dinosaur jesus

What I quoted is all I know. They've got an algorithm, but algorithm is just an anagram for logarithm to me, and I don't understand logarithms either.

No, it really doesn't make much sense to include information from 2019 and that weird year of 2020. But in Baseball Reference's defense, looking at the last 100 games would make more a lot more sense at a more normal time. There was probably no good way to project this season, no matter what approach you took. Even if you do it starting with player projections, what are you basing those on? Stats from two years ago? From last year, when they only played 60 games and a lot of them seemed to be pretty checked out? Just to make sure I wasn't making up what I said about Baseball Reference, I checked their projections page again. Here's their explanation: "MLB playoff odds are based on 1000 simulations of the rest of the season and playoffs. The team's estimated quality is determined by their performance over their last 100 regular season games (even if it spans seasons) and includes a regression to the mean factor." The obvious flaw there is that we don't really know what the mean is that we're supposed to be regressing to.

I've been comparing the Baseball Reference and FanGraphs projections for a while now. It is interesting how different they are. I think what's going on with Baseball Reference is that to get a good sample size they're looking at a team's performance over the last 100 games. As of today, the Mets are two games over .500 for that span. And Baseball Reference projects them to be two games over .500 for the rest of the season. That led to some screwy results earlier in the season, though. There was a point when the Mets had actually performed better than BR's original projection, but their playoff odds had gone down. And I think that's because the more games they played, the more games from the end of 2019, when they were really hot, dropped out of the sample. So if they won, say, three out of five, but a four out of five stretch from 2019 dropped out, the sample, and thus the projection, got worse In any case, if they keep playing well, and more and more of that lousy 2020 season drops out of the sample, you're probably going to see those projections jump.

That turned out to be a really nice four innings by Lucchesi.

Thank god they have Hosmer.

Can we trade for a starter like, now?

I'd like to see a study, too. It certainly looks like the shift takes away a lot more hits than it gives, but I'd be curious to see the details. I wouldn't put any credence at all in one or two plays in one game. Obviously there will be plays that will be hits against the shift and outs against traditional positioning. But the shift is about playing the odds, and if it pays off even a little more than half the time it's worth it. I also don't understand the point about traditional positioning being more effective when the ball isn't struck well. A well-designed shift puts fielders where the ball is more likely to be hit, whether it's struck well or not. Distributing the fielders for maximum coverage just means putting some of them where they probably won't be needed, just in case they are.

I guess it would be cool if the Yankees had a dramatic comeback and still lost. Winning this one would be perfect for Phillies fans. They'd get to whine and celebrate at the same time.

A good, satisfying win. Solid pitching, just enough hitting, and somehow at the end it wasn't really that close. The Mets just caught the Padres in the standings. Could be as high as third in the league by tonight. Not that important, but fun to see.

Either he's got some trouble with stamina or they're still being careful.

Cruised through the sixth. But losing a little velocity?

That's quite a Metly picture. Mays in his first game as a Met, Staub in his first season, Series hero Agee in his last, eternal Met Buddy Harrelson . . . And a nice sample of New York baseball history, with 1951 shaking hands with 1985. And the team they beat was the Giants!

Bobby Witt Jr.'s daddy didn't have a lot of experience with home run trots. Except watching them. Witt Jr. actually did touch home plate. The umpire got it into his head that he didn't, and in the minors you can't challenge the call so someone in New York can get it wrong too.

If he doesn't want to use his curve, maybe he could let someone else have it for a while.

The idiot on Twitter says he's actually talking about Jake dabbing at his glove, not the belt move. Not that that's any more credible. If he really is using something, as Bauer says everyone is (and he would say that, wouldn't he?), and the crackdown makes him stop, he'll have to go back to being 2018 DeGrom. I guess I can live with that.

Cheslor Cuthbert is one of my favorite baseball names. I had him on a fantasy team once, just for his name. I want Cheslor Cuthbert to be a Met.

I'm good with it. The two losses were frustrating because those were winnable games, but the wins were very satisfying. Getting contributions from the minor leaguers and emergency pickups is great, but getting them from Lindor and McCann and Smith is even better, since those are guys the team will need the rest of the way.

Is Nabil Crismatt his Star Wars name?

DeGrom's heartrate is lower than mine, I know that. At 3-2 with the bases loaded, having trouble spotting his breaking pitches, he goes with the same slider the batter has already passed on twice.

That was me! I called Lindor!

This game has no-hitter all over it. Prove me wrong, Mets.

Can we do the Greek alphabet next? I'm ready with Amed Rho-sario and Doug Psi-mons.

=roger_that post_id=66405 time=1622659257 user_id=128] W =probably impossible

Xavier Nady

Fun fact: Blankenhorn is German for "blank horn."