metirish

A few here play game simulators like Diamond Mind. Alan Schwarz in the New York Times has an interesting article on the subject and with a few mets angles. Pay attention batmag. ] By ALAN SCHWARZ Published: April 6, 2009 You can learn a lot during a major league baseball game. Like Ukrainian, if it is a particularly slow nine innings. As for the science of baseball strategy, one game teaches precious little. A well-timed sacrifice bunt can backfire and lose the game; a foolish steal can appear brilliant. The vagaries of randomness � the way Sandy Koufax got battered occasionally and a pipsqueak named Bucky Dent hit one of the most famous home runs ever � camouflage the game�s inner forces, which for 150 years have operated somewhere between fact and fable. One game has little meaning. A thousand seasons can take a while. Thank goodness for quad-core processors. �Computer simulations work pretty well in baseball for two reasons,� said Carl Morris, a professor of statistics at Harvard University who has written several papers that commingled baseball and formal statistical theory. �In general, they allow you to study fairly complicated processes that you can�t really get at with pure mathematics. But also, sports are great for simulations � you can play 10,000 seasons overnight.� No one can afford to wait less than major league teams, which crave every extra run or victory they can wring from their $100 million rosters. John Abbamondi, the assistant general manager for the St. Louis Cardinals, says his team and about 10 others use simulations to evaluate potential trades and how they might affect the pennant race. �It�s all part of the statistical analysis that complements the more traditional scouting we do,� he said. Using computer simulations to explore in-game and other baseball strategies is by no means new. As early as 1958, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology programmed a behemoth I.B.M. 704 mainframe to investigate whether the sacrifice bunt was a smart play. (More on that later.) Simulators have since grown so complex that the most sophisticated one available to the public, called Diamond Mind, not only runs lickety-split on laptops but even considers minutiae like the effects of wind in individual ballparks. Under what conditions is bunting advantageous? When does trying to steal make sense, and when does it decrease the chances of scoring? Questions like these turn out to be ideally suited to computer programs through which millions of iterations can smooth out the peaks and valleys of randomness, and converge toward a reliable approximation. Known among formal statisticians as the Monte Carlo method, this approach takes spectacularly complex phenomena like weather patterns and stock performance and allows their behavior to be approximated, if not determined. What are the chances of winning a game of solitaire? Rather than writing an equation that tries to take into account the trillions of trillions of possible hands and moves, a statistician can run a computer program that simply plays the game a few million times in minutes to see how often it wins. Dr. Morris says he has seen the Monte Carlo method used to improve computer graphics and explore gene sequences. Like such competitors as Strat-O-Matic � which made its debut in 1961 with at-bats determined by cards and dice, and remains popular on the personal computer � Diamond Mind is designed to allow fans to play fictional games and seasons, exploring what-if scenarios that real life would be too slow and controversial to allow. Take the age-old question of how much difference a team�s lineup order makes. This issue so vexed the former manager Billy Martin that he once literally picked his Detroit Tigers batting order out of a hat. Luke Kraemer of Imagine Sports, which owns Diamond Mind, programmed the simulator to force the 2008 Yankees to bat their best hitter and cleanup man, Alex Rodriguez, ninth � to see how scoring was affected. Mr. Kraemer got the run total not for just one season, which can fluctuate as much as 80 runs in each direction from simple randomness, but for 100 seasons � more than 16,000 Yankees games in all. The result? The Yankees scored 747 runs per season, 40 fewer than their real-life 787. (Diamond Mind was so accurate that 100 seasons with A-Rod batting fourth averaged 789, almost dead-on.) Most research suggests that those 40 runs would mean only about four fewer victories, for a strategy no manager would ever consider; so the difference with Rodriguez batting third or fifth would be insignificant, and nowhere near worth the forests of trees that would give their lives to the ensuing sports-page debate. Diamond Mind took its cuts at several other baseball knucklers, running 100 full seasons of games for each: � The intentional walk. This frequently used defensive strategy avoids dangerous hitters and can set up a double play, but it also awards a free base, and even the best hitters usually make an out. So is it smart in the long run? Diamond Mind found that it was not, though the difference was only about five runs per team per season. � The stolen base. Advancing from first to second puts the runner in scoring position, but he � and the rest of your hitters � will have a hard time scoring if he gets thrown out. Mr. Kraemer looked at a recent team that ran wild (the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays) and one that barely stole at all (the 2005 Oakland A�s) and switched their mind-sets to see what happened. The A�s scored 20 runs fewer, which probably says more about their players� inability to run in the first place. But when the speedy Rays stole sparingly, they increased their scoring by 47 runs per season � suggesting that perhaps the Rays were running too often in real life. � The sacrifice bunt. Is it worth making an out intentionally to move a runner from first to second? Forcing a team that hated that maneuver (the 2005 Boston Red Sox) to do it a lot cost them 19 runs per season. But making a bunting team (the 2008 New York Mets) avoid it also cost them � by 15 runs on average � suggesting that the Mets� managers, Willie Randolph and Jerry Manuel, used it quite intelligently. (The 1958 M.I.T. statisticians found that the sacrifice was rarely a good move; major league managers paid little attention.) One problem with computer simulations is that no matter how realistically they might be programmed, they can say more about the programmer than baseball itself. A computer, after all, cannot feel human emotions like pressure or the will to hit in the clutch. �We can run the experiment in the simulation environment and think we�re measuring the effect of a great defense on a pitching staff, but it might tell us more about how we modeled defense,� said Tom Tippett, who wrote the original Diamond Mind code in the early 1980s. �The simulation is real close to real-life baseball, but in the end it isn�t real-life baseball.� After developing Diamond Mind into the industry standard, Mr. Tippett was hired a few years ago by the Boston Red Sox � a sign of how much some teams have come to value simulation research. While none will discuss exactly what they model and how, Mr. Abbamondi, of the Cardinals, said they could provide objective insight into how an offense might be affected by trading for a hitter in midseason; how many games that might improve the team; and how that hitter might improve or deteriorate as he ages. Many of these measurements come in the form of scenarios of increasing uncertainty, not unlike the projection of hurricane paths. As Mr. Tippett suggested, however, simulations have inherent limits, and probably will not ever model baseball�s vicissitudes of fate � how scrubs morph into all-stars and some teams just collapse. (Indeed, fans of the recent New York Mets would be relieved that some things defy re-creation.) Tony La Russa, the Cardinals� manager, who is a sure bet for the Hall of Fame, said the value of computer simulations in baseball tended to stop at the dugout entrance. �There�s way too much importance given to what you can produce from a machine,� he said. �These are human beings, and I don�t think any computer is going to model that close to what we deal with at this level.� That can be as true now as it was 25 years ago, when a Tank McNamara cartoon captured it best. A downtrodden manager peered over his computer. He asked plaintively, �But will it take the blame?�

