Ceetar

It's probably a legit workload/innings cap/rest thing, but fun to needle him regardless.

They were never busts, particularly not last year. If you want to make a case for the 2019 Díaz/ballchange disaster, sure, but he was good last year and in 2020. Lindor had a bad first third or so, at worst. And the "toss-up" three weeks ago is overblown, The Mets were still the significant favorite to win the division by most projection systems.

Frayed Knot wrote: So at what point does a slump become a collapse? When ESPN flexes Yankee games for another team.

There's probably some "in the weeds" stuff that I'm not privy too, but I imagine that the game is being buffered to be "live" in the same way, and then commercials are loaded in separately, from a hard drive. Load times differ, etc, and the switching from the 'commercial' feed to the 'live game' feed takes variable amount of times that's not consistent, and factors in your connection, etc. Fwiw, I'm fine with the audio being a few seconds ahead of the picture. Then I just focus on the audio game, and use it as a cue to look up when Howie gets excited.

OK? So let's not go out there and write as if this is anything new. IT WAS NEW! They didn't tell anyone! Literally telling them what they should write. It's either antagonistic or he's the one in charge of what they write. So, I guess a little a, a little b.. =seawolf17 post_id=103976 time=1660585619 user_id=91] Thing is, either one of two things will happen from this point forward. Either (a) he's ineffective or his arm falls off, in which case there's no way he voids his last two years and we kick this can down the road, or ( he deGroms the rest of this season, in which case Cohen gives him a lifetime contract.

depending on how much truth you take from the antagonistic nature of the Mets to talk about this stuff ,and the aggregation nature of the media to just accept what they're given and not push I watch pretty much every post-game show either live or the following day and I sense no antagonism nor your described nature of the media. It's just more alternate-reality stuff that doesn't really exist to anyone paying truthful attention to details and not looking for smoke where there's no fire. Per Tim Healey, Alderson addressed the situation by saying, “Somebody goes out with a headline that it's a partial tear, that's what a bruise is. A bruise is a partial tear of the muscle, OK? So let's not go out there and write as if this is anything new. It's not. It's a very low-grade thing that has resolved itself.” seems antagonistic to me. And of course, there was literally zero follow up on that, and I don't even recall it being mentioned much this spring. The beat follows up on roughly zero stories, they write what they're told. You can go the other direction in time as well, the Mets had been insisting the MRI of deGrom's elbow were clean up until that point. Which is why the news was a little surprising. So it was clean, then it wasn't but it is now, and then who knows? Would it be really that far-fetched to think that maybe their was elbow discomfort AND a mild stress reaction and that they chose to focus on the one and obscure the other? What's going to happen, he's gonna win a ring and the Mets are gonna be like "oh, btw, his arm is in tatters. He can take 3/30 to stay here or try his luck when other teams see his scans."?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=103965 time=1660575627 user_id=68] He's a freak. He'll be 35 and he's been in the big leagues for nine seasons, now. He should be slowing down on age alone, and even if he had no major health issues to date. Yet he's throwing harder, more often and he appears to be, at the very least, as unhittable as he was last season when, rate-wise, he was having the best pitching season in the history of baseball.

They did offer him the QO. He signed during the acceptance period and then they acted all flustered when he signed elsewhere, which makes me think they weren't necessarily hoping to get the draft pick, which is unlikely to add even as much value just as 2022 Thor.

there was no one to beg. the Mets were busy begging people to work for them. And it was 3 million, iirc. The Mets took him for granted that no one would pay him more, and they lost. But hell, even if he'd pissed on the Seaver statue on his way out, if he could help the team next year, and he probably can!, bring him here.

his fastball velocity is still down, and isn't making a recovery right now, though interesting to see if it does after another rest period of an offseason.

He had some ups and downs in his recovery this year that probably wouldn't have gone over well, though winning certainly would've made it easier. Also the Angels pitched him a good plan, $3 million more, and the Mets were still trying to find someone to work for them, ignored him. Ended up working out okay, but I wouldn't mind having Thor back next year.

it plays in a browser and I can cast a chrome tab to my TV if i want. Doesn't work if I want to watch on a mobile device from say, the kitchen, though.

there 's no Android app i don't think.

The Keith thing is intriguing… https://deadspin.com/phillies-defense-is-what-grinds-keith-hernandez-s-gears-1849397077https://deadspin.com/phillies-defense-is-what-grinds-keith-hernandez-s-gears-1849397077 This article, however, sucks, as does everything Deadspinny. Has to be such a hot take all the time. yeah, I just linked it because I've found Deadspin to be mostly..fine..and the other choice was the NYPost which I don't even want to give the hot link too, complete and utter unredeemable trash. But then I read it and it came across as mostly philly fan whining. Deadspin was always pretty trash, but usually it did/does at least get the salient points.

