Hint: https://i.imgur.com/ziuFxTC.png> Oh, that's Larry Miller.

=roger_that post_id=191696 time=1746448750 user_id=128] But getting back over .700 will be tough.

=roger_that post_id=191692 time=1746444151 user_id=128] Pete has now inched over the 60 doubles in a season pace, at 60.2. Theoretically, he's within striking distance of Earl Webb's mark of 67. He currently leads the major leagues in doubles. His previous high-water mark was 31, set last year, and he looks pretty solid to break that personal record.

.

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: If the thread annoys you, why do you keep reading it and posting in it? Because disagreements and differences of opinion are far more interesting to read. What would a book or a movie be without a conflict? Also, Tylor Megill is no longer on pace to have the best pitching season since Bob Gibson, 1968. How shock, shock, shocking. I never imagined this would happen. Chiefs and Prospects.

Frayed Knot wrote: So that's 4 - 6 following the seven game winning streak. Overall you'd take 11 - 6, but it kinda suxx after that start. In the Mets 13 losses this season, 11 are by one or two runs. (4 - 8 to MIA, 3 - 6 to MIN] Other than those it's losses by 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1 runs By contrast, 12 of our 22 wins have been by three runs or more: 6, 5, 5, 8, 3. 3, 3, 3, 4, 14, 5, 6 Not sure that those stats are entirely relevant this early in the season, but at least we've been in every game. It's a promising trend and those stats are as relevant or irrelevant as any other stats this season. They portend a dominant juggernaut Mets team just as much as the stats, at least to date, portend an MVP-caliber season for Pete Alonso.(See, On Track thread).

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Of course, you have the option of not reading any thread you are not interested in. Yet you've posted 14 times in this one. Why? Pete Alonso is on track to win the Player of the Month award every single month this season. It's a nice thread when it's not being murdered to death with a master of the obvious providing twice daily updates and pounding his chest like he just discovered fire because he figured out what to do here at the 81 game mark of the season. Did you know that the 81 game mark is the halfway point in a major league baseball season? Stick around if you don't. Someone here will eventually explain it to you in six or seven paragraphs.

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=191547 time=1746283800 user_id=119] I like these On Track posts. They're fun. Nice work.

=roger_that post_id=191598 time=1746371024 user_id=128] OK, I'll bite: what are the limits on both?

=roger_that post_id=191545 time=1746280317 user_id=128] Even with 2 RBI last night, Pete has diminished his pace to under 150 for the year (147.27, to be precise.) His HR rate now stands at 39 (again, 39.27). Over 162 games, not an improbable figure for him to play in, those are beginning to approach likely 2025 figures, i.e., not absurd short sample projections. Nimmo, on the other hand, is putting up some highly improbable power numbers for the year, given his past records: lifetime highs in both HR, 34 (34.36), and RBI, 108. Despite dipping under .300, Lindor is still on pace for over 180 hits on the season (181.6). Pete is too, but that is less likely to hold up. The Mets, winners of 22 out of 33 games so far, are currently on pace, of course, to win two-thirds of their games, which comes to 108, tying a franchise record. Numerically on pace for a third of the games are Alonso's doubles (11, which comes to 54 doubles on the year), and on pace for two-thirds are Acuna in hits (now 22, or 108 on the year), Lindor in runs, and Alonso in Ks. I'd project that both Acuna will end up with more than 108 in each category, Acuna because of increased playing time, and Pete because, well, Pete.

[FIMG=366]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54494390240_2365368298_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Edgy MD wrote: These Cardinals jerseys fail on (at least) three levels: "The Lou" looks silly. The red-on-red cardinals make the birds on the bat invisible from more than 40 feet away. They still have the tiny font for the names on back. All of the City Connects are ridiculous. Every single one of them. And childish. And contrived. And forced. And ugly. Every one of them. And the Mets City Connect is like 10x dumber than the St. Looey one. They just don't know what to do anymore with the throwbacks and new theme jerseys but they'll continue to make them even though they've run out of ideas a long time ago because fans will buy them up. At least the Cardinal one isn't as aesthetically hideous as most of the other ones. It's mainly dumb. The Lou? Really? WTF?

Mets at Birds? Which birds? Blue Jays? Orioles? Cardinals? I give up.

