Vic Sage

It's national "talk like a pirate" day!everybody say "AAAAARGH!"from Cap'n Nigel Bloodsmear...

http://lv51s.milbstore.com//store_contents.cfm?store_id=31&dept_id=-1&product_id=14162 but they have cool merchandise! I prefer aliens to hairy bovines. And i'm sure any players that had played (and lived) in Buffalo will be THRILLED to be so close to the Vegas strip instead, even if the stadium sucks. Although i'm sure the hitters will he happier than the pitchers.

you trade whichever one gets you back more. Neither has earned much more consideration than that, so far.

i refused to take my kids to any games this year; i didn't want to be charged with child abuse.

their big hitter is Shawn Green!

this thread took a turn somewhere. my initial question was why were we so much worse offensively at home (the worst in the league) than on the road (near the top), when CitiField was playing as a slightly but not overly pitching-friendly park, and visiting teams were not suffering the same degree of impact playing here. the only reasonable answers i got were "small sample size", but if 5/6ths of a season is a small sample size, than so is a season. And i'm willing to accept the proposition that an entire season is too small a sample size for the distinction between home/road production to be accurately assessed. But then "park factor" is meaningless, too, right? Anyway, the question devolved into why the Mets suck overall and we started psychoanalyzing the players, the coaches, the gm, etc., but i don't think you need to get into ephemera to answer THAT question. The Mets suck because their players aren't good enough... many analysts said so before the season, and so did some folks here. And if they continue to suck next year, it won't be because they carried their hurt feelings over the medical condition of Dillon Gee into next April, but because they didn't have a significant turnover of personnel. And with so much of their projected payroll tied up in 4 or 5 players (depending on what they do with Dickey and Wright's final year contracts), such turnover seems likely to be an increase in rookies and castoff vets from other teams. Which doesn't bode well for a quick turnaround.

It was a one-horse town... and then the horse died.

If I'm Buffalo I'd want more If i'm Buffalo, I want to be someplace else... anyplace else.

if say Ruben Tejada wakes up with a stiff back, you can get a guy here from Buffalo in time for a game, not so in Vegas. Tejada sits and Cedeno plays. And Turner plays behind him. that's what a bench is for. the guy from AAA can be there the next day. And there are guys in the 40-man in AA, too, and they're right down the coast. It is NOT a big deal. But it's supposedly one of the worst AAA stadiums, and the PCL is a crap place to get a good feel for hitters since it's so hitter friendly. yeah, Buffalo was a crap stadium, too... and it's in BUFFALO! And yeah, PCL numbers are skewed, but they can be corrected for in any analysis. DePodesta can show you how.

while i would agree that Megdal's view of the starting pitching is unfair (though this writer goes on too long defending the return of Dillon Gee, who's no more than a place holding mediocrity), I think its reasonable to look at the rest of the team as it is currently constructed and say "this team can't compete". It didn't this year and, if it returns without significant restructuring, it won't next year. Now Megdal is assuming no changes and this writer is expecting wholesale restructuring. However, Megdal's position is presumably based on the fact that SANTANA/BAY/WRIGHT (and maybe DICKEY if his contract is extended) will get more than 1/2 of next season's projected budget, so "wholesale restructuring", if it happens, would consist of dumping under-performing vets for other teams' under-performing vets, leaving us pretty much where we are. Of course its too soon to know, as this writer suggests, but that never stopped any writers from making projections anyway. This writer does it himself, with our starting pitchers, projecting who will be in the rotation and who will be better than average. Does Megdal have an ax to grind? yeah, probably. But all these "journalists" have a point of view; we just happen to know about Megdal's. That doesn't make him less honest, just more transparent.

bound to happen sooner or later. and it's [crossout:1qdql9mt]KeySPAN[/crossout:1qdql9mt], not [crossout:1qdql9mt]KeySTONE[/crossout:1qdql9mt]... Keystone is where the Mets play.

are people really sad or anxious about the loss of Buffalo as our AAA affiliate? Really? BUFFALO? I've seen a game at Buffalo folks and we won't be losing much. who cares where the AAA affiliate is located? Are we the ones buying the airline tix for the CitiField shuttle? Don't worry; we'll figure out a way to get them here if they belong here. And if a major leaguer needs a short injury rehab, they can play in Brooklyn. I remember watching Shinjo play there once. Vegas would be great for the AAA team; something to do there that doesn't involve me losing large stacks of cash. Lots of retirees from back east, too.

the best way for the Mets to start winning at home would be to do what everybody else does... play the Mets.

Boisclair offered a bit more contact, much less power, and a much better glove. And he played with Seaver, who gave him total consciousness... so he had that going for him.

Centerfield wrote: The offense sucks. They are 22nd in runs scored in MLB. Our lineup has no one with an OPS in the 900's. Our clean up hitter is at .752, and it took an incredible surge (mostly after we were out of it) to even get it that high. Our #5 hitter (Duda) is at .716. Jason Bay is at .546. We are lucky Scott Hairston played over his head to an .805 OPS or else we really would have sucked. Even our feel good story at SS is under .700 in OPS. Murphy has a nice looking BA, but his OPS remains in the low .700's. I thought our pitching was pretty good but we are 19th in MLB in staff ERA. This is surprising. I thought we had a pretty good rotation and the bullpen has been solid lately. I'm surprised to see this. So to sum up, we have shitty hitters and below average pitchers. I think the staff is pretty close to being a playoff caliber staff, so maybe just re-stock some bullpen arms and we will be in good shape for 2013. The offense is miles away from being competitive. granted to all of this, but why would the hitters be relatively productive on the road (4th overall, 2nd in the NL to SF) and just god awful at home (next to last overall, dead last in NL)? No one has given me a theory with even a hint of plausibility beyond random chance. and maybe there isn't one.

