Frayed Knot

Adam Rubin's blog: Kai Gronauer played several sports as a youth growing up in Solingen, Germany, including soccer, tennis, handball and swimming. His first exposure to baseball came when he was 10 or 11, when a friend took him to a practice for a local team after hearing about the sport. A decade later, Gronauer is a Mets farmhand, impressing team brass as the catcher at low-A Savannah. The 22-year-old Gronauer is hitting .237 with a homer and two RBI in 38 at-bats in the South Atlantic League. �My best friend took me to a practice,� Gronauer said. �He heard from the pitcher that there was a baseball team. I stayed with it. That�s how I got to baseball.� �If you�re talking about playing against Team Cuba and Venezuela and Korea and teams like that, he�s pretty well equipped to come over and compete,� said Lionel Chattelle, a German-based scout, referring to Gronauer�s experience while representing the country in international tournaments. �He�s an outstanding guy. He�s mature. He�s hard-working and he�s got the physical tools. If all goes well and he stays healthy, I think he�ll move up quickly." The caliber of baseball in Germany has steadily risen since Gronauer started. Chattelle, who is originally from Connecticut and coached opposite Gronauer in Germany, said he could tell the catcher had the required skills to come to the United States. �I was extremely impressed by him at 18 years old�at the maturity and the way he handled the pitching staff, the way he calmed them down,� Chattelle said. �He just had a sense of how to play the position, even at 18. He has an outstanding arm. He runs really well for a catcher. I think he led the league in stolen bases that year. He has a very quick bat, stays inside the ball and drives the ball well. �He played in the World Cup and also got into the Olympics trials. He was catching two different pitchers that had major-league stuff�one of Cuban origin, who has a German passport, that he was catching, and also a guy who played for me in Bonn who was in the Twins system who could get it up to the mid-90s. That�s when I was really sold on him. He handled them and their stuff. �The analogy that I use for him playing-wise, just my view when I looked at him, I drew a comparison between him and Paul Lo Duca as players. He�s a guy that makes contact, doesn�t strike out a lot, has the potential for some power and is going to be an outstanding defensive catcher and leader.� Still, Gronauer said, playing in the minors has been a step up in competition. �It is a big step up. The German pitching is not as advanced as Latin American and American pitching speed-wise,� he said. �The speed of the game is not as fast, but we are developing very well in Germany. The playing level gets better every year. The top teams in Germany always bring in American players. My team right now brought in a player that played Double-A a couple of years.� There are only three other German players currently in minor-league baseball, who don�t appear on 40-man rosters: lefthander Michael Anton (Angels), righthander Jennell Hudson (Red Sox) and center fielder Jacob Shaffer (Mariners). Chattelle, who officially joined the Mets in 2007, has brought two other European players to the Mets: Marinus Vernooij, 19, from Holland and Thomas DeWolf, 18, from Belgium. Gronauer said his parents, particularly mother Cornelia, don�t fully grasp the sport and its terms. His father, Achim, hopes to get to the United States soon to see his son play for the Sand Gnats. He owns a pocket-knife factory and does business here. �My mother is scared of flying,� Gronauer said. �I told her I�d buy her the plane tickets as soon as I play in Citi Field.�

