metirish

Yeah it's not like this is a fun bunch to watch , for me they are not anyway....

="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3pgjrab7]Could be the everyday CFer for awhile. Hits the ball pretty hard occasionally. What are your 2nd impressions of this kid?[/quote:3pgjrab7] I like him , have been surprised with his glove in CF......Keith keeps talking about how Martinez has this huge stride.....over and over.....would he relay that to Hojo.....can Keith work with him or is that a no no? I like Martinez and I think if he starts hitting a bit he'll do fine. smg58 Jun 30 2009 09:28 AM I think he's got a bright future, but I'm not sure he's presently better than Jeremy Reed. A little more seasoning might do him good. Fman99 Jun 30 2009 12:27 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":32kqq1dp]Could be the everyday CFer for awhile. Hits the ball pretty hard occasionally. What are your 2nd impressions of this kid?[/quote:32kqq1dp] He still seems overmatched to me (specifically at the plate), the same way Milledge and Gomez did before him. I understand, what other options do the Mets have? Ptooey. He looked atrocious chasing those high fastballs Sunday night. I groaned on the first one and predicted the second one. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 30 2009 12:43 PM ="Fman99":wzscw6l1]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wzscw6l1]Could be the everyday CFer for awhile. Hits the ball pretty hard occasionally. What are your 2nd impressions of this kid?[/quote:wzscw6l1] He still seems overmatched to me (specifically at the plate), the same way Milledge and Gomez did before him. I understand, what other options do the Mets have? Ptooey. He looked atrocious chasing those high fastballs Sunday night. I groaned on the first one and predicted the second one.[/quote:wzscw6l1] Plate discipline's been an issue... as it kinda has throughout the minors (walk rate of 5.7%, swinging at pitches outside the zone to a 27.4% clip... which aren't too far out of line with the minor-league numbers). The guys who find their sea legs quickest tend to be those guys with good eyes-- power comes as they get used to ML pitching. I still have hopes for the kid... but any good feelings I have about him are mostly hope-derived. MFS62 Jun 30 2009 01:18 PM IIRC, he has started slowly at every level, then made the necessary adjustments and finished well. I hope he can continue to do that at the major league level. And I think he will. To quote Bob Murphy, "The cream always rises to the top". Later metirish Jun 30 2009 01:20 PM Do you seriously follow minor league baseball that closely? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 30 2009 02:01 PM ="metirish":1e8t12zp]Do you seriously follow minor league baseball that closely?[/quote:1e8t12zp] Me? Whenever possible, I'm peeping the Mets-system guys, plus others friends of other teams point out. With guys like FM-- prized next-big-thing-types-- I'm hunting game footage online, clocking stuff like Fangraphs and Baseball Cube like they were shoplifters and I the bodega owner, and reading articles/articles about articles/articles about the validity of the article-based-articles about the kid. metirish Jun 30 2009 02:03 PM Good for you guys that do that, obviously i don't because I didn't even know that my adoptee had left the org. Benjamin Grimm Jun 30 2009 02:15 PM I used to follow the minor leaguers fairly closely back when The Sporting News was The Sporting News. Not so much since then. Ceetar Jun 30 2009 02:45 PM If he plays, he's going to learn more at the major league level than the minors. Right now I have more confidence in him than the other Fernando that keeps finding his way into the lineup. I just keep expecting that one day Martinez will cross that line from prospect to hitter, and that it could basically happen at any time. metirish Jun 30 2009 02:47 PM I am reminded not for the first time the wise musings of Fran Healy...." how long before you go from prospect to suspect?" indeed John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 30 2009 02:51 PM ="Ceetar":eczhjo1j]If he plays, he's going to learn more at the major league level than the minors. Right now I have more confidence in him than the other Fernando that keeps finding his way into the lineup. I just keep expecting that one day Martinez will cross that line from prospect to hitter, and that it could basically happen at any time.[/quote:eczhjo1j] That's sort of where I am. I have to admit, I was like that with Carlos Gomez too. This fella looks a wee bit too hacky to me, but he hits it nice and hard. Benjamin Grimm Jun 30 2009 02:52 PM I'm sure it's at least a few years after your 20th birthday. I think Fernando may turn out to be a fine player, but I never got the sense that his ceiling is as high as many fans would like it to be. I remember posting in this forum that my feeling was that he'd be a Matt Lawton type, which would make him a fine, productive player, but somewhat less than a superstar. Frayed Knot Jun 30 2009 02:59 PM ="metirish"]I am reminded not for the first time the wise musings of Fran Healy...." how long before you go from prospect to suspect?" He's several years away from anything resembling that kind of make-or-break point. He's not ready now and wouldn't have been up the first time - much less twice - had it not been for all the problems on the big league level. His main problem is that his own minor injuries (or at least not recurring ones that lead you to think there'll be some constant problem) have prevented him from putting up consistent 500-600 AB seasons one usually needs for proper development. I'm not sure the Mets did him a favor by jumping him over a level two years back. But, even with all that, he's well ahead of schedule as compared to the average prospect and as long as fans don't go expecting multiple A-S appearances before he's 23 y/o he should be OK. Whether he becomes a real star in the future is still yet to be determined but we've got time to figure that out. Nymr83 Jun 30 2009 03:01 PM Martinez will end up a much better player than Gomez, who looks like a track star with no bat to speak of. Ceetar Jun 30 2009 03:31 PM ="Benjamin Grimm"]I'm sure it's at least a few years after your 20th birthday. I think Fernando may turn out to be a fine player, but I never got the sense that his ceiling is as high as many fans would like it to be. I remember posting in this forum that my feeling was that he'd be a Matt Lawton type, which would make him a fine, productive player, but somewhat less than a superstar. His ceiling is still well higher, even this year probably, than Tatis and Argenis Reyes. So put him in the lineup over those guys. