Edgy MD

Dilson managing the post-game OK.

The JAKEMONSTER!

Here's something that kind of stunk: Dilson's homer being ambiguous because of the railing being right up against the wall.

Things that suck about this game: [fimg=200:1a0rkj6g]http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41700/41726/fc_nullset_41726_lg.gif[/fimg:1a0rkj6g]

Dilson: Hey Edgy, FUCK YOU.

Boy, that homer sure sucked down the line in a hurry.

He walked Ryan Zimmerman in the sixth inning on opening day, after he had already whiffed Zimmerman twice. The walk set up runners on first and second with two out, but he then whiffed Wilson Ramos. He's now gone 34 2/3 innings without a walk. The record, amazingly, is 84 1/3 innings, by Bill Fischer of the Kansas City Athletics, in 1962. Fischer was good but not great overall that year, swinging between the rotation and the bullpen, but he was probably the best they had, and they should've stuck with him as a starter. He probably made the games too short and cut into the beer sales.

It looks like a typo, doesn't it? Folks have noticed. Anthony Rieber joined the booth last night and noted his strikeout:walk ratio and joked, "And that's the sort of thing the scouts are looking for."

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. I'm not his champion. I post his articles here because they're relevant, and nobody else here ever, or hardly ever, posts 'em. Sounds exactly like a champion to me. Speaking for myself, I don't like to repost any articles. I have done so, but I generally find the practice to be less than ethical, and feel badly when I do it. With regards to Megdal, I don't post his articles because he's just awful � to an obvious extent.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: You don't know what a troll is? I mean, he is or isn't, but the definition is pretty clear by now. Yeah, I know what a troll is supposed to be. But what happens when someone you think is a troll writes the truth? When someone with, perhaps, an axe to grind, nevertheless writes something that's honest and accurate? And is there a word for something like a reverse troll? You know, like someone who goes to ridiculous, almost pathological delusional lengths just to post something positive on the topic on hand? Just to avoid or deny negative comments or criticism, no matter how deserved? Because if there isn't, there should be. How about llort? Like llama, but llort? You should probably be a little bit embarrassed and not want to be that asshole's champion. You may even want to reach out to him and say he's not doing the cause any favors. A troll is a terrible thing to be and not something to be associated with. I don't think he is a troll. For better or for worse, he's got his own platform � his own bridge, as it were � and trolls hijack other people's platforms.

You don't know what a troll is? I mean, he is or isn't, but the definition is pretty clear by now.

I imagine the average team filled with average guys goes to about 81-81. I don't think that sucks. Of the 17 RF'ers who qualified last year, Granderson was 13 out of 17 in OPS with .714. That is below average. The median was Brandon Moss of Oakland, at .772. Well, I was speaking there more generally about the value of averageness, not necessarily speaking to where he is this year or last year. Last year, nonetheless is last year. This year, he's ninth out of 12 guys in the National League in OPS. Probably better when you adjust for OBP being more valuable than slugging, but he's not where you want him to be, no doubt. Nor do you rip the guys who get you there. You look to replace the sub-average guys, which right now, are at catcher, second, third, and short. Hopefully, some or all of that can be solved internally. The Mets have three productive hitters. Wright, d'Arnaud and Duda. Everyone else has an OPS in the .600's. Within the lineup, some of the guys' recent history suggests they will improve (Murphy, for the last three years, has been at .735), some are young and you hope to improve, but Granderson is old, expensive and not likely to improve greatly on his current performance (realistically, he will end up in the low .700's). This is not enough for a corner OF'er making the type of money he makes. There are many reasons the Mets are in first place, but Granderson is not anywhere near one of those reasons. I certainly didn't assert he's why they are in first. But at the same time, the money is spent either way. Average guys have held the fort for great teams forever, so the excellent players can put them over the top. No use having Jack Clark if you've got Johnnie Lemaster and Rennie Stennett in the infield. Replace them with average guys instead of pokes who undermine Clark's every effort, and the 1980 Giants are a very good team. Sure. But very seldom are they the second highest paid player on that team. And if they are, they are a disappointment. Imagine at the Granderson press conference, Sandy were to say "We are hoping he can be a middling player, so that we can surround him with excellent, young, cheap talent." The Mets' biggest problem on the field is hitting. The Mets' biggest problem off the field is lack of finances. When you put those together, Curtis Granderson, with his big contract and lack of production, is the Mets' biggest problem. I'm not sure what you want done with the contract. The Mets are held to it whether you play the guy or not, release him or not. The Mets would be fools to release Granderson, no matter what resources they had. Any team would be. Releasing him is a different story. I don't have any solutions yet. I am still trying to get everyone to recognize the problem. Well, Vic seemingly advocated for his release, or at least his "dump"-ing, believing perhaps that some player with a better cost/benefit ratio can be gotten. I disagree with the notion of the release, and I have no reason to believe the Mets are ignoring deals that are out there that would allow them to improve by moving Granderson. I do have solutions. They're just not easy ones. You coach your players, keep your eye out for new ones, hoping either the starters improve or the reserves and/or farmhands improve enough to take their jobs. You work hard, run a tight ship, keep analyzing the data, and make the smartest possible choices, even if they're less than gratifying. You know that you've looked closer than anybody at the alternatives. So if not Granderson, it's Mayberry and/or Niewenhuis. Nothing in the ledger says they'd be better. So then you look to Vegas and think about guys like Ceciliani, Vaughn, Tajeiron, and maybe Castellanos. If one of them is to take his job, they'll probably take Niewenuis' first, so maybe that's where the advocacy should be focused. "Promote one of these guys ripping the ball in the PCL!! Nieuwenhuis sucks!!" It's a tough call to make. The guys the team ideally would like to take the place of Granderson and Cuddyer are Nimmo and Conforto. You understand why they don't want to pull the trigger on them just yet. So they do what teams do: bide their time, try and make adjustments and scratch things out, generally choosing evolution before revolution. It's not as satisfying for the sake of drama, but it has gotten them this far, hasn't it?

