Frayed Knot

Edgy MD wrote: There's a way around that. Yeah, stop getting base runners. Failing to suck is another strategy.

In the last seven-plus games, the Mets have scored a total of 16 runs. Ten of those runs have come via eight HRs. Of the other six, one came on an error (the SB fuckup by LAA) and one was an IF 1B. So they have Four RBI non-HR hits in the last three series.

Is our IF/ground ball rate following leadoff walks/singles up over 90% this season or does it just seem that way?

So we've had two runs taken off the board by bounces over the fence. The first one, with two outs, was followed by an inning ending GO The second,, with one out, was followed by an IW then a GiDP So instead of opening the game up with a hit in EITHER situation, we hit into 3 outs on 2 pitches snd are on the verge of having the game get away from us the other way.

None of us here are old enough to have seen Feller, but my guess is that he didn't throw those speeds as often as today's pitchers do.

btw, all this comes on the heels of SF's 35 y/o Alex Cobb's near-no-hitter Tuesday night. He lost it with one out in the 9th but stayed in to finish the game with six additional pitches which brought him to 131 overall, tied for the most in MLB over the last five seasons.

Travel rules are the root of the start time. http://es.pn/2gJfzIZhttp://es.pn/2gJfzIZ I actually knew that, but moving start time up by an entire half hour with the idea that it's going to help the road team on a getaway day (which is actually on off-day) seems beyond silly.

No baserunners in the 1st inning, but they did manage to get one ball out of the infield ... which is, like, one over their usual quota.

Does the earlier start (why is still a mystery) mean that the offense will take an extra half hour to wake up? Cuz if that happens then the first decent contact won't occur until the middle of the post-game spread.

And now the Padres, who need every game they can get, are up 4-3 in the 9th in StL w/2 outs and the bases empty until Josh Hader allows a 2B then a Tommy Edman walkoff 2R HR

Two biggest factors in the changes in pitcher usage (IMO of course). - hitters are better and especially bigger Seaver et al regularly faced 165 lb middle infielders and other 'bat control' types or defensive specialists, who, for the most part, they KNEW couldn't hurt them so, unless a base hit was going to beat you there, it was easy to switch to pitch-to-contact mode while saving bullets for later. Today we see 215 lb middle IFs who can take a hurler out of the park to the oppo field so in-game 'resting' is less of an option. - pitchers are better also! this has the effect of narrowing the talent gap between your top starters and the guys in the pen. So when your childhood starters, certainly the top three anyway, were facing a lineup the 3rd or 4th time around it's likely that, even somewhat fatigued, they were still a better bet in the 7th or 8th innings than all but maybe your ace reliever. The result is starters in the game longer to pick up more decisions thanks in part to lower pitch counts containing fewer max-out ABs. If teams could find more guys who could pitch you a 'Maddux' (CG w/< 100 pitches) then, great. Good luck with that.

So the Phillies know how to hit LAA pitching even if we don't. 12 runs last night and now 8 more today, the final two of those on Bryce Harper's 300th career HR to give them the lead w/2 outs bottom 8th. Buuuuuut, Kimbrel can't close out the 9th as the Angels tie it up then, following a K of Ohtani, get a 2R Brandon Drury HR ... and the Angels hold on to avoid the sweep

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I hadn't heard about that, but it makes sense. Maybe 120 (or three quarters of games played) would be reasonable? Gary has brought it up a couple of times though it's wasn't clear (or I don't recall) whether it was just him ruminating on the subject or if he was talking about an ongoing discussion within MLB.

The odds of me even thinking about Tom O'Malley period much less knowing that he was a Giant AND that he was an Oriole are actually less than zero. And in case anyone is wondering if there's a minimum number of ABs needed for the career .300 BA, the answer is no. I went with John Paciorek (brother of brief '85 NYM Tom) who went 3-for-3 in his only ML game for the Astros career .300 hitter. It was accepted.

Not DFA'd, placed on waivers. Waivers allows any team (in reverse order of standing) to claim the player and have him (and his remaining salary) for the rest of the year including playoffs if added before Sept 1st. That's why there's a ton of it going on this week especially with veterans in their final contract year. The Mets repotedly did the same with Carrasco. If not claimed those players remain with their present club. They could of course release them afterward but would then be responsible for the salaries themselves. As mentioned in another thread, waiver lists are supposed to be non-public but rarely stay that way.

Fulfilling the just enough to lose requirement.

Say goodnight Gracie. This club's not scoring two runs unless the game goes at least 30 innings and the clubhouse kid pitches the last six.

Runs scored: 2, 0, 1, 3, 3, 3, 0 over the past week while facing not a single top line pitcher

I'll start worrying about what the fill-in guys at the bottom of the line are doing (guys who don't have enough PT to even have meaningful stats) just as soon as someone in the top half of the lineup has something even approaching am important hit.

And that didn't take long.

It's a repeating pattern that's lasted most of the year: get a couple runners on and no one after that even hits a fair ball. K, Foul PO, K-Looking

A move which means almost nothing.

A rare immaculate for me. Tonight's starter Andrew Heaney would work in each of the four upper/left squares: TEX/LAD, TEX/LAA, MIA/LAD, MIA/LAA

2023 ERA Carrasco = 6.80 Syndergaard = 6.40

And, once again, we can blame the bullpen all we want, but the offense racked up 12 Ks and a whopping 4 hits.