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 30 2009 03:37 PM ="Ceetar"]="Benjamin Grimm"]I'm sure it's at least a few years after your 20th birthday. I think Fernando may turn out to be a fine player, but I never got the sense that his ceiling is as high as many fans would like it to be. I remember posting in this forum that my feeling was that he'd be a Matt Lawton type, which would make him a fine, productive player, but somewhat less than a superstar. His ceiling is still well higher, even this year probably, than Tatis and Argenis Reyes. So put him in the lineup over those guys. Well, you're not putting him in the lineup-- unless it's in a roundabout, Church-moves-to-center way-- over either of those guys, since neither of them plays CF. And of course he has a higher ceiling... but at this point, the ballclub is not playing folk based on ceilings; it's playing them based on what they can do right now. If the club believes the season to be something of a lost cause, then and only then does player development becomes the primary priority, right? Ceetar Jun 30 2009 03:53 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]="Ceetar"]="Benjamin Grimm"]I'm sure it's at least a few years after your 20th birthday. I think Fernando may turn out to be a fine player, but I never got the sense that his ceiling is as high as many fans would like it to be. I remember posting in this forum that my feeling was that he'd be a Matt Lawton type, which would make him a fine, productive player, but somewhat less than a superstar. His ceiling is still well higher, even this year probably, than Tatis and Argenis Reyes. So put him in the lineup over those guys. Well, you're not putting him in the lineup-- unless it's in a roundabout, Church-moves-to-center way-- over either of those guys, since neither of them plays CF. And of course he has a higher ceiling... but at this point, the ballclub is not playing folk based on ceilings; it's playing them based on what they can do right now. If the club believes the season to be something of a lost cause, then and only then does player development becomes the primary priority, right? Well, normally. But with injuries, player development may actually play a key role this year. And I am talking about Martinez's ceiling for this year. Still probably higher than Tatis. who does sometimes play the outfield. Put reed in CF ocassionally, he's even hit okay this year. Nymr83 Jun 30 2009 03:54 PM a little leaguer has a higher ceiling than argenis reyes. Ceetar Jun 30 2009 03:59 PM ="Nymr83":viqzp86x]a little leaguer has a higher ceiling than argenis reyes.[/quote:viqzp86x] Think he'll get an AB today? Nymr83 Jun 30 2009 04:38 PM i wish he'd get 3 of them today...for brooklyn! MFS62 Jun 30 2009 05:33 PM ="metirish":gytjn2ua]Do you seriously follow minor league baseball that closely?[/quote:gytjn2ua] Yes. Not a fanatic about it, but I do follow it. Later Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 08:22 PM Although 20, Fartman should be further along. he looks green, scared and it doesn't appear any part of the game comes to him naturally. In other words he has few skills Edgy DC Jun 30 2009 08:31 PM I'll disagree. Completely. Rockin' Doc Jun 30 2009 08:41 PM I think Martinez has goodphysical skills, but he is just too inexperienced to perform well at the major league level at this point in his development. He needs to develop better plate discipline before he can be succesful hitting at the major league level. Nymr83 Jun 30 2009 08:41 PM ="Ashie62":1k307avk]Although 20, Fartman should be further along. he looks green, scared and it doesn't appear any part of the game comes to him naturally. In other words he has few skills[/quote:1k307avk] he's further along than most twenty year olds who are probably playing A-ball or AA. tonight was the first time he didnt look good in the field and he friggin slipped, so did mike cameron the GG quality centerfielder, he just happened to have a softly hit ball and t hus time to recover. martinez has proven to my satisfaction that his bat isnt ready for the majors, but i dont think hes behind the curve for prospects his age by any stretch of the imagination. Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 08:46 PM ="Nymr83":3skti24a]="Ashie62":3skti24a]Although 20, Fartman should be further along. he looks green, scared and it doesn't appear any part of the game comes to him naturally. In other words he has few skills[/quote:3skti24a] he's further along than most twenty year olds who are probably playing A-ball or AA. tonight was the first time he didnt look good in the field and he friggin slipped, so did mike cameron the GG quality centerfielder, he just happened to have a softly hit ball and t hus time to recover. martinez has proven to my satisfaction that his bat isnt ready for the majors, but i dont think hes behind the curve for prospects his age by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote:3skti24a] You could be right..Lets just say he's not a natural John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 30 2009 08:47 PM STFU Ashie. Edgy DC Jun 30 2009 08:47 PM Eat it. Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 08:49 PM ="Edgy DC":2q29u44k]Eat it.[/quote:2q29u44k] What is your problem? Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 08:50 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qti4rya]STFU Ashie.[/quote:3qti4rya] STFU JCL metirish Jun 30 2009 08:51 PM handbags in the 'pool....settle now boys Edgy DC Jun 30 2009 08:53 PM ="Ashie62":3gt2hkpu]="Edgy DC":3gt2hkpu]Eat it.[/quote:3gt2hkpu] What is your problem?[/quote:3gt2hkpu] You get to ask me that when you aplogize for bitching me out under your other three identities, quitting the forum, and then crawling back here under different disuguises as if a three-year-old couldn't see through you. As for now, it's not me saying "Eat it," it's Martinez. Ashie62 Jun 30 2009 09:03 PM ="Edgy DC":30q2invs]="Ashie62":30q2invs]="Edgy DC":30q2invs]Eat it.[/quote:30q2invs] What is your problem?[/quote:30q2invs] You get to ask me that when you aplogize for bitching me out under your other three identities, quitting the forum, and then crawling back here under different disuguises as if a three-year-old couldn't see through you. As for now, it's not me saying "Eat it," it's Martinez.[/quote:30q2invs] Apology posted