Frayed Knot wrote: This massive shuttling between NYC and Syracuse is what I was advocating to reduce the size of the pitching staff. Keep sending relievers back and forth with instructions not to use them too freely when they're in Syracuse. There's a limit to how often you can make those moves these days. Yes, Frayed Knot. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3201371/2022/03/23/for-a-handful-of-players-mlbs-new-limit-on-minor-league-options-will-reduce-the-whirlwind-of-callups/https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3201371/2022/03/23/for-a-handful-of-players-mlbs-new-limit-on-minor-league-options-will-reduce-the-whirlwind-of-callups/

Edgy MD wrote: Or Dave Kingman. Or Carl Paranski. Correct, Edgy. I wasn't trying to justify omitting it as an innovation.... Of course you were, Edgy. Correct, Edgy. I [was] merely [trying] to illustrate why I didn't think it was terribly significant in the game on a practical level. Positioning Lindor as far to his left as is permissible under the current rules is pretty much where he would be playing against any lefthanded batter I can think of if we didn't have the rule on positioning infielders. The rule, Edgy, has radically shifted the way the game is played. Shifted! Get it? Hoo hah! Lol! Before the rule, Edgy, the game had evolved to the point where a defense was much more likelier to shift than not to shift. And your assumption about Lindor is just flat-out wrong, Edgy. Against practically every left-handed batter, Lindor would've been positioned on the right field side of second base before the rule. Lindor is a terrific defensive shortstop but without the shift, he wouldn't be fielding balls on the right field side of second base.

Edgy MD wrote: Or Dave Kingman. Or Carl Paranski. Kingman is probably the better choice being that both Williams and McCovey are presently dead. Paranski? Who knows?

Frayed Knot wrote: Whether that ball hit Winker's foot or not (probably did, but hardly definitive) a review wasn't going to change the call. And the non-call still got a run in and moved the other two runners up which was more than any other AB did that inning, so calling it a 'do-over' was no guarantee of a better result. So blame the umps, blame the relief pitching (Stanek was more unlucky than bad) or even the choice of relief pitchers. But the Mets got 7 hits (three for XB) plus 9 walks and were somehow able to turn that into a whopping 3 runs. They went 0-for-10 w/RiSP including 0-for-5 w/bases loaded (three of those w/< 2 outs) but were able to score only via two solo HRs plus an infield dribbler. They had the leadoff batter on in five different innings but scored just one of them, and he had to drive himself in (Taylor solo HR). They put three of the first four batters on in the 1st and failed to score, then had the first four batters reach in the 9th and scored on just the HR. Yes. Plus, the replays shown during the broadcast were all inconclusive. So if the replays were inconclusive, how does everyone know that the ball did hit Winkler's foot? Also, I'm not so sure that I'd trade a run for the second out of that inning, which was the end result of Winkler's at-bat. Perhaps I'd make that trade if it was the first out. That second out cost the Mets more than they gained from the run.

=roger_that post_id=191367 time=1746101581 user_id=128] You're right. I was thinking of the practice they were designed to prevent. Essentially this is a rule to codify the positioning that was informally practiced for generations. Not much of an innovation in my book.

[FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54487943155_45f5a51840_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]H5i7j0VhEHw[/media] [media=youtube]QYHxGBH6o4M[/media] [media=youtube]x3idGV-7kSQ[/media] [media=youtube]1x9YACdBUrU[/media]

Edgy MD wrote: Andrew Brown had a big walkoff hit early in his Mets tenure. [FIMG=444]https://leaptoad.com/mets/scorecard_graph.php?game=8283&font=1[/FIMG] [media=youtube]62hb8N_hV7E[/media]

Edgy MD wrote: Andrew Brown had a big walkoff hit early in his Mets tenure. Forgot that he was also a Met in 2013. [FIMG=344]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54486709212_6124dc7644_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Andrew Brown [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54487629428_946a558dd4_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54487718615_0a8abfaefb_h.jpg[/FIMG] [FIMG=555]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54487376141_b4e932d58a_h.jpg[/FIMG] [media=youtube]SAuqQr5YtjY[/media] [media=youtube]y7rFYbMhcG8[/media] [media=youtube]OK4_fDHv-SQ[/media] [FIMG=366]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54487661948_6e394c807e_h.jpg[/FIMG]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: It's not as though teams would be ignorant until they picked up the Washington Post, or not know Stearns' MO by now I was just about to write what you wrote until I read your post.