="m.e.t.b.o.t.":voibhse5]m.e.t.b.o.t. worries about rust, hydrogen embrittlement, and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the various materials which constitute m.e.t.b.o.t.[/quote:voibhse5] So your worried about your defense? TransMonk Apr 07 2009 01:29 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"] Caught Murphy's adventures-in-outfielding yesterday? We'll see that a bunch (he was exceedingly lucky). On days when Sheffield is starting in right-- especially Citi right-- and we've got one of the three extreme-flyball pitchers (Santana, Perez, Maine) in our starting rotation going... you'll see that more often. You'll likely want to pluck out your eyes when you do. Beltran's among the best, if not the best, CF in the league and Church's RF is above average IMO. Reed is available in late innings and is advertised to be a fine replacment for Endy. Tatis is average as well. I'm not concerned about Murphy and/or Sheffield's defense enough to list it as a top concern. I'm inclined to think our starters, bullpen, hitters with RISP, 3rd base coach and questionable managerial blunders will each lose us as many games if not more than Murphy/Sheff's defense. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 07 2009 01:37 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 07 2009 01:43 PM ="TransMonk"] Beltran's among the best, if not the best, CF in the league and Church's RF is above average IMO. Reed is available in late innings and is advertised to be a fine replacment for Endy. Tatis is average as well. I'm not concerned about Murphy and/or Sheffield's defense enough to list it as a top concern. I'm inclined to think our starters, bullpen, hitters with RISP, 3rd base coach and questionable managerial blunders will each lose us as many games if not more than Murphy/Sheff's defense. Beltran is THE best defensive CF in the league. Practically every metric out there backs up my homerism. But he can't be everywhere at once-- just close to everywhere. Was almost hoping that "outfield defense" will be the correct answer by August, if only because it means that it will have been our most vexing flaw-- call it backhanded optimism. (Although I'm not quite rosy-eyed enough to tab Tatis an "average OF"; when I think of Tatis in the OF, I see in my mind's eye pictures of dancing bears, tightrope-walking elephants or NBA players waltzing on primetime reality shows.) Edgy DC Apr 07 2009 01:38 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 07 2009 01:46 PM Well, then, I'm pretty cool. We have a perfectly good team, with sustainablity beyond this year sewn into the system. 1) We have exactly one bad contract right now, and yeah we saw it coming, but neither was or is it irredeemable. 2) The two best young players are tied up through the next few years. 2) The main contract coming due at the end of the season is Delgado's and the Mets have the option of resigning him or giving the job two either of two young hiitters establishing themselves. 3) The position set aside for our top young prospect is covered enough if he fails to break through, and open if enough if he does break through. 4) Our ace starter (a) isn't old, ( doesn't have an injury history, (c) is in good shape, (d) is locked up for a rightish amount of years, and (e) isn't velocity-reliant. 5) We have adequate injury backup at most positions, save for a thin-ness at middle infield, and somewhat less of a thin-ness at starting pitching (but who has enough starting pitching?). 6) We can look at our next best prospect as a future candidate for second. Yeah, there could be more organizational dept at starting pitcher, and a long-range catching plan, but to gnash over that is pretty miserly. They even appear to be throwing out the organization's history of cooperating with the draft slot conspiratcy. This organization may be haunted by two September swoons in a row, but I imagine they're as healthy as any team in baseball. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 07 2009 01:40 PM I'm not sure whether this question is asking what the "fans/media" are gonna be mad about or me personally. Something like outfield D is probably too subtle a thing for the former group to latch onto. I predict they'll come out firing hate guns at Oliver Perez asnd Luis Castillo and ask questions later. Me, I'm concerned about the starters in general. They needn't be great but they can't afford to suck so much. It was not an encouraging spring from that perspective. Oh, and I agree that some nights we may lose a game because of shitty OF D. soupcan Apr 07 2009 01:40 PM ="metirish":1ruxtcxp]Tempted to go with " outfield defense" but went with " other". Other being the offense , specifically with RISP . Men left on base will be a problem this season.[/quote:1ruxtcxp] Yup. Un-clutchity-ness is my big fear. MFS62 Apr 07 2009 01:42 PM ="m.e.t.b.o.t.":irr9oxvw]m.e.t.b.o.t. worries about rust, hydrogen embrittlement, and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the various materials which constitute m.e.t.b.o.t.