Not what Jackson Todd wanted to hear?

I'I'd like a " do over" on this season please.

Welcome to third place Mets.......must keep positive and sunny outlook

Ashie62 wrote: ="Nymr83"]by the way the date is wrong on this IGT It's OK, they tend to end the same LOL

I feel like I need the patience of Jobe to watch this team these days.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Plus he's going to get all the credit when we reel off 11 in a row, which is any day now. that's some gansta shit right there son

Bob Klapisch has in the past shared concern regarding Jeter.......hilarious reading here Derek, don't fail us now[/url:32jw2hte]

Interesting article on camera angles for baseball games , interesting theory's for and against. Why does Major League Baseball use an outdated, misleading camera angle to show the batter and pitcher? ] By Greg Hanlon Posted Thursday, June 25, 2009, at 3:03 PM ET In the seventh inning of a recent game between the Red Sox and the Braves, Atlanta's Peter Moylan fired a two-strike fastball to Kevin Youkilis. Although the home plate umpire called it a ball, Braves fans could've been forgiven for thinking the pitch nipped the outside corner. Viewers in Boston, however, knew the ump made the right call. This difference of opinion wasn't the result of home-team favoritism. Rather, it stemmed from differences in the local television broadcasts. The Red Sox telecast on NESN is one of only three in Major League Baseball that places its main camera directly behind the pitcher in straightaway center field. The other 27 clubs, including the Braves, put the camera off-center, about 10 to 15 degrees toward left field. That offset angle means the vast majority of baseball fans get a skewed sense of the pitcher-hitter confrontation, the matchup at the very heart of baseball. For fans of the Braves and most other teams, judging balls and strikes is a matter of guesswork. To understand the problem with baseball's canonical camera angle, consider the perspective of players sitting in the dugout. Aside from cues like the movement of the catcher's glove, coaches and benchwarmers lack the proper angle to judge a pitch's path. (Of course, that's never stopped managers from expressing their opinions.) Fans at home get a better look than the guys in the dugout, but it's a flawed one just the same. Since the offset angle positions our eyes 15 degrees off-center, you need to factor in that angle to figure out whether a pitch really crossed the plate. Unfortunately, most fans don't watch baseball with a protractor next to the remote. For a demonstration of the superiority of the dead-center camera, take a look at these side-by-side videos of Peter Moylan's fastball. The Braves feed (offset camera) is on the left; the Red Sox feed (dead-center camera) is on the right. The offset angle gives a skewed sense of the pitch's true path. With the straight-on view, the real location�just off the outside edge of the plate�is obvious. scroll down for link to video/picture Along with distorting location, the classic, off-center camera also fouls up baseball watchers' sense of movement. Take a look at this slider thrown by New York Mets lefthander Pedro Feliciano. In the off-center Mets broadcast (seen on the left), Feliciano's breaking ball looks like it starts behind the batter and sweeps across several feet to reach the outside corner. Cardinals fans, who watched the pitch from the dead-center angle, saw the pitch's real arc�Feliciano has a good slider but not an otherworldly one scroll down for video/picture Sports fans' view of the national pastime has been distorted for more than half a century. Though accounts vary, many trace the advent of the offset center-field camera to the 1950s, when legendary producer Harry Coyle used it on NBC's Game of the Week broadcasts. According to his New York Times obituary, Coyle got the idea for the center-field camera after seeing a game in which the umpire stood behind the pitcher's mound rather than over the catcher's shoulder. Before Coyle's innovation, most baseball telecasts were shot from high above home plate, looking down at the infield. Upon its introduction, the center-field cam became the status quo. With few exceptions, it has always been offset into left field and only slightly elevated�around 10 to 30 feet�above field level. At this height, it's necessary to position the camera off-center to prevent the pitcher from blocking our view of the hitter and catcher. Fans at home see the pitcher on the left side of the screen and the batter on the right side. Why wasn't the camera placed higher back in TV's early days so an offset angle wouldn't be necessary? The contemporary TV producers I spoke with guessed that it probably came down to the expense of building a platform tall enough to make a dead-center camera feasible. To prevent the pitcher and catcher from occupying the same space on screen, the camera needs to be at least 45 feet above the field. Consider the added physical labor and potential complications that come with rigging cameras and wiring at that height, and it's easy to see why baseball broadcasters of yore would prefer the low-rise setup. In recent years, at least three broadcasters have decided that the dead-center camera is worth the trouble. Tom Mee, who directs Cardinals telecasts for Fox Sports Midwest, says