Well, April almost done (didn't figure in Thursday's games) so I figured this off-day would be as good a time as any to look at how the rest of the league is doing. Marlins: 12 wins - 8 losses; 100 Runs scored - vs - 100 Runs against We�ve seen them 6 times already (2-4) so we�ve gotten enough up close and personal to last for a while - particularly of Jorge Cantu. They famously started the year 10-1 (thanx, Nats) before an 0-7 tailspin was righted by our bullpen on Tuesday & Wednesday Philly: 11 - 8; 118 RS v 108 RA Mostly they�ve been hitting (lead lg in scoring plus HRs) but not really pitching (2nd most runs given up). Rollins has started cold but the other usual subjects are doing what one would expect and they�re getting great early returns out of FA Raul Ibanez Hamel keeps getting minor boo-boos. Lidge has been hittable, and JC Romero is suspended for another 31 games. Braves: 10-10; 82 RS v 85 RA Not a lot of offense so far. Chipper�s hitting (when he�s healthy) as is Kotchman at 1B and CF rookie Jordan Schafer Good top of the rotation from Jurrjens, Lowe & Vazquez, not so much from the back and Jo-Jo Reyes and Japanese import Kawakami. Catcher Brian McCann on the shelf with an eye infection as the result of recent laser surgery Natinals:4 - 17 although their run differential (86 v 114) suggests they should really be more like 7-12. So maybe announcer Rob Dibble is right and this really is a 90 win team off to a misleadingly horrid start due to biased umping and bad breaks. Nick Johnson looks to be healthy and contributing while Adam Dunn is being Adam Dunn. They�ve lost numerous games in the 9th inning already which contributes to the league�s worst pitching staff (and it�s not even close). Cards: 14-7; 119 RS vs 86 RA League�s best record, not only on the strength of Sir Albert and his wrecking crew but also an above-average pitching staff - but one that lost Chris Carpenter for an unknown length again Pirates: 11-9; 101 RS v 74 RA The story so far is pitching. The starting staff of Maholm, Duke, Ohlendorf & Snell combines with a pen featuring Capps, Grabow & Chavez to sport the best ERA in the league. SS Jack Wilson & catcher Ryan Doumit on the DL Cubs: 10-9; 95 RS v 86 RA Fukudome looks to be out of Lou�s doghouse this season with a fast start. Also hot are Soriano, Theriot & Ramirez. Not hot = Lee & Soto, plus Milton Bradley who�s not only cold but injured and pissed off as well (those last two are pretty much permanent conditions). Heilman = 11 G, 11 IP, 1 ER, 7 H, 6 BB, 6 K Reds: 11-10; 78 RS v 92 RA Somehow keeping their heads above water with a bad run differential and the league 2nd worst offense where Joey Votto & Jay Bruce seem to be doing it all themselves. Edwin Encarnacion to the DL Brewers: 11-10; 95 RS v 96 RA Yovanni Gallardo trying to single-handedly keep the pitching staff afloat after losing Sabathia & Sheets Trevor Hoffman just activated and got his 3rd non-Padre save (555 overall; 552 w/SD; 2 w/Marlins about 45 years ago; now 1 for Milwaukee) Astros: 9-13; 78 RS v 92 RA Fewest runs scored in the NL as even Lance Berkman isn�t hitting Much better pitching though from unlikely sources as Wandy Rodriguez & Felipe Paulino are out-pitching Oswalt & Hampton Closer Valverde goes to the DL Dodgers: 14-8; 123 RS v 91 RA 14 & 8 is what you get when you combine the league�s 3rd best offense and 3rd best pitching - although Billingsley seems to be their only consistent starter. Good first month for Orlando Hudson Padres: 11-10; 91 RS vs 107 RA We saw them open CitiField by taking two of three. You figure that RS/RA ratio is going to get them sooner or later. Giants: 10-10; 77 RS v 80 RA When your best hitters are Bengie Molina (better BA than OBA) and Pedro Sandoval (who?) you need all the pitching you can get. Good starts from Jonathan Sanchez, Matt Cain, and, after a rough first outing, Tim Lincecum. Modest results at best from vets Zito & Johnson. D�Backs: 9-12; 83 RS vs 101 RA On the hitting side all those seemingly talented young guys aren�t On the pitching side, Haren & Doug Davis are doing well but Brandon Webb is shelved for at least another month. And now Stephen Drew is injured Rockies: 8-12; 108 RS vs 108 RA Near best scoring and near worst run prevention - but what else in new in that place? And what�s happened to Troy Tulowitski? - .200 BA and recently benched

I don't think it'll be that drastic. Jerry might shirley be signaling to Omar that he prefers Omir but that doesn't mean the org has to listen and decent backups are just too hard to find to be relying on the not-so-young and oft-injured Schneider coupled with the un-tested Santos with 140 games still remaining. I still think Santos goes down when Schneider gets back (assuming that's sometime soon) until maybe a later-season trade changes things.

