metsmarathon

SteveJRogers wrote: Why not finally land someone long rumored to eventually be here remember matt lawton?

i love my two thousand or so 1987 topps baseball cards, wherein i think i have about twenty ben ogilvie's and nowhere near a complete set. ugly ass wooden cards.

i would PM the whole lot of you and hook y'all up with season tickets. because if you're that rich, well, you don't need to make friends. you just have to buy them.

i love the show. not so much for information, but for entertainment.

sorry. with the move, and a busyness at work, i haven't been able to dole out barley-pop in what feels like a month.

well, you're basically summing Np(i)^2 / Gt at first i had trouble making sense of the formula, but i think it may work. see, if you've got three cases: position one: eight players, each with one game played position two: four players. two with three games played, two with one game played position three: four players. one with five games player, three with one game played. so position one gives us: (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) = 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 = 8/8 = 1 position two gives us: (3*3/8) + (3*3/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) = 9/8 + 9/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 = 20/8 = 2.25 position three gives us: (5*5/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) + (1*1/8) = 25/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 = 28/8 = 3.5 position three, despite having the same number of players as position two, was much more stable. the higher JB Factor means a more stable position. i think that while hte number may appear meaningless in that it is not a number less than one that you had expected, it is still meaningful in that it can quantify the difference between a few guys with moderate-length tenures signifying positional instability, and a position with a lot of short term fill-ins and some long term stanchions that would signify stability in a position. sure, there may be a better way of measuring it somewhere, but i think this works just fine. tho it'll be meaningless to compare outfield to infield, as outfielders tend to rotate around without necessarily indicating instability so much as flexibility. but we'll see. or we would see if i got around to playing with numbers... maybe if we summed the outfield...? just a hypothesis... OE: helps if i actually fully use jb's formula.... position one: N = 1 JBF = 1/8 = 0.125 position two: N = 2.25 JBF = 2.25/4 = 0.5625 position three: N = 3.5 JBF = 3.5/4 = 0.875 so with these numbers, it works, and returns a number less than one. i'll play with thtis more later, but i think its premature to simply toss it out. maybe...

="old original jb"]A more accurate measure of instability at a position would be obtained as follows: Let N = p= i ∑ {Np x (Np/Gt).....+N(p+1) x (N(p+1)/Gt�+Ni x (Ni/Gt) } p=0 where i = number of third basemen Mets have had gt = total number of Met games Np= number of games played by invididual player p. Weighted Average = N / (i) As usual, I do not have the time to run the numbers, but this formula, would adjust for a situation in which one or two players had very long stints and a larger number of players had very short stints during brief periods of instability. why does mlb.com show hojo as having 835 games played under 3b fielding stats for the mets, yet as a hitter, he has 1054 games played at third base? http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/historical/player_stats.jsp?c_id=nym&section3=1&statSet3=1&sortByStat=G&statType=3&timeFrame=3&timeSubFrame=0&baseballScope=NYN&prevPage3=3&readBoxes=true&sitSplit=&venueID=&subScope=pos&teamPosCode=5&HS=true http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/historical/player_stats.jsp?c_id=nym&baseballScope=NYN&subScope=pos&teamPosCode=5&statType=1&sitSplit=&venueID=&timeFrame=3&timeSubFrame2=0&Submit=Submit using the 835 number source, and jb's formula, i show the mets have a third base stability factor of 2.413 no i haven't run the other positions yet.

i suck. 28. i re-guessed many correct answers into wrong answers. f'rinstance, i was gonna put fordham for scully... oh well. i'm not sure if i'd do as well if i too the quiz a second time...

um, can we bring soler back up...

]the "traditionalists" who don't believe in these crazy ideas like mathematics. who then use batting average to prove a point. hee.

the neyer quote, which is difficult to actually quibble with, given its date 24 May 05: ]Wright's a fine young player and will only get better, but Reyes is, at the moment, one of the very worst everyday players in the majors. He's still only 21 and will of course improve, but it's far too early to predict that he'll actually become a ‘good’ player… was may 24th 2005 too early to predict reyes' future as a good player? prolly. at the time, was reyes actually being very productive? prolly not. times change, don't they?

mets OPS home / away 0.768 / 0.822 mets OPSA home / away 0.699 / 0.708

from the video... "milledge people" awesome. (i need to watch me some more mets games so i can see thnig like this real-time.)

"Just look at the uniform number he asked for when he got here: 44. That's not any number. That's a superstar's number. That's Reggie Jackson's number and Hank Aaron's number." wow. i mean, wow. should we be expecting our rookies to say "hey, what was jay payton's number? i want that one. he had a lot of promise but didnt really pan out, and that's pretty much what i expect of myself, so give me his number with which i might carry on his legacy" you know you've got no objectivity whatsoever when you blast a kid for his uniform number... and for the speed with wchich he munches on a reeses peanut butter cup - which is better when enjoyed slowly, by the way. i like that our rookie potential phenom isn't hindsighting himself into oblivion, personally. there's little in those quotes that causes me any personal alarm. the kid is unpolished, immature, and exuberent. that's just what i would expect of a kid who's all of 21 years of age. not every rookie is david wright. just because a good one isn't, doenst make him a bad seed.

loduca's batting second is based more on his ability to make contact, moreso than on his ability to get on base. i think that typically you want your #2 hitter to be your best contact hitter, outside, perhaps, those who would be better served batting first, third, or fourth. and with only 15 strikeouts in 230 at bats, i would think that loduca is performing rather admirably in the task of providing batted balls which may serve to advance the running jose reyes. beltran has 50 strikeouts in as many at bats.

Martinez 3 Wright 4 Bradford 1 Beltran 1 Reyes 1

Reyes 4 Valentin 3 Soler 2 Heilman 1

Trachsel 4 Nady 3 Delgado 2 Loduca 1

she was in mars attacks? man, i love that movie...

OHernandez 5 Beltran 3 Reyes 1 Valentin 1

Wright 4 Glavine 3 Castro 2 Reyes 1

Martinez 3 Delgado 2 Feliciano 2 Milledge 1

Soler 5 Reyes 2 Bell 1 Woodward 1 Valentin 1

Wright 4 Trachsel 2 Chavez 2 Reyes 1 Wagner 1

yancy is the best!