MFS62 wrote: Could the difference between the hitting numbers at home and on the road be because of the hitting background? I don't have the numbers, but you must have looked at them, Vic. Later i don't know what numbers one could look at to say its the hitting background. Visiting teams don't seem to have a problem hitting here. I mean, its not a hitter's park overall, but its not the Kingdome either. And the Mets pitching numbers are roughly equivalent in their mediocrity at home and on the road. So i don't get the split. And all the points ceetar makes (even if true) do not explain the extreme home/away split either. that the team doesn't like being near the Wilpons (and, of course, "CAHNFidence") are the closest to a theory that's been proposed, beyond the randomness that haunts baseball in a way most fans and NO ONE in the media wants to acknowledge.

so i was curious why we are where we are, at this point. I assumed it was our pitching. It's not. We are in the middle of the pack, both home and on the road, by most measures. So the pitching hasn't been GOOD, but it hasn't been terrible, overall. I looked at our hitting. ON the road, we score like the Yankees, near the top of the heap. But at home, we are the worst team in the NL, 2nd worst in baseball only to Seattle. So it seems pretty clear that our inability to score at home has been this season's main culprit. That's not based on HR rate, which even at Citi is middle of the pack or so. So to what do you owe our inability to score runs at home, even after moving in the fences this year? Is it just random? I'm inclined to think so, but i'd be interested in other theories.

The Second Spitter wrote: Why "North by Northwest" isn't held in higher regard by professional critics baffles me....always figured it was because Kim Novak was more revered than EMS. However, it gets lots of love on CPF -- iirc when we posted on our all-time top 10 lists, it appeared on the list of at least 5 CPFers. (Maybe it's time for us to repeat this exercise). Btw, has everybody seen the reimagined poster ? It made me laff. i have no doubt NXNW would make a lot of top10 lists on the CPF, or even among critics, if the criteria was "what are your FAVORITE (or even the BEST) films of all time?" I just think if your asking professionals (including critics) what are the "greatest" films, you'll get a slightly different set of responses (and they did). Because its a different question. "favorite" is entirely subjective, with no other criteria necessary beyond the listmaker's taste; "best" is a more qualitative, objective analysis, though still subject to the preferences of the listmaker's era; "greatest" is really about a picture's scale (i.e., largeness [not necessarily of physical size or scope]) of an extreme or notable degree, and of considerable originality, emotional power or intensity. These are not just semantic distinctions. "favorite" and even "best" are temporal judgments; "greatness" is a judgment that can last over time, as its more (though of course not totally) independent of subjective tastes.

that's probably why i tend to overrate RomComs that divert from the formula; its such a relief. f'rinstance, i really like the Brangelina MR. & MRS. SMITH, because its action-based, funny, and what they have to deal with to save their marriage (being assassins assigned to kill each other) is a hell of a lot more interesting than standard RomCom fare. But that's just a f'rinstance.

i remember a thread about that; intended franchises that were sunk by the failure of the first installment. REMO WILLIAMS, HOWARD THE DUCK, etc. This would jump up that list... in fact, given Carter's jumping ability, he should be able to get clear to the top.

the critics were wrong, and this was a perfectly enjoyable SF epic. And if they had called it, oh i don't know, WARLORD OF MARS (!) or something, instead of titling it after the name of ERB's secondary fantasy hero from 100 years ago that has been relatively obscure for decades, it might've sold a few tickets.

to answer my own question: Seaver never did it; he finished 1st in ERA and Ks in 1970, `71 & `73 (with a CY only in `73). Ws were harder to come by, finishing 2nd in Ws in `71 and `73 (5th in 1970). Gooden did win the triple crown once, in 1985, winning the CY. He came close his ROY year in `84, finishing 1st (Ks), 2nd (ERA) and 3rd (wins). on edit: DOH! Edgy beat me to it.

Amazin'... Did Seaver and Gooden ever do that with the Mets? I guess whoever has the strongest finish among Cueto, Kershaw and Dickey (assuming the Nats are serious about shutting down Strasburg) will win the CY. I think traditional voters go with the Wins leader provided his peripherals are comparable to the leaders in ERA and Ks (and sometimes even when they're not). But, the modern voters probably lean more on WHIP and Win Shares than they ever have before (see King Felix). Based on WAR, Cueto has the edge currently (6.0) over RA (5.0) and Kershaw (4.5), who are 1-2-3 right now.

i do think having a level playing field is more important in September, when teams are in a race, than it is in April, where teams are just sort of feeling each other out. And minor leaguers having good seasons would rather be rewarded by being allowed to play for a job in April then get a meaningless cup of coffee in September. But i do agree that of all the things i'd want to fix about MLB, this is pretty low on the list.

Vic Sage wrote: ...But he didn't deserve it here and i wished he'd outlasted Steve (I'll fuck the cleaning lady now, thanks) Phillips and the Wilpons. Edgy DC wrote: I hadn't realized that had become part of Phillips' name. yes, he changed it after getting fired by the Mets so he could heighten his profile and get hired by ESPN... it put his brand right in their wheelhouse. Of course, he changed it to "Steve (I'll fuck the intern now, thanks) Phillips" after being fired by ESPN, for similar reasons. Now, reduced to working a few Angels broadcasts, i wonder who he'll fuck now? Probably his audience.