[/quote:irr9oxvw] Bbbbbuttttt, if you are solar powered, thermal expansion may be a necessary evil. Later Gwreck Apr 07 2009 01:43 PM I don't see the outfield defense as a problem. There was a fielding metric I remember reading that said he led the majors last year at making putouts that were outside of the "normal" CF fielding range. Church is no slouch either. I don't think hiding Murphy or Tatis or Sheffield out there for 7 or 8 innings per game is going to be a huge problem. Maybe if we wind up playing two of them at once. Edgy DC Apr 07 2009 01:44 PM m.e.t.b.o.t. is powered by the stored energy of wound springs. MFS62 Apr 07 2009 01:51 PM ="Edgy DC":1xkvuyck]m.e.t.b.o.t. is powered by the stored energy of wound springs.[/quote:1xkvuyck] Sounds like he has a lot of potential. Later metsguyinmichigan Apr 07 2009 01:52 PM ="m.e.t.b.o.t.":2p3yirhp]m.e.t.b.o.t. worries about rust, hydrogen embrittlement, and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the various materials which constitute m.e.t.b.o.t.[/quote:2p3yirhp] I think that's what happened to Aaron Heilmann last year. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 07 2009 01:57 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":3h1a2dvb]="m.e.t.b.o.t.":3h1a2dvb]m.e.t.b.o.t. worries about rust, hydrogen embrittlement, and the coefficient of thermal expansion of the various materials which constitute m.e.t.b.o.t.[/quote:3h1a2dvb] I think that's what happened to Aaron Heilmann last year.[/quote:3h1a2dvb] "What is this thing... humans call... 'boo'?" Edgy DC Apr 07 2009 02:00 PM Wound Springs, by the way, is the Minnesota birthplace of Wayne Graham. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 07 2009 02:46 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket"] Something like outfield D is probably too subtle a thing for the former group to latch onto. I predict they'll come out firing hate guns at Oliver Perez asnd Luis Castillo and ask questions later. Fans seemed much more tolerant of "Bad Ollie" days before the 12 mil/3 yrs. Either CitiField's acoustics are far superior to Shea's, or I heard some loud booing on Saturday. (Was laughing with my Boston fan seat neighbors about it.) Edgy DC Apr 07 2009 02:50 PM It's like they need a whipping boy. Heilman is gone and and he'll suffice. It doesn't mean he's anything different than he previously had been. OlerudOwned Apr 07 2009 03:57 PM And still my favorite player on the team to watch, for better or worse. Ashie62 Apr 07 2009 05:03 PM I worry about injuries to the SP when we have an 8 game lead in September TransMonk Apr 08 2009 07:19 AM Ben Shpigel weighs in: http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/ryan-churchs-role-in-2009/ Manuel said the spacious outfield, quirky angles and limited foul territory at Citi Field would make him align his outfielders differently, bunching them toward the gaps. But he also said that he is afraid of Beltran's "weighing 145 pounds" by the end of the season from all the running he'll have to do. Surrounding him with Murphy and Sheffield could make for some, umm, interesting moments out there. smg58 Apr 08 2009 08:07 AM Why all the knocks on Murphy's outfield defense? The Fielding Bible had him at +4/+5 (meaning four saved baserunners and five saved total bases relative to the average leftfielder) last year, which is very good for an inexperienced outfielder who should only get better as he gets more familiar with the position. As for Monday, I saw Murphy make a nice catch on a sinking liner a lot of leftfielders wouldn't have gotten to, and I would not consider deferring to Beltran a little late on a flyball he'd have caught as well to be a bad omen. Defense will be an issue if Sheffield gets significant playing time over Church, but there is no good reason to believe that will happen more than occasionally with a lefty starter, and probably not often at all at Citi, and never at Citi with a flyball pitcher. Otherwise, Beltran is consistently one of the top two or three centerfielders, and Church has made the top ten at his corner position each of the past two seasons despite limited playing time. I'd consider outfield defense one of our strengths, if not our biggest one. Injuries are always a concern, but you can't worry about them until they happen. I consider you guys to be my media, so I won't worry about the last two points at all. Starting pitching? Pelfrey has as much chance of going backwards as forwards, Ollie is like a box of chocolates, Maine might not be 100% or even close, and Livan had an ERA over 6 last year. THAT is a concern. metirish Apr 08 2009 08:35 AM How did it happen that Murphy got pegged as a poor or average fielder when he got called up. Who decides that? Murphy played 4 games in the Minor leagues and had a fielding % of 1.000 which itself means little but I remember when he first came up and hearing about how he'll have a tough time in LH. Seems like that then is taken as gospel in the media and fans too. Will he ever shake that tag? Edgy DC Apr 08 2009 08:35 AM The Mets also have a good defensive replacement in Jeremy Reed, and with him in left and Church in right, they can go with a three-centerfielder alignment on occasion. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 08 2009 08:46 AM Not to knock the Fielding Bible but I'd turn to that for guys I don't see everyday. For Murphy I first trust Eyewitness Defense, which tells me he's inexperienced and not likely to make very many good plays out there while always being capable of bad ones, but that he's also not below minimum standards for a guy who hits. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 08 2009 09:42 AM ="metirish":1uv5akl1]How did it happen that Murphy got pegged as a poor or average fielder when he got called up. Who decides that? Murphy played 4 games in the Minor leagues and had a fielding % of 1.000 which itself means little but I remember when he first came up and hearing about how he'll have a tough time in LH. Seems like that then is taken as gospel in the media and fans too. Will he ever shake that tag?[/quote:1uv5akl1] Admittedly, it's a bit of an extrapolation, at best... but a reasonable one. He takes odd routes to semi-routine flyballs, seems to have a little trouble tracking flies, and very often running full clip when making routine catches (a flashing red warning sign of making late/poor judgements on balls' flight path). Given his history (At his 'first position,' 3B, DM was an E-machine... and he's put significantly less time in in the outfield) and apparent predisposition (hitting interest>>fielding interest), the visual evidence tends toward damning (if not being entirely conclusive). He's young and athletic, so that'll help make up for any misjudgements... but it won't turn him into Endy. As far as the Fielding Bible numbers... wait a year or three (53 chances does not a representative sample size make). If he puts up good defensive numbers, then I'll be willing to chalk up the aesthetic ugliness as just that. (And hey... I'm just looking for him to be decent/non-embarrassing with a glove on his hand, personally.) LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 08 2009 09:44 AM ="Edgy DC":3aya22fi]The Mets also have a good defensive replacement in Jeremy Reed, and with him in left and Church in right, they can go with a three-centerfielder alignment on occasion.[/quote:3aya22fi] Mike Cameron doesn't think that sounds so swell. batmagadanleadoff Apr 08 2009 09:54 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":18pvw1zl]="metirish":18pvw1zl]How did it happen that Murphy got pegged as a poor or average fielder when he got called up. Who decides that? Murphy played 4 games in the Minor leagues and had a fielding % of 1.000 which itself means little but I remember when he first came up and hearing about how he'll have a tough time in LH. Seems like that then is taken as gospel in the media and fans too. Will he ever shake that tag?[/quote:18pvw1zl] Admittedly, it's a bit of an extrapolation, at best... but a reasonable one. He takes odd routes to semi-routine flyballs, seems to have a little trouble tracking flies, and very often running full clip when making routine catches (a flashing red warning sign of making late/poor judgements on balls' flight path). Given his history (At his 'first position,' 3B, DM was an E-machine... and he's put significantly less time in in the outfield) and apparent predisposition (hitting interest>>fielding interest), the visual evidence tends toward damning (if not being entirely conclusive). He's young and athletic, so that'll help make up for any misjudgements... but it won't turn him into Endy. As far as the Fielding Bible numbers... wait a year or three (53 chances does not a representative sample size make). If he puts up good defensive numbers, then I'll be willing to chalk up the aesthetic ugliness as just that. (And hey... I'm just looking for him to be decent/non-embarrassing with a glove on his hand, personally.)[/quote:18pvw1zl] And among other things, Murph was the first one to admit that he's a struggling outfielder, defensively, developmentally behind where the team would like him to be. Also, notwithstanding in-game fielding statistics, I suppose that the team can assess Murph's OF defensive skills from observing him during practice sessions. Edgy DC Apr 08 2009 09:58 AM He definitely got better as his season progressed, though. His cahnfidence waxed. Frayed Knot Apr 08 2009 10:21 AM I remember back in '99 when Rob Neyer (citing some fielding stats) pronounced Roger Cedeno to be a "dominant defensive right-fielder" ... and therefore the Hampton swap to be a bad deal. Anyone watching Cedeno that year certainly knew differently and, yeah, Neyer took a bunch of e-mails on that one -- including one from me IIRC. Gwreck Apr 08 2009 11:16 AM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":21peht0h]="Edgy DC":21peht0h]The Mets also have a good defensive replacement in Jeremy Reed, and with him in left and Church in right, they can go with a three-centerfielder alignment on occasion.[/quote:21peht0h] Mike Cameron doesn't think that sounds so swell.