he decided to ditch the offset view in 2006 when the team's video coach showed him the difference between the two angles. The Red Sox went dead-center midway through last year at the behest of team owner John Henry. The Twins also switched last summer on an experimental basis and have since decided to keep the setup when they move into a new stadium next year. Minnesota color analyst Bert Blyleven is a fan of the new view, saying the camera makes it easier for him to convey the game's subtleties, like the tail of a fastball or a pitcher's positioning on the rubber. "As an analyst, you're an educator," he says. "Having the camera directly over the pitcher gives the fan at home a better perspective of what pitching is and the game within the game." If the dead-center view is so much better, why hasn't it become the game's new standard? For one, it isn't infallible. Although it gives a much better sense of where a pitch lands horizontally, it makes it harder to judge height�a pitch that appears to be belt high might actually be above the letters. According to baseball's TV gurus, the bigger impediment is a lack of stadium infrastructure. In 2001, ESPN introduced the angle for its Sunday Night Baseball telecasts. The network had to take some extraordinary measures to install the needed equipment. At Pittsburgh's PNC Park, producers had to bring in a temporary scissors lift to get the shot. At the old Yankee Stadium, they used the roof of a building across the street. The result: vastly different elevations in different stadiums, all at a considerable expense. ESPN scrapped the dead-center cam after slightly more than a year. (Fox has used the dead-center shot on national broadcasts of Cardinals games this season, but its Red Sox broadcasts�and those for every other team�have used the offset angle. TBS, the sport's other national broadcaster, has never used a dead-center camera.) Matt Sandulli, who produces baseball telecasts for ESPN, says that despite the extra cost and extra effort, the network probably would've kept the camera "if there was a way to get the angle uniform" in every major league ballpark. As of right now, that's not possible. In Oakland, Calif., a wall of luxury boxes precludes placing a dead-center camera. The Crown Vision center field scoreboard provides a similar obstruction in Kansas City. In Denver, the "Rock Pile" bleacher seats make installing a dead-center camera a "seat-kill," in producer parlance. Other stadiums have advertising signage where a camera would be placed. There are also television folk who believe that the offset shot is simply better. Tom Adza, who directs Oakland A's telecasts for Fox Sports Bay Area, says the old-fashioned viewpoint offers a more intimate view of the game. "When ESPN started doing [the dead-center shot], the distance from the top of the pitcher's head to the plate was fairly great sometimes," he says. "It was a really wide shot with a lot of dead space. As a viewer, you're kind of looking at it going, I feel the need to be closer. The offset shot is more compact and fits the screen beautifully." Adza does concede that "for a fan who wants to see live whether it's a ball or a strike, there's no question the dead-center is better. It's kind of a strange thing. In sports TV, we've spent so much money to get better looks at what's happening in a game. But here we show thousands of baseball games on TV every year, and we're not showing the angle that gives the most exact information." Some clubs' telecasts, such as those for the New York Mets and Tampa Bay Rays, use the offset camera for live action and the dead-center look for close replays�a compromise that bows to baseball tradition yet acknowledges that the new-school angle offers the best view of balls and strikes. Other producers told me that the introduction of pitch-tracking technology, in which pitch location is charted using an on-screen strike zone, obviates the need for the dead-center angle. That argument doesn't really wash: Seeing a dot's location within a rectangle isn't the same as seeing the real thing. More than anything else, the continued prevalence of the offset angle reflects baseball's reigning philosophy: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. "People don't like change, it's as simple as that," says Marc Garda, the Pittsburgh Pirates' director of broadcasting. But contrary to Garda's assertion, teams that have switched to the dead-center angle say reviews have been positive. Joel Feld, executive producer for Red Sox games at NESN, says the team has "had really great feedback." Since the 1950s, baseball fans have seen the sport change in countless ways. Even as artificial turf, the designated hitter, and interleague play arrived on the scene, the manner in which we see the game has remained pretty much the same. The omnipresent center-field camera lends baseball a comforting familiarity. It also gives viewers a false sense of how the game works. Red Sox, Cardinals, and Twins fans shouldn't be the only ones who have the privilege of telling a strike from a ball. Come on, baseball pooh-bahs: Get rid of all those stadium obstructions and make the dead-center camera universal. After all, isn't it time the sport embraced reality? I think I only ever see the dead on center angle during Spring Training games . http://www.slate.com/id/2221384/

