Frayed Knot

Thorne is the Orioles guy. If you're getting the home team announcers via mlb.tv you'll be hearing the tones of Bob Carpenter and F.P. Santangelo. Ask bmfc1 about those two; he's a BIG fan.

But that idea [responding to marathon & Grimm] fails the same logic as [batMags] wondering why the Mets "chose" to put their team in LV. One simply can't TAKE the team out of Vegas and decide to put it somewhere else. Some guy/corp, one who presumably likes having it right where it is now, owns the team and has an ongoing franchise with the PCL. So first you'd have to convince said owner to sell, but even then once that happened it's going to be to some other guy with a site and stadium already in mind that meets the approval of the PCL. Something tells me that site is NOT going to be in northern New Jersey nor is the PCL simply going to hand one of their franchises to what is essentially their rival Int'l League. The AAA teams are where they are and there's virtually nothing the ML clubs or even league as a whole can do to change them.

My point isn't that long games can't be enjoyable or that shorter is always better. There's nothing wrong with a three-hour baseball game or even, in some cases, longer than that. Where you start to run into problems is when three hour games become the average even though there's nothing extra in them as compared to when the average was close to 20% quicker, and we're not talking about games from some ancient grainy black and white video times but in the memory of many current fans. When a sport is competing for viewer eyeballs and asses-in-seats it makes a difference to a lot of people whether their 7:10 local start has a good chance of ending prior to 10PM or is just as likely to still be going at 10:30-10:45 especially on school/work nights and/or in questionable weather. In the case of the example cited above, when a 2-run, 8-1/2 inning game with just 13 total base-runners is busting past the three-hour mark it's tough to come up with an explanation other than that there was a ton of dead time in there somewhere and that's not a good sign for the overall health of the sport. And we haven't even gotten into the post-season games where the times are routinely headed up towards four hours and the TV ratings are (not so coincidentally) headed in the opposite direction.

We were baffled and for all the reasons given in the article posted above, could not come up with even one reason as to why the Mets would locate their AAA affiliate in that environment. In fact we couldn�t understand why any team, but especially an east coast team would place their AAA affiliate in Vegas. Of course, we didn�t know about the musical chairs dynamic to AAA baseball, and that essentially, one team has to play there. Yeah, let's not forget that it's not a unilateral decision here. The only big league club I know of that outright owns their own AAA affiliate and can therefore place it anywhere they want (subject to Int'l Lg approval) is the Braves and even they rode out for years in what was often called the worst AAA city/stadium in the east (Richmond, VA) before building a stadium in the northern suburbs of Atlanta. Richmond's facility was considered so sub-par for AAA that they're now fielding a A-ball level club. That LV, NV is a ... different kind of environment for minor league ball is hardly news as are several of the PCL cities (and even more Cal Lg sites) although there are plans in the works for a new stadium. A new crib won't change the weather but at least the facilities will be upgraded. It's the Jeff comments which, if true, are the most interesting part of that story although, keep in mind, that exactly ONE person is quoted here so that doesn't really establish anything as a proven fact. The NYM/Binghamton relationship is still running and is one of the longest running of any team/affiliate in any league (as was Norfolk/NYM before it ended). And the movement of Norfolk to the Orioles camp had more to do with the Norfolk owner wanting to vertically integrate his teams as he already had two or three other affiliates in the Baltimore chain. Maybe Jeff truly is an asshole and that played a role in the Norfolk break as well but, even if so, it wasn't the only factor.

Vic Sage wrote: just get some fucker who can hit please! aka: The Motherfucker with the Bat

Ron Swoboda - reviewing books for the New York Times

... does a 2-0, 8-1/2 inning game take over three hours to play? ChiSox at Oakland yesterday clocked in at 3:02 - A's scored one in the 6th plus one in the 8th - and so didn't have to bat in the 9th - the two teams combined for just 9 hits and 3 walks plus one HBP - there were a total of 17 Ks which often take longer than non-K outs but there were also two GiDPs - Nine of the Seventeen half-innings had just three batters (eight were 1-2-3 frames plus one where there was a single then GiDP) and no half-inning had more than five - there were a total of Seven pitchers used but just two in-inning pitching changes - there was One error, plus one passed ball, plus one balk (all of which merely allowed a runner to move up but did not allow a better to reach base who should have been out) - 284 total pitches were thrown, which I believe is somewhat higher than normal (particularly for a low-scoring game) although I'm not sure by how much So what the Fuck were these guys doing that took 182 minutes from first pitch to last?!? There was a small piece in Sunday's NYTimes on game times, specifically on the independent Atlantic League experimenting with trying to speed up their games. In the article they point out that the average time for ML games this season is 2:58, which would tie it for the longest ever (with the 2000 season) if this trend holds through September and makes it a full 25 minutes longer than the 1981 average of 2:33 So far the Atlantic League claims that: by enforcing the strike zone as defined by the rule book which they theorize could lead to more high strikes and batters swinging earlier in the count; by limiting pitchers to under one minute on their pre-inning warmups and 12 seconds per pitch if there's no one on base; and by prohibiting batters from leaving the box after each pitch, they're down about 10-15 minutes per game this year. MLB often makes noises along these same lines but then always seems to let things slide so as to not upset the players and their routines (yeah, go ahead and take a 20-minute stroll between pitches Travis Hafner, we'll wait here for you). But I truly believe that the length and the pacing of these games is the biggest problem baseball has at the moment and is one of the reasons I'm wary of added "instant" replay calls. I've long thought that a way to solve this (or at least try) is to institute in the minors what the Atlantic Lg is doing with the thought of never having them develop the habits of turning each AB into a Three-Act performance. I think the problem is that once they reach the majors and become prima-donnas (or Pre-Madonnas as one poster once put it) it's virtually impossible to break them of those routines. It make take a bunch of years before you'd begin to see any results this way, but whatever else they're trying sure isn't working.