[/quote:21peht0h] Yabbut that was a once-in-a-million collision. I remember several games in '07 where we had a Gomez-Beltran-Chavez outfield that was treat to watch. Edgy DC Apr 08 2009 11:29 AM Yeah, I don't think LWFS is really arguing against playing centerfielders on the corner when you are blessed with a surfeit of them. metirish Apr 08 2009 11:38 AM I remember in those first games with those three playing the outfield there was if anything a need for Beltran to take charge as all three were capable of running down any ball. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 08 2009 11:55 AM ]I remember several games in '07 where we had a Gomez-Beltran-Chavez outfield that was treat to watch. Gwreck, that OF-- transitory though it was-- was the ex-girlfriend I'll never quite get over. Endy and Beltran are my 1-2 for all-time Mets defensive OFs... and Gomez was top-10 with a bullet when traded; it ruined me for all other Met defensive outfields. smg58 Apr 08 2009 12:21 PM You could make a very serious argument that Beltran, Chavez, and Gomez are the three best outfield gloves in baseball right now. OlerudOwned Apr 08 2009 12:25 PM There was actually a recent SI article about fielding metrics that partially focused on the concerted effort which Seattle made to rebuild quickly through improving their defense, and how Franklin Gutierrez and Endy Chavez were very much their main targets in that 3-way trade over the winter because of their fielding prowess. MFS62 Apr 08 2009 12:36 PM ="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr"]]I remember several games in '07 where we had a Gomez-Beltran-Chavez outfield that was treat to watch. Gwreck, that OF-- transitory though it was-- was the ex-girlfriend I'll never quite get over. Endy and Beltran are my 1-2 for all-time Mets defensive OFs... and Gomez was top-10 with a bullet when traded; it ruined me for all other Met defensive outfields. Ricjie Ashburn, Gus Bell and Bobby Gene Smith (don't laugh) would have made an excellent defensive outfield in their primes. Unfortunately, the Mets had them past their primes in 1962. Later TransMonk Apr 08 2009 12:36 PM OO: There was actually a recent SI article about fielding metrics that partially focused on the concerted effort which Seattle made to rebuild quickly through improving their defense, and how Franklin Gutierrez and Endy Chavez were very much their main targets in that 3-way trade over the winter because of their fielding prowess. I saw one of the heads on the MLB network say something similar a few days ago when talking about the Mariners outlook this season. Could have been Verducci...which makes sense. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 08 2009 01:09 PM ="TransMonk"]OO: There was actually a recent SI article about fielding metrics that partially focused on the concerted effort which Seattle made to rebuild quickly through improving their defense, and how Franklin Gutierrez and Endy Chavez were very much their main targets in that 3-way trade over the winter because of their fielding prowess. I saw one of the heads on the MLB network say something similar a few days ago when talking about the Mariners outlook this season. Could have been Verducci...which makes sense. It's the short-term version of the Tampa rebuild (from 2006-2007 to 2008, the most substantive difference in pushing TB to its perch was defensive efficiency-- even more so than pitching, which was already largely in place). LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 14 2009 01:34 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 14 2009 01:53 PM At the risk of becoming the Outfield-Defense dude, I'll direct your attention this-a-way: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090413&content_id=4252146&vkey=news_nym&fext=.jsp&c_id=nym&partnerId=rss_nym Is this: A) So Wrong Oh, So Very Wrong C) Ill-Timed, Just Mildly Wrong, and Sheffield's Bat Should At Least Partially Mitigate Starting a Defensive Liability in Front of Our Flyball-iest Pitcher After Manuel's Declaring a Re-Emphasis on Defense... and Benching a Guy Who Has Been a Doubles Machine in Order to Do So [EDIT: Young Sam over at Amazin' Avenue is just as dismayed. http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/4/14/834442/brace-yourself] OlerudOwned Apr 14 2009 01:52 PM Stupid to do it with a flyball pitcher on the mound. Stupid to do it against a righty. Stupid. TransMonk Apr 14 2009 01:54 PM All of the above. We've already lost as many games to outfield defense blunders than I thought we would all season. I'd leave Church in at least until there is more info on how the new field is going to play. Obviously, Sheff is going to get some starts...but it shouldn't be after an off day with Ollie on the mound. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 14 2009 09:35 PM I'm giving Church a pass on that play. He made a bad one but we know he's capable of making it most nights and there's every reason to think the circumstances weirded the play up for him. And it was only the 6th inning. The failure to win last night was all about being unable to hit stiffs like Duaner Sanchez and other lesser-known, less-talented Mexican League reclamation projects. TransMonk Apr 27 2009 05:17 PM I was sooo wrong. Outfield defense has become a major concern for me. What a fuck-up-fest leftfield has become.

