metsmarathon

my valentine?

and just how in the hell do we not have a "mets re-sign reyes" thread? we're slipping in our second decade. slipping.

30 - 18 = 12 12 / 162 = 0.074 = 7.4%

going from 18 to 30 is closer to adding half as many interleague games than it is to doubling the number of interleague games. 18 + 9 = 27 18 + 18 = 36 30 - 27 = 3 36 - 30 = 6 3 < 6

metirish wrote: One day I'm going to learn how to do that nice box. [snicker]

i love the one game playoff. i also hate the idea that it's abhorrent to end th season trying to win a playoff spot by playing in an interleague game. how fucking ridiculous. first of all, how is that appreciably different than playing in an interdivision game? unless you're both playing for the wild card, you're not playing your direct opponent anyways. and unless you're in a one-game race, you're not playing your direct opponent even if you're playing within your division. this very season, the playoffs were decided on the last day of the season. each of the four teams with something to play for played within their own divisions. but did their opponents have anything to play for? what did it matter that the red sox were playing baltimore? would the marlins, cubs, or padres have laid down and let them win, whereas the 69-win orioles felt they had something to play for?? what the fuck did it matter that the cardinals played houston? the twins could have lost that game just as handily. did it add any excitement that the cards won that game against a, heh, bitter divison rival? was the mets' final game against cincinnati somehow more meaningful because although both teams were out of the wild card, they still were jockeying for relative position against each other? (no, i don't think so at all) and why is this not a dire concern in any other fucking sport? why is it not a huge concern that in the nba, if they ever have a season, that the pacers and t-wolves could decide their playoff fates against opponents whose win-loss records are utterly unrelated? well, maybe nobody cares about the nba... why is it not a big deal that the blue jackets play the hurricanes on the final day of the nhl season? well, maybe because it's the nhl and those teams suck... i mean, seriously. columbus ohio? damn. but then can't we resolve the issue the same way in baseball? if you suck the prior year, guess what. not only do you get the top draft pick, you also get the honor of finishing your season in an interleague matchup against your fellow cellarmate. problem solved, eh? if kansas city and pittsburgh play each other on the final day of the season next year, will anyone be up in arms? will anyone care? or more correctly, will fewer people care?

bonilla for met o' the 90s

this might be a good time to spin up the 'bot... that said, since the award is called the rolaids relief award, it should perhaps be open to all relief pitchers not just closers. also, the wins is stupid. losses and blown saves less so. i was just wandering through fangraphs and noticed a nifty little stat on there. SD, or shutdowns, and its companion MD or meltdowns. a shutdown is when your reliever shuts down his opponent, and has a +6% impact on the likelihood of winning a game (+0.06 WPA), while a meltdown is the opposite - a reliever has a -6% impact on the liklihood of winning the game (-0.06 WPA). to quote those fine folks, fangraphs"]- The +/- 6% cutoff for Shutdowns and Meltdowns puts SDs and MDs on a similar scale as Saves and Holds, meaning 40 shutdowns is roughly as impressive as 40 saves. - Shutdowns and Meltdowns correlate very well with saves and blown saves; in other words, dominant relievers are going to rack up both saves and shutdowns, while bad relievers will rack up the meltdowns and blown saves. But Shutdowns and Meltdowns provide value by giving more weight to middle relievers, showing how they can affect a game just as much as a closer can. and so i propose shutdowns - meltdowns as the metric to be used. the leaders: PlayerSDMDSD-MDventers47641axford43340valverde38533madson35431clippard401030rivera37730storen401030robertson37829adams37829o'flaherty36729 rodriguez37829putz35728cordero34628papelbon32428hanrahan35827hernandez35827perez371027balfour32626kimbrel351025nunez33825

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why should Reyes have his RankSquared multiplied by 77(wins)? He was on the DL for a good number of those wins. Same for David Wright. And Ike Davis. Especially Ike Davis. because he was the best player on a 77-win team. i suppose it would be easy enough to, instead of this cumbersome rankings process, to settle on our favorite WAR mechanic and just tally up the top 500 or so mets' metly careers based on such WAR metric, and populate our list in that way. i think that loses some of the magic though. overall, i don't understand the point, other than to piss on the rankings project. when the rookie of hte year award voting is tallied, the voters are asked to rank their top 5 rookies. when the mvp award is tallied, the voters are asked to rank their top 10 players. ditto the cy young award. there is no distinction made within the rankings that year for a writer to say, "i have this guy as #1, but he's like three times better than my #2. so his #1 ranking should count more." or "yeah, i have this guy as my top rookie, but the rookie class was so weak that i'm going to leave the top two spots blank. i don't want these guys confused with a young albert pujols." if this were the "BML all-time met rankings", how would you run the list, praytell?

clutchiness has been around for a while. fangraphs tallys it. big surprise: josh thole and bobby parnell - not clutch! well, at least not in 2011. jose reyes, also not terribly clutch. very good, but not clutch. were i smarter i'd figure out a way to equitably incorporate clutchiness into some sort of schaefer voting machine, but i think m.e.t.b.o.t. would feel slighted. the 'bot doesn't look at clutch, per se, but at the outcome of game situations, which is a possibly ungainly hybrid of player productivity and player clutchness. bot the 'bot is looking only at who helped the team win a game, not at who stepped up or laid down relative to their established level of production under the bright glaring lights of intense competition.

such is the nature of any and all ranking projects.