Zvon wrote: If M.Cabrera wins another triple crown I am gonna have to sit up & take notice. That would be historic. Him getting the one was but no one seemed to notice much. If he leads in Avg., hits, runs, &RBIs (like he is now), what does he get? The Quadruple Headband? I think sitting up and taking notice of M Cabrera's hitting is a good idea (and long has been) whether he ever wins another Triple crown or not. As much as one needs to be a great hitter to win a TC--much less two, much less two in a row--there are still factors you can�t control and therefore there�ll always be a quirkiness to the whole thing which makes it more the outcome of great hitting than proof of it. Mantle had the same WAR figure, plus a slightly better OPS/OPS+, plus a 2nd consecutive MVP award in the season AFTER his 1956 TC but won none of the three categories - in part because Ted Williams decided, at age 38, to hit .388 that season. The Yaquis, ever understanding of the flukey nature of stats and grateful to have such a ballplayer in his prime on their team following up an historic season with another great one, reacted to his non-TC season by attempting to cut his salary for the following year.

All teams have now reached (or slightly passed) the 54 game mark and I like to look at various stats at this 1/3 mark of the season and project final stats if a player continues to produce "at this pace". Some selected ones from around the league projected from stats as of the end of games on Saturday. Domonic Brown / Phils = 45 HRs -- His previous high is 5 (in about 200 ABs) and he hit #16 this afternoon Cole Hamels = 3 Wins - 27 Losses; 4.86 Brandon Phillips / Reds = 145 RBIs Carlos Gomez / Brewers= .321/.364/.580; 81 XBHs Shin-Soo Choo / Reds = 45 HBPs Matt Kemp / Dodgers = 6 HRs, 21 SBs (remember when this guy talked about going 50/50 about two years ago?) Evan Gattis / Braves = 117 Hits with 69 XBHs in 417 ABs Upton Bros / Braves = 375 Ks combined Miguel Cabrera / Tigers = 195 RBIs w/54 HRs Chris Davis / Orioles = 57 HRs Chris Carter / Astros = 231 Ks in 540 ABs John Hamilton / Angels = 24 HRs w/a .282 OBA Derek Jeter / Yanx = 0 ABs Raul Ibanez / Mariners = 27 HRs in 363 ABs (at age 41) Manny Machado / Orioles = 75 Doubles (at age 20) Mike Trout / Angels = 90 XBHs Yu Darvish / Rangers = 315 Ks Felix Hernandez / Mariners = 250 IPs R. A. Dickey / Blue Jays = 129 ER + 36 HRs allowed (vs 71 & 24 last season) Matt Moore / Rays = 24-0, 2.18 ERA Jason Bay = 24 HRs; .363 OBA Patrick Corbin / DBacks = 24 Wins - 0 Losses; 39 Earned Runs Allowed (and he notched his 9th win today)

Even when the batters are hitting they're not getting hits.

Kong76 wrote: School bus downgraded to wagon train. I'm thinking of getting them a bunch of old Schwinns and making them pedal. Have the Marlins even scored 11 runs this season? I don't mean in one game, I mean in all their games combined prior to this weekend.

It's nice to know that the bullpen can get nine outs in a row. I only wish it were OUR pen that could do that. Meanwhile, I think the peanut vendor the Marlins hauled out of the stands just got his fifth hit of the day.

And, at the rate this offense is going, the Mets are going to be retired in the 8th inning on four pitches and in the 9th inning on two.

The Mets have got to be the only pitching staff that was hurt by the absence of Giancarlo Stanton. He was 3 for 18 before going out and all his replacements since then, Ozuna in particular, are killing us.

Met batters saw a total of 11 pitches over the last two innings.

This is an example of how fans can get fooled by small sample sizes. I'm convinced at this point that the Marlins are the best team in the majors. They may lack power but they hit line-drives, work the count and/or foul off pitches they can't hit, run well, field well, have enough depth to overcome injuries, and have a great, young pitching staff. I wouldn't be surprised to see them win 90+ games this year.