Tempted to go with " outfield defense" but went with " other". Other being the offense , specifically with RISP . Men left on base will be a problem this season.

] The LOB may be the official state bird of Metsopotamia, but can we declare the blown save extinct? You have a way with words , excellent.

MFY have a bad start and Rodriguez wanting to prove his MFYankeeness rushes back and does damage and will need the complete surgery now , done until next season, see you Joe.

Nice to see big mouth Bruney get hit hard too. I shouldn't care how they do but it is fun to see them get beat. Bruney has an ERA of 54.00 , again I shouldn't care but it's fun.

Santana 3.5 Murphy 3 Green 1 Putz 1 Rodriguez 1 Church .5

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Gotta be McLovin this MFY game. CC Fatass gone after 4.1, 5 runs (so far) bases loaded. I saw the fat toad with a heating pad across his stomach sitting on the bench , Kay speculating that he has a rib injury.

Daniel Murphy with the Mets first home run of this season....

I find the huge NY swooshing through the screen annoying. A bit FOX like I think.

Caught most of the pre-game stuff , it's going to take sme getting used to watching Carlin. Of course I could just skip the damn thing.

Edgy DC wrote: ="metirish"]I old you Edgy that Church was a good defender. Wha are you elling me for? I've argued on his behalf. Oh I know you did , it was me that said he wasn't all that in the field.

I told you Edgy that Church was a good defender.

SNY has new graphics ...could do with showing them off less.

duan wrote: jesus, that new mlb.tv is amazing. Very cool that you can watch it from there..

Santana will be wrecked tired from the dugout chest bumping and elaborate hand shaking with his team mates all along the dugout....

TransMonk wrote: ="metirish"]Breaking News game to start at 1:20 and not 1:40 per SNY ESPN has 1:10...? I'm confused. Does ESPN have that as Breaking News that they broke? Burkhardt said the game was pushed back to 1:40 but Manuel and Baker got together and decided to have it a 1:20 start..that's all I know. Nick Lachey said he didn't mind getting showered on...

Breaking News game to start at 1:20 and not 1:40 per SNY

1) Reyes: Stolen bases - 62 2) Castillo: Games played - 124 3) Delgado: RBIs - 128 4) Wright: Rank in MVP voting - 4 5) Murphy: Doubles - 32 6) Beltran: Home Runs -34 7) Church: Games started - 154 8) Schneider: Extra base hits - 20 9) Sheffield: Home runs - 21 10) Anderson: Plate appearances - 38 11) Reed: Batting average - .285 12) Cora: doubles - 27 13) Castro: Home runs - 6 14) Tatis: Games started - 41 15) Santana: ERA - 2.12 16) Pelfrey: Wins - 17 17) Ollie: Strikeouts - 185 18) Maine: Games started - 25 19) L. Hernandez: Innings pitched - 213 20) F Rodriguez: Saves - 54 21) Putz: ERA - 1.52 22) Parnell: K/9 - 7.8 23) Stokes: Wins - 2 24) Green: Appearances - 56 25) Feliciano BAA -Lefties - 2.98 26) O'Day: Appearances - 61

I have a silly question. Are these restaurants open on off days and days the Mets are on the road?

That would be " the curse of Shea" if it happened a third straight time.