Frayed Knot wrote: metsmarathon wrote: 2011's best met will be 77 points higher than the 2nd best met, who will be 77 points higher than the 3rd best met, etc etc, until you get to the lowest ranked met, who will be have netted 77 points. therefore, the best met will be 30 times better than the 30th met, and will be 30/29 times better than the 2nd best met. the best met in a 77 win year will be worth 77*30=2130. this makes him slightly more better than the 21-point met on a 106 win team; 106*20=2120. Umm, not quite. The rank each player gets is first squared and then multiplied by that season's wins to get his point total The idea being that the difference between the 1st & 10th best player should be treated as much more meaningful than the gap between the 10th & 20th, or between Mr. 20th & Mr. 30th. And if you're wondering who came up with such a dopey suggestion ... go look in the mirror. that's genius! i couldn't recall if my brilliance was laughed at, or implemented. nice to know it was both.

since carlton(72) played for the phillies, his score would very likely be zero, as he would go unranked along with all the other mets. but speaking to the general point... 2011's best met will be 77 points higher than the 2nd best met, who will be 77 points higher than the 3rd best met, etc etc, until you get to the lowest ranked met, who will be have netted 77 points. therefore, the best met will be 30 times better than the 30th met, and will be 30/29 times better than the 2nd best met. the best met in a 77 win year will be worth 77*30=2130. this makes him slightly more better than the 21-point met on a 106 win team; 106*20=2120. assuming the met ranking project scales wins up for partial seasons, a met team that goes 59-97 would be calculated as a 62 win team. its best player would score 1860 points. this places him at the same level of the 6th best met in a 77 win team, or the 14th best met on a 106 win team. this was done, among other reasons, to make for simplified calculations, as well as to award players on better teams. the more win s a team has being related to the import of the season, and the ranking of hte players related to the import of the player. to do it differently, we'd probably just look at WAR totals, and that's a little less fun, and doesn't really strike up as much conversation, does it?

we're just really bad at evaluating defense. while i was going through the players on a quick thumbs up/thumbs down, i completely glossed over his defensive shortcomings. ditto duda. not so much pagan. it's perhaps bitterly unfair. although, perhaps pagan deserves it for his regression from last year.

hmm. i guess not. i suppose from the standpoint that if nothing else, thole was there for most of the year, i suppose i could move him up some. in looking at it, it seems hard to believe that i'd have such a gap between harris and he. their offense was equally bad, and neither was a good defender. though thole had the harder position to man. in my own figuring, i think i was also overly hard on my catchers for passed balls and stolen bases against. thus i offer the following: 30 Reyes 29 Dickey 28 Beltran 27 Murphy 26 Turner 25 Duda 24 Wright 23 Tejada 22 Bay 21 Pagan 20 Niese 19 Gee 18 Parnell 17 Rodriguez 16 Capuano 15 Acosta 14 Davis 13 Pelfrey 12 Batista 11 Isringhausen 10 Thole 9 Harris 8 Evans 7 Pridie 6 Young 5 Hairston 4 Paulino 3 Beato 2 Igarashi 1 Byrdak 0 Buchholz -1 Nickeas -2 Baxter -3 Stinson -4 Thayer -5 Carrasco -6 Herrera -7 Schwinden -8 Satin -9 Pascucci -10 Martinez -11 O'Connor -12 Emaus -13 Misch -14 Hu -15 Boyer

30 Reyes 29 Dickey 28 Beltran 27 Murphy 26 Turner 25 Duda 24 Wright 23 Tejada 22 Bay 21 Pagan 20 Niese 19 Gee 18 Rodriguez 17 Capuano 16 Acosta 15 Davis 14 Pelfrey 13 Batista 12 Isringhausen 11 Harris 10 Parnell 9 Evans 8 Pridie 7 Young 6 Hairston 5 Beato 4 Igarashi 3 Byrdak 2 Thole 1 Buchholz 0 Baxter -1 Stinson -2 Thayer -3 Carrasco -4 Herrera -5 Paulino -6 Schwinden -7 Satin -8 Pascucci -9 Martinez -10 O'Connor -11 Nickeas -12 Emaus -13 Misch -14 Hu -15 Boyer

kidnappers always use the pool. everybody knows that.

that orange hat has a yellow dot. the other three all appear to have orange dots. i think i need to see them in real life to get a feel for how i actually feel about them. i can't tell if i like them, or think them to be hideous. at the very least, i like that they're trying so damned hard. i think.

i couldn't bring myself to not select the mets as a future home for jose.

Prince Fielder - cubs Albert Pujols - cardinals Jose Reyes - mets Yu Darvish - brewers Jimmy Rollins - giants C.J. Wilson - nationals Aramis Ramirez - atlanta Carlos Beltran - red sox Edwin Jackson - yankees Mark Buehrle - marlins Ryan Madson - phillies Jonathan Papelbon - phillies David Ortiz - blue jays Kelly Johnson - cardinals Roy Oswalt - yankees Heath Bell - reds Francisco Rodriguez - dodgers Josh Willingham - dodgers Michael Cuddyer - nationals Javier Vazquez - cubs

whither hanley?

i think that every stat in baseball, and sports in general, measures, and is dominated by, luck-based results.

Ceetar wrote: But one of the problems with defensive sabermetrics has always been that they generally represent a pretty small sample size to really judge anything by. Most plays, the routine fly balls, the grounders to second, even I could make. A bad week could ruin the year. A guy could play with a sore calf and play poorly on defense for a week or two because he can't pivot around the bag and he's penalized for it, but does that mean he's a bad fielder? isn't that true of any stat that accumulates over the course of an entire season? a bad outing can blow up an ERA something fierce, or drain a batting average. plus, and i think this is key for most statistics, they measure performance, not talent. and past performance is not always indicative of future results.

jeez, i'm sorry i made you wait six years. that must've been simply unbearable.

i still think y'all sent teh wrong dope an invite. i mean, here y'all were setting up a message board for intelligent mets fans, and i can neither depress a shift key nor spell "teh" with fewer than three tries.