I don't see Piazza , do I ? None on that list at a very quick glance surprise me...

Every time I see a pile I wonder if one of them will get hurt.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Gotta love the Snooze. Today they run an OMAR MUST MAKE A TRADE NOW!!! article alongside the obligatory METS FARM SYSTEM SUCKS ASS ALOT!!! article. Wally at Newsday has three such article , it's like this weekend was nirvana for the guy.

Does Catch of the day have ribs?

Just not good enough especially with the players that are missing to give them extra outs. They scored 44 runs in this season series , how many were unearned ....Mets scored 17....I am wondering if their unearned runs are more than the Mets total...not that it means anything but this was a very odd season series

Fman99 wrote: ESPN highlighting the fact that nearly every Met hitter has an OPS 40 points or more below the NL average. So, we suck? Lucky for us the division sucks

The dick gets his first career RBI and he'll get his 500 save too.....I can't believe what I am seeing

Just fucking knew it , fuck you jerry and the horse you rode in on

Can't take this anymore

Can someone explain this to me?

STFU about fucking Rivera.....

DocTee wondering about the appropriate response to the news of Billy May's death ] I wonder if there will be a moment of screaming instead of a moment of silence. I'm still laughing

="Kong76"]ny83: Where was omar on this?? <<< Do people never tire of ending a sentence like this (or reading a sentence ending like this)? Mark from Bayonne, you're on the fan ... Schmooze, where was Omar on the DeRosa deal? Sitting in a lounge chair in the Hamptons? I'm sick and tired of other teams movning in on Omar and stealing players he should be getting to make this team better. Sick. Where was he? Did he even inquire about DeRosa? We could have sent them, that guy in AAA, whasisname. We needed DeRosa, he's exactly what they needed, and where the hell was Omar? I'll tell ya where Omar was, dropping the ball again while the Mets get one hit by the Yanks. It sickens me, SICKENS! Great post , glad to see you are out of your slump

="OlerudOwned"]I like to fancy myself an easy-going and reasonable person, but would somebody kick that motherfucking douche-faced mongoloid mook of a Yankee fan's ass until he's shitting out of his own mouth. Or, you know, just eject him from the premises. Didn't he look like a total tool. Where I live is full of them.

Edgy DC wrote: That's stunning , when they were showing it last night I was wishing I was there with the camera.