="soupcan":e6xl82n7]="metirish":e6xl82n7]When Burkhardt was in The Acela Club I think Saturday he mentioned that you needed reservations to get in.[/quote:e6xl82n7] But even if you have reservations, your ticket has to say 'Admit One To Acela Club'[/quote:e6xl82n7] I suppose if I called to make a reservation they would ask if I had the ticket, but in any time especially these tough times that doesn't seem like a smart business plan for the owner of the restaurant. soupcan Apr 06 2009 08:21 AM Damn that kid grew up fast. I totally agree about the noise, although the sound system is MUCH better than it was at Shea. Edgy DC Apr 06 2009 08:25 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Apr 06 2009 08:26 AM wolf: So I had this great house until the neighbors put in this damn whiffleball monstrosity. And now soupcan says... KC: Yeah, blahblahblah. Get off the field. There's a game goin' on. HahnSolo Apr 06 2009 08:25 AM One thing I don't "get" from the place is the bridge motif. I can't understand why it was so important to do it. I tried to explain it to my wife and she was like, "I totally don't see NYC bridges." Seawolf, how does the wiffle ball thing work? Is it free? A wait your turn thing? My son is already angling to hit that first when we go next week. Edgy DC Apr 06 2009 08:28 AM It would make more sense if it was a suspension bridge. batmagadanleadoff Apr 06 2009 08:31 AM To those who already went to Citi Field for any of the exhibition games, what were the views like from your seats? Is it really true that every seat is a good one? seawolf17 Apr 06 2009 08:38 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":1tq93prv]To those who already went to Citi Field for any of the exhibition games, what were the views like from your seats? Is it really true that every seat is a good one?[/quote:1tq93prv] We only really "sat" for any length of time in the 330s, out in left field, second tier up, just to the home-plate side of the glass-windowed restaurant. I thought the view was great, but you completely lose the left-field corner, right under you. Didn't bother me too much, because there were plenty of places at Shea where you'd lose a corner also. ="HahnSolo":1tq93prv]One thing I don't "get" from the place is the bridge motif. I can't understand why it was so important to do it. I tried to explain it to my wife and she was like, "I totally don't see NYC bridges." Seawolf, how does the wiffle ball thing work? Is it free? A wait your turn thing? My son is already angling to hit that first when we go next week.[/quote:1tq93prv] I agree on the bridge thing. I think if you're going to go bridge, you have to go Brooklyn Bridge, or a suspension bridge -- something that's really distinct. Or, say, the BRIDGE THAT'S IN THE TEAM'S LOGO. Call me crazy, but doing the logo bridge in right-center field would have kicked ass. The wiffle ball thing is free, but the line was monstrous yesterday. I don't put too much credence into yesterday's lines, because the majority of folks were on the concourse, not at their seats. Probably better during a regular game, I'd think. For yesterday, the line snaked around Kiddie Field, and when you got up there, you (the kid) went into left field, then center, then right, then you got your AB, and you got anywhere between three and six swings, depending on if you were a toddler who was just up there hacking (six) or a teenager who was really to big for it (three), then you got to run the bases. So you got four "at-bats" in total to run around. MiniWolf was beyond thrilled. soupcan Apr 06 2009 08:47 AM ="HahnSolo":9zu9g7v4]One thing I don't "get" from the place is the bridge motif. I can't understand why it was so important to do it. I tried to explain it to my wife and she was like, "I totally don't see NYC bridges." [/quote:9zu9g7v4] The boroughs are all connected by bridges. Its not a stretch. ="Edgy DC":9zu9g7v4]It would make more sense if it was a suspension bridge.[/quote:9zu9g7v4] Agreed. metirish Apr 06 2009 09:07 AM I have a silly question. Are these restaurants open on off days and days the Mets are on the road? themetfairy Apr 06 2009 10:05 AM batmag - I was in the Promenade, and the view from my seat was nice. Analogous to my old Mezz seats, I think. I'll know for sure once the season starts and I'm actually focusing on a game or two. Agreed about the noise level, especially when Chris Carlin was yelling into the mike. I never thought much of him before, but after yesterday I hat him. SteveJRogers Apr 06 2009 10:24 AM ="soupcan":3ko0a4i5]Granted - Everyone who has a tcket has a club that will accomodate them (I think) - whether it be on the field level or the Promenade (upper deck) level, but still. Walking by the club entrances and knowing that you are not allowed access to that particular one is a bit of a downer. And I don't know this for sure but I'd guess that the Promenade level club somehow isn't as nice as the the field-level (Ebbets Club maybe?) club.