As mentioned above, the main difference so far is in strikeouts and power. The stadium could partially explain the power outage. I have no idea what to say about the Ks. Except that in his four full seasons in the majors to date Wright's hitting has been absurdly consistent in almost all aspects, including strike-outs where he's gone: 113, 113, 115, 118 See also doubles: 42, 42, 40, 42; HRs: 27, 26, 30, 33; OBA: .386, .381, .416, .390 Point being that, especially at age 26, I don't think he's a likely candidate to suddenly morph into a 200+ K/yr, slap-hitting drag on the lineup. We've got other things to worry about.

He had last night off and is getting today too.

Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K.

HahnSolo wrote: I'll take a wild pitch if no one really wants to man up. That's where the HBP was an advantage to the Marlins

Wow! PH-ing Santos for Castro.

Nymr83 wrote: Tatis HBP, is Delgado available???? 'parently not.

Nymr83 wrote: Shouldn't Maine or Perez pinch-run here? (assuming Castillo cant of course) No, Sheff's not that slow. Either get a clearly superior runner or don't use one. No pitchers fit that category

Lindstrom pulls a Putz

Sheff walks .... run Castillo?

Between non-hitting w/RiSP and relievers walking two to start an inning I've got enough to be pissed off at without inventing things. But now, someone from the 'O' is going to have to be the hero today.

So if Cora's hit goes to a different angle then it's good managing? That's bad luck, IMO, not bad managing.

He shoulda struck out instead.

Any relation to Randy Newman?

="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"]] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

The problem with the pre-emptive pitching change is that it takes out the known quantity (in this case - Livan pitching reasonably well) and subs in the unknown (who in the pen will have it today?) to the point where - absent various ominous signs** - it often does make the 'change now in case it's too late later' strategy the more risky one. ** - the last 5 outs have all been at'em balls; - the next two hitters have great numbers against the current hurler and/or lousy against my pen; - both the radar gun and my eyes tell me he's visibly tiring - he's blown up in this inning the last 4 times - yadda, yadda

="Ceetar":3kc4se6w]I think Manuel's been a disaster. I wasn't unhappy with Willie myself, but when it seemed likely a change is what this team needed, I wish they had done it. Instead they stuck with a familiar guy, a guy who'd been with the team for the collapses, as well as supposedly being the guy who was pushing for the 9th inning decisions in game 7 in '06. To me he's a guy who never trusts his players, to a point that he actively doesn't trust them and instills no confidence in them. I think they should've brought in someone from outside the team, with a fresh perspective, and had him work with Wright and Reyes to lead the team that way. Instead, Manuel has been second guessing Reyes and Wright since he got here. The big thing is his over use of the bullpen and how matchup happy he is, to a fault. I also have issues with how un-aggressive this team seems on the bases. Whether it's the lack of stolen bases, or not going first to third. I've heard Manuel say that he's told Reyes to pick his spots more. In previous years, _every_ body was bouncing around the bases, threatening to steal, taking big leads, distracting the pitcher so that it was rare that a pitcher was on the mound without at least some distraction with a guy on base. Even pitchers were doing it! Remember how we ran all over Chris Carpenter impressive streak of not allowing a lot of stolen bases, and how he hasn't been the same since? It's never too early to fire Manuel.[/quote:3kc4se6w] Welcome Ceetar, nice virgin post. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but you state your case well and I like your avatar. duan Apr 29 2009 09:38 AM sorry I should point out I'm not actually disagreeing, more mocking schneider. Who, frankly is worse then useless, this season it being him rather then any old league average hitter has cost us .533 runs per game, this season it being him rather then any old league average catcher has cost us .464 runs a game. And I know it's a small sample size, and I know his back and calf are hurting him. He's just a terrible offensive player. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 29 2009 09:41 AM ="Ceetar":2ojhbd60]Remember how we ran all over Chris Carpenter impressive streak of not allowing a lot of stolen bases, and how he hasn't been the same since?[/quote:2ojhbd60] Although the thought that Reyes makes him wake up in night sweats is a pleasant one, his "not being the same since" might have something to do with, you know, the shoulder and elbow injuries. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 09:45 AM What's MM's right hand doing here? Ceetar Apr 29 2009 09:54 AM ="Edgy DC":250omu6m] What's MM's right hand doing here?[/quote:250omu6m] Icon inspired by this Kurt Snibbe post and the lion's new 'fiercer' logo: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=snibbe/090421&sportCat=nfl Yeah, Carpenter probably isn't waking up with nightmares about Reyes, but my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 09:59 AM ="Ceetar"]... my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore. Actually, the way the Mets used to run the bases under Willie gave me a nightmare. It seemed as if that team couldn't go one week without having one of their own thrown out at the plate by four or five footsteps. RealityChuck Apr 29 2009 10:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1qfj9mu7]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:1qfj9mu7] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury. Rotblatt Apr 29 2009 10:10 AM ]Lifting a starter after six with 100 or so pitches and a five-run lead just fries my butt. Totally. He's been too quick to yank starting pitchers (up to and including Johann), and while, yes, our bullpen is better this year, if we overwork our relievers, it won't stay that way. I'm not a fan of the bunting either, but I feel like he's been better than Willie on that front, and leaving his decision to stick with Green last night aside, his bullpen management has been better as well. So I'm going to go with, he's an improvement, but he could be better. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:20 AM With the way this new park looks like it's going to play , a lot of doubles and triples , it would seem to suit smart aggressive play . I would like to see Beltran and Reyes play with more abandon . Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:21 AM ="RealityChuck":3pp7aa9r]="Edgy DC":3pp7aa9r]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:3pp7aa9r] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:3pp7aa9r] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 10:32 AM ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]="RealityChuck":27hreoq1]="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"]] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