Meanwhile, on the flip side of the ledger, we've got the St Looie Cardinals threatening the other NYM record. Well not a record really but no NL team (although several AL squads) since the '86 Mets has gone through a season winning 2/3 of their games. The Cards, currently at 37-18 after pounding the Giants 8-0 & 7-1 in a Double-Header yesterday*, are a game ahead of that pace and heading for a season-ending record of 109-53 * First Cain (7 runs allowed in 6 innings) then Baumgarner (5 R/6 IP) took the beatings - which begs the question: Which was least expected; that the Cards, minus Pujols plus various pitching injuries, would be this good, or that SF starting pitching, particularly in that ballpark, would be sitting just 7 spots from the bottom among all ML teams? In Game #1 against Cain, the Cards only out-hit the Gaints ten-to-seven and had zero HRs (8 singles + 2 doubles) but nine of those ten hits came during an eleven batter span resulting in a 7-Run 3rd inning. That parade of hits was interrupted only by a Matt Holliday K and a Sac Bunt by pitcher Shelby Miller who wound up making two of the three outs in the inning. StL batters went 1-2-3 in every other inning except for the 8th when a Walk-Double-SacFly sequence gave them a tack-on run. Another way to look at it is they had 11 base-runners for the entire game and scored 8 of them. 2B - 1B - Bunt - 1B - 1B - K - 1B - 1B - 2B - 1B - 1B - K In Game 2 they again hit no HRs but again got a lopsided win despite out-hitting SF just 9-to-8. This time they bunched all their hits into three innings while the Giants were doing the old one hit per frame thing. That's like the kind of Voodoo shit the MFYs used to seemingly pull off all the time.

It's time to replace Carson with ... well anyone; Byrdak, Leathersich, somebody. Hell, at this point I'd replace him with Leno.

Buck going for the immaculate ball game: 9 pitches, 3 Ks

We're back to giving too much credit to too many pitchers ... particularly young ones.

That pick-off was Carson's best pitch of the year.

metsmarathon wrote: i also think, and it's entirely based on anectodal evidence of my faulty memory, that we tend to vote aboslutely for pitchers and then relativistically for position players. ie "this performance from a pitcher is worth 5.2 points, so that leaves me with 4.8 points to divvy up between the position players." I do start by awarding points to the starter and then base things off of that, but by no means do I stick to that original score if I see that the night's offense deserves a little more or if the relievers do, etc. I just use it as a starting point. In this case I didn't start off with 6 points and then subtract based on the idea that if I start awarding 6 for 7-inning/1-run outings there's no place to go for those 9-inning shutouts.

Turner was the 9th overall draft pick by the Tigers out of a St Louis area HS and has been a major [Top 25] prospect on the horizon for the last three years despite (or maybe because) only turning 22 last week. His ten starts this year in New Orleans though have been only so-so [3-4; 4.47; 1.3 WHiP; 35/14 K/BB in 56 IP].

The difference now is that teams have to guess when the right day is to call up their prospects and save money down the road instead of knowing it. The kicker is that falling on the "right" side of the arb date yields a much smaller savings (and sometimes none at all) than does the FA cut-off and teams know exactly when that is. Either the player has six full years for that one or he doesn't.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: Read this by Rubin and it confused me pretty good. If Super 2 status is based on a very specific amount of service time (I've read 2 years, 119 days to be exact), why is there conjecture? Seems there should be an exact date for every player who would be eligible based on their first day of service time. Uh, right? The cut-off for "Super-2" players is NOT specific, and it's intentionally not specific for the very reason that teams would use it to take advantage and effectively delay arbitration by a year*. What it used to be was that ALL players with 3 years or more plus 1/6 of the players with the most ML service time between two and three years. I believe that got tweaked slightly during the last CBA but it's still along similar lines. What Rubin is saying is that the Mets are calculating, based on historical data most likely plus other factors, how late in the season a player can be called up and still fall into the 'Under' category after the 2015 season but that other teams might calculate differently. There's no way to KNOW what the "correct" date is because there are too many factors involving other teams' players -- Seattle just sent Jesus Montero down for instance, so he's not presently accumulating ML time even though he's someone who most would have predicted would be up for good after his initial promotion. His specific status probably won't affect Wheeler's (unless he's down longer than expected) but how long he spends in AAA almost certainly WILL affect the "Super-2" class of 2014. * When arb first was installed it was for all players over 2 seasons. The owners cried poverty during one of the CBA negotiations and, in a rare example of player give-backs prior to the more recent contracts, the Arb deadline was pushed back to 3 years. The owners then immediately did what owners tend to do in most situations and took advantage of the situation by delaying players call-ups until after the season had started effectively making Arb into a Four-Year requirement. Now, not surprisingly, it was the players' turn to call foul at which point the 5/6 vs 1/6 compromise was reached.