The team has scored 2.4 runs per game in games he's started. Let's turn that boat around.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: He's looked very different to me. Significantly less slugging, and significantly more on-basing. Yeah, but his value, or efficiency, is about the same. The numbers posted by me and others say not really. By the way, those traits you mention are signs of an aging player losing bat speed. Maybe, but that's speculative. He's certainly an aging player. Show me one who isn't, though. His job, like every player, is to hold his position until somebody takes it from him. No player, younger or older, has. And even though Granderson's always had a good eye for the strike zone, he's walking at a significantly higher rate this year, even for him. Several of us have said as much. How can this be bad?

He's looked very different to me. Significantly less slugging, and significantly more on-basing. Fangraphs had him at 1.2 WAR last season, and on a pace for 1.8 this season.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I imagine the average team filled with average guys goes to about 81-81. I don't think that sucks. Nor do you rip the guys who get you there. You look to replace the sub-average guys, which right now, are at catcher, second, third, and short. Hopefully, some or all of that can be solved internally. Average guys have held the fort for great teams forever, so the excellent players can put them over the top. No use having Jack Clark if you've got Johnnie Lemaster and Rennie Stennett in the infield. Replace them with average guys instead of pokes who undermine Clark's every effort, and the 1980 Giants are a very good team. The Mets would be fools to release Granderson, no matter what resources they had. Any team would be. I agree. And teams have to have average players because there's more of them then there are stars. But that's a far cry from saying that Granderson is very valuable. Granderson's not an asset at this stage of his career. But these are different questions. We started out with: Does Granderson suck? (a/k/a how good or not good is he?) I'm not sure I know where he was called "very valuable." But I disagree that he's not an asset.

I imagine the average team filled with average guys goes to about 81-81. I don't think that sucks. Nor do you rip the guys who get you there. You look to replace the sub-average guys, which right now, are at catcher, second, third, and short. Hopefully, some or all of that can be solved internally. Average guys have held the fort for great teams forever, so the excellent players can put them over the top. No use having Jack Clark if you've got Johnnie Lemaster and Rennie Stennett in the infield. Replace them with average guys instead of pokes who undermine Clark's every effort, and the 1980 Giants are a very good team. The Mets would be fools to release Granderson, no matter what resources they had. Any team would be.

And that DFA ends with a big, fat release party.

I'd like to see a game where the Mets attempt about 10 bunt hits.

You can pick a 1993 Philadelphia Phillie and fill out the chart � not to celebrate any man's downfall, but to lament the sad decline of a team pumped up for all the wrong reasons: buncha relatable crazy stupid white guys doing their thang. I guess it's easy enough to open with Dykstra, who scores across the chart. He's fallen for the cycle, as it were. PosGuyRoidsDivorcePublic IntoxicationAddictionArrestsActual Jail TimeOther Serious IllnessPublic Familial EstrangementsBankruptcy/Business DisastersNotable GirthcDarren Daulton1bJohn Kruk2bMickey MorandinissKevin Stocker3bDave HollinslfMilt ThompsoncfLenny DykstraXXXXXXXXXXrfJim EisenreichifMariano DuncanofPete IncavigliaofWes ChamberlainifRicky JordanifKim BatistecTodd PrattspCurt SchillingspDanny JacksonspTommy GreenespTerry MulhollandspBen RiveraclMitch WilliamsrpDavid WestrpLarry AndersenrpRoger MasonrpMark Davis

Well, that's a sad show. Sadder still that there are mooks who paid to see it.

OK? I wouldn't say this. I want more success, certainly. Last year is last year, and the salary can't be changed. That's done. The important thing is what he's doing relative to the alternatives. Jason Bay (who made more and did it when the dollar went a little further) hit his way out of the lineup and off the team. Granderson hasn't done this. I think one thing you do when deciding on a long-term deal is try to figure out whether the guy will be completely useless if he can't perform at peak value. He, like Wright, hasn't been. Bay mostly was.

I cannot click. I must steel myself first. I assume "Williams" is Mitch?

I think they've been pretty comparable, myself. Murphy is trailing the pack in my book, but I ain't panicking.