I don't think the awkwardness was caused by either the racial or the insensitive towards injury angles but rather by the 'how stupid can you be to think that a multi-millionaire athlete would be working as a EMT in a sporting event not even in his home town' theorem.

Hernandez - 2.0 Cora - 2.0 Sheffield - 1.5 Parnell - 0.5 Beltran - 0.5 Wright - 1.0

The odds of Murphy "learning" 2nd base are very slim.

Agreed. GV knows NYM history as well as anyone and was maybe the most prominent voice calling for the whole stadium to be named for Jackie Robinson so he certainly can't be upset at the rotunda thing. Mainly I think he's just creating a straw-man argument where the Met fans' disappointment at the lack of Met-centric decor is being derided as if a demand that bronze statues be erected to commemorate each semi-historic moment.

Speaking of which - that Sanchez pitch didn't exactly have a lot of zip on it, did it? Just sayin'.

="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":3tpy5nlm]="MFS62":3tpy5nlm]Is he related to basketball writer Peter Vecsey?[/quote:3tpy5nlm] Peter's older brother.[/quote:3tpy5nlm] Although about as different as two can be. Peter totally immerses himself in hoops where his rambunctious style meshes perfectly with the big city tabloid sensibility for his two long-time employers (first the DN, now the Post). While NYTimes columnist George brings a much wider view (he was once The Times' religion writer and wrote Loretta Lynn's 'Coal Miner's Daughter') and he frequently takes his flowing prose out on the road writing more about the people and places surrounding the sport than the day-to-day happenings of sports themselves. You're as likely to find him writing from some late-night cafe in Barcelona as you are from his desk or a press box and more likely to find him writing about European football than American. (I once saw him reduce Lupica to a stammering pile of incredulity by saying on ESPN's 'The Sports Reporters' that he'd rather watch a high-level soccer game than the Super Bowl -- I don't know that he's ever been invited back to that show). Edgy DC Apr 28 2009 07:47 AM Which makes this cliche of delberately provocative cherry picking all the more disappointing. Frayed Knot Apr 28 2009 07:57 AM Agreed. GV knows NYM history as well as anyone and was maybe the most prominent voice calling for the whole stadium to be named for Jackie Robinson so he certainly can't be upset at the rotunda thing. Mainly I think he's just creating a straw-man argument where the Met fans' disappointment at the lack of Met-centric decor is being derided as if a demand that bronze statues be erected to commemorate each semi-historic moment.