Ceetar

Centerfield wrote: The good news is that Wheeler has kept them scoreless. If he keeps it up, it will be back to back good starts for Wheeler. He had been doing the good start, bad start thing his last many turns. For those watching, is he using a splitter? Gameday classifies 4 pitches as splitters, but I believe it's pretty spotty with pitch identification.

I have/had a black and orange Mets shirt i got from BJs somewhere. Wore it to an On The Border in Paramus once and had a guy briefly talk up a prospect that I didn't recognize. I just nodded and went about my business but he saw me again later and realized it was the wrong team. Anyway, The Orioles suck, please pluck them.

Ramirez has had one good year in four, Bautista was just bad last year.

Would I rather have Gonzalez or would I rather have two lesser players split time at first? uh..

G-Fafif wrote: Centerfield wrote: This thread title is misleading. Tonight is pretty brutal. Yeah, go figure. well, most of this thread happened before the brutality. Maybe we're past it and up to a 10-2 stretch now.

Fman99 wrote: Lolligagging to first base by Bruce costs him a 2B. #sad He's not on base very often, so he may have forgotten.

[tweet:10t0j4ap] [/tweet:10t0j4ap]

Just get the damn pitching in order. Many of these teams suck at run creation. Brewers are 25th. Diamondbacks 27th. Rockies 30th. Braves aren't really that good, it's that beginners luck/prospect shine, and it'll wear off. fuck the Yankees. They're getting really lucky with their non-Severino pitching. Those guys aren't that good, and they're also having some of that prospect shine/beginners luck. (bolstered by short fences obviously)

Can't be worse than Jose Reyes.

Edgy MD wrote: Having the presence of mind, character of heart, and fleetness of foot to skedaddle quickly to first does have something to do with you. And heck, even being a threatening enough hitter that it takes bouncing balls in the dirt to get you to whiff has something to do with you. to the first..i mean, maybe. But it's already a rare thing and it's even rarer that it's close enough that things like fleetness of foot matter. And it remains something that's not particularly skill-based or repeatable. Adding it to OBP would actually make the stat even less reliable to look at to see who's having a good year, who's creating runs. As to the second, well, it's really hard just to throw strikes. Pitchers bounce pitches to the worst of batters, and it probably says even more about you if you're swinging at it.

seawolf17 wrote: I feel like it has to still count for *something*, though. You can't have an out without someone catching the ball. right but what happens to the ball past when you swing and missed has really nothing to do with you.

Edgy MD wrote: Because the defense didn't complete the play, and therefore they've performed worse. Yes, I think reaching on errors and passed balls/wild pitch-strikeouts should count in your on-base percentage, but it don't. well, it's still not indicative of batter skill. It's luck of the pitch, the catcher, the outs, the runners. Adding it to OBP would just be confusing, and most modern evaluation stats would strip it back out anyway. https://sabr.org/research/dropped-third-strike-life-and-times-rule It looks like it really should just go away anyway. One of those odd remaining bits from the 19th century. Basically, you were supposed to swing and put the ball in play, that WAS the game. if you swung and missed three times the third swing was automatically 'ball in play'. This evolved when they moved to a 'fly game' where if you caught that ball it was an out, and that was what was expected. You were also able to catch balls after only one bounce for an out. So it remained that you could purposely drop the third strike to trigger the force at all bases and get a double or triple play out of it, and when fielding equipment evolved to make this way more likely, they changed the rule to eliminate it with a runner on first < 2 outs but that's basically the end of it. The rule is vestigial and should probably go the way of the intentional walk.

Vic Sage wrote: it should count. it indicates you didn't give up on the play and hustled your ass down the line. there should be a statistical reward for that. you struck out. you suck. you're lucky there is any loophole at all. I'm not entirely sure I understand WHY this is a loophole either.

smg58 wrote: I had to do some serious tweaking of my pitching staff (and made myself broke in the process), but I like where I am right now. I just hope I don't regret cutting Matt Olson when all is said and done -- it was like he was waiting for word that I dropped him before saying to himself, "OK, you can start hitting now." my OF is decimated so I'll happily make you eat that crow.

Cancel the fire sale

the data that suggests they're a bad team is fraught though.

d'Kong76 wrote: .500 is/was in the balance this weekend, I really don't know why you want to bust my hump over it. I'm certainly not rooting for going to, or under, .500 this weekend. busting 'woe is me' pessimistic attitude is my job.

Fman99 wrote: I wish we had a non-Ottoneu option for the CPF'ers to all play each other, maybe in 2019 we do a free Yahoo or ESPN league and give it a go. Ceetar does play in my long standing money/keeper league that I've run since 2002 (I'm in 12th out of 13 this year). Can we make it mandatory? ;-)

Re: IGT 05/18 - Diamondbacks at Mets - Weekend .500 not tonight boss.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Does this mean you don't like Bryce Brentz? he's hurt.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Good. Now the big boys from New York City can go and buy Giancarlo Stanton, like any normal franchise from the world's greatest city would do. first you gotta sell off equal value out of the infield though to fit it into the payroll.

yeah but why was the Rapunzel nightgown i bought measured in 'up to 118 cm' what does that mean? and why is there a size 4 but then it's 5/6?

no one measures babies to the 100th of an inch! Have you tried to measure a baby? It's not easy!

Harper is a troll and a bad writer. You literally couldn't do less analysis and end up with a stupider click-baity post. Please no one link to it.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: they're 7 over, we're not going to get them to .500 He's talking about the Mets. It's the only logical reading. And most likely outcome. Fangraphs projects the Diamondbacks to go 58-61 the rest of the way and the Mets to go 62-61. Arguably that means the Mets are considered slightly better and hence the 'most likely' outcome is the Mets winning.