[/quote:3ko0a4i5] Actually, you have to pay a bit extra for the club pass. Don't know how much more, but from what I gathered, it was substantial. Gwreck Apr 07 2009 09:24 AM The access to the various clubs is based on your seats. If you're seated in the "Promenade Club" seats, you get access to the Promenade Club. If you're in the "Ebbets Club" seats, you get access to the Ebbets Club. If you're in the "Delta Club" seats, you get access to the Delta Club. If you're in the "Caesar's Club" seats, you get access to the Caesar's Club. The restaurant in left field, the "Acela Club," is open to Metropolitan Box, Field Box, Ebbets Club Gold, and Delta Club Platinum and Gold ticket holders. holychicken Apr 07 2009 09:30 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":357bumo9]To those who already went to Citi Field for any of the exhibition games, what were the views like from your seats? Is it really true that every seat is a good one?[/quote:357bumo9] My experience is that all the seats I saw (and I went around to most parts of the stadium) felt very close to the infield and had a good view of the infield. However, the draw back to this is a lot of the seats outside the infield lose a bit of a corner of the outfield AND if you are in a covered seat, you lose views upward. Like sitting in the Mezz in Shea, you really only can see where a pop fly is going by watching the fielders. But, overall, the view of the field is MUCH better, especially for the type of seats I buy. Farmer Ted Apr 07 2009 10:27 AM There's an Acela Club? As in the amtrak train? Let me get this straight. Bankrupt bank has naming rights the stadium and a money-bleeding rail line sponsors the A-list dining area? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 07 2009 02:04 PM ="Farmer Ted":1wt09uid]There's an Acela Club? As in the amtrak train? Let me get this straight. Bankrupt bank has naming rights the stadium and a money-bleeding rail line sponsors the A-list dining area?[/quote:1wt09uid] That's nothing... wait until you hear who's sponsoring the "Fair and Balanced" no-flush urinals. themetfairy Apr 07 2009 05:46 PM We stopped by today en route to Long Island. D-Dad checked out tailgating spots, and we all visited our brick. Kong76 Apr 07 2009 06:24 PM I've been hesitant to whine here about it, but my front row promenade seats kinda suck. The railing sucks and the staircase with glass around it that is right in the same place as home plate sucks. It will suck even more when there are people on it all game. I called to try and move and the only thing they'd give me was like the next to last section of the outfield in row 13 and was reminded that upgrading year after year from there would be harder than from my crappy seats prolly. It's only a Sunday plan, and I can shift around and carpetbag, and watch from other areas, and the tickets aren't all that expensive ... but I feel gypped especially since on a whole the rest of the place is just so damn nice. seawolf17 Apr 07 2009 06:31 PM Hey, nothing wrong with bitching about it. Ultimately, though, you're probably screwed, because if you want to give up those seats, there are probably plenty of folks who would take them from you next year. The Mets -- and the Yankees -- knew they had us all over a barrel with these stadia; if we wanted to get in, we'd have to pay the price. I hate to say that Mike Francesa is right, but in this case, he is; the only recourse we have is with our wallets. If we think ticket prices are too high, or the views suck... then we don't buy the tickets. (They've priced me out, and that's fine; maybe we go to a game, but more likely we don't.) Kong76 Apr 07 2009 07:00 PM I'm more hesitant to whine about it more because I posted how excited I was to be in row one. I sat in row six with a poster in the same section and those seats are fine. They weren't the best available when I got mine days before they could log on and renew their Sunday plan if theirs are better. Who's Mike Francessa, where does he post? As for high ticket prices, my tickets are much cheaper this year than last and location is fine ... if I wasn't in row one. MFS62 Apr 07 2009 07:12 PM ="Kong76":3ru6ijum]I'm more hesitant to whine about it more because I posted how excited I was to be in row one. I sat in row six with a poster in the same section and those seats are fine. They weren't the best available when I got mine days before they could log on and renew their Sunday plan if theirs are better. Who's Mike Francessa, where does he post? As for high ticket prices, my tickets are much cheaper this year than last and location is fine ... if I wasn't in row one.[/quote:3ru6ijum] Well, if he had them, I'm sure Bob Uecker would exchange yours for his in the very last row. Later Rockin' Doc Apr 07 2009 07:39 PM KC, thanks for the excuse to post a classic beer commercial. MFS62, thanks for the perfect lead in. MFS62 Apr 07 2009 07:55 PM Doc, All I see is a big white rectangle. Later themetfairy Apr 07 2009 07:58 PM I see the Uecker ad, Doc. I just showed it to MK - he had never seen it before. Thanks. Rockin' Doc Apr 08 2009 05:23 AM MFS62 -"Doc, All I see is a big white rectangle." You wouldn't believe how many times I've heard that line before. Kong76 Apr 08 2009 05:38 AM Close your eyes and walk slowly towards the white rectangle.

When Burkhardt was in The Acela Club I think Saturday he mentioned that you needed reservations to get in.

Good stuff Gwreck , was hoping we would see Ceuto this series.