The Keith thing is intriguing… https://deadspin.com/phillies-defense-is-what-grinds-keith-hernandez-s-gears-1849397077https://deadspin.com/phillies-defense-is-what-grinds-keith-hernandez-s-gears-1849397077

and Keith Hernandez doesn't want to watch them, because they play defense like me.

i think I Mentioned this on the podcast, but ..save some for next year? It seems like they're constantly adding on and overdoing it when they could just as easily be like "Hey, we're doing this every year! we'll call some different guys next year!" How can all those people actually _play_?

The Mets playoff magic number is 39. If the Mets went 20-30 the Padres would have to 31-18 AND the Phillies would have to go 32-21. the 2007 Mets went 25-25 and 0-7 against the Phillies. If the Mets went 0-7 against the Phillies, and went say 20-23 otherwise, the Phillies would still have to go 25-21 AND the Padres would still have to win 31 more.

=m.e.t.b.o.t. post_id=103318 time=1660155845 user_id=138] m.e.t.b.o.t. hopes that serious decisions and observations are not made using WPA as the primary basis, unless those observations center around alcohol-themed player ratings.

WPA tells about the outcome of events in the context of the game in which they happen. This is perfectly fine and as the stat should be used. But the stat is apportioned to individuals, where, as noted, the batter gets the disproportionate amount of the credit for the value of the event. So, you can look up player WPA and see, for example, that currently, Paul Goldschmidt leads the NL in WPA at 5.3. (Lindor is third at 3.1 and Marte is 5th at 2.6). Because that's how the stat is used, and understood by most fans -- as a tool to measure the value of individual and specific players, not events. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2022-batting-leaders.shtmlhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/2022-batting-leaders.shtml And then I have to hear Gary Cohen drool over the stat. And he's not talking about "events" or "event-driven stats". He's talking about WPA as it's applied to individuals. The thing is, it's great for Gary, Gary's the storyteller. He SHOULD be talking about the guys that are in the middle of it all, whether or not they're the "best" players. But in terms of using it in an evaluation manner..I guess it's a little better than using RBI, but not much.

you're overthinking it. https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/wpa.shtmlhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/about/wpa.shtml First off, there's some "probability" that a team wins a game. all things equal, its' 50/50. A team has a 50% chance to win a game before it starts. Now, this not actually true, the Mets are much better than the Reds. They might have deGrom pitching, etc, but that's irrelevant here. This is player-independent. We're talking results. So the Mets, and deGrom, are liking going to end up much higher than 50% to win the game real fast, but that depends on outs. So in your double example, yes, both doubles would have the same run expectancy. Based on millions of games, we know on average how many runs a team scores after a double. The thing here though is, that second double SCORED A RUN. So the chances a team wins when they hit a double, where the score after the play is 1-0 is OBVIOUSLY higher. We're not assessing how much _the player_ and his ability contributed to the ultimate win. We're assessing how much the _run scoring double_ contributed. Given all the run expectancy data we have, and run environments, we have a pretty good idea. Obviously the specifics matter though. An average team might win say 95% of games they go into the 9th inning up 1-0. The Mets, with Edwin Díaz (see, now we're on topic), are probably higher. So, while technically, someone might say "The Mets have a 95% chance of winning this game!". You could counter with "but we got Díaz . The Mets are better than that. So take McNeil's home run in the bottom of the 4th last night. The Mets were about 80% to win that game at that point. Kind of makes sense. They're up 2 runs and the other team only has 15 outs to work with, and the Mets have 18 outs to work with. You spot a team 2 runs and give them 3 more outs, they're gonna win most of those games right? Now make it three, and you're up to 87%. Now we go to the top of the 7th, Mets are up 4-0, but Cookie tires, gives up a 2-run home run, cutting the lead to two. WP drops from 94, to 86. That's 6% higher than the same 2-run lead in the 4th, obviously, because less outs. It keeps all the way down to 83% after the two singles. That's a tight situations, and Givens getting the K jumps it back up 6%. That's almost as much as the extra run McNeil added with his home run. I think that last bit's helpful, trying to parse the important moments of a game. How huge was Givens getting the K there? It was pretty damn big right? I don't think anyone argues with that. This is estimating (again, this is probability. Just simply, this situation has happened 30,000 times and breaking down how many times teams win in that situation) that the Givens strikeout was almost as big a moment as that extra run. Biggest moments last night, from a WPA standpoint. 18%, Lindor's 2R home run for the first runs. -9% for Fraley's home run cutting the lead in half. 7% McNeil's home run making it 3-0. 7% Ruf's single making it 5-2 in b7. 6% Given's strikeout.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=103242 time=1660100384 user_id=68] And we have dumb stats like WPA which gives all of the credit to the batter who drove in the run, as if the batters who preceded him and got on base don't even exist.

Botty McBotface wrote: The Mets are on fire and they're not slowing down The Nationals are in their way, but they'll soon be stepping down The Mets have proven they're the team to beat And when they clinch the East, it will be sweet The fans have been behind them all season long And they'll be there to cheer them on when they win it all It's been a long time coming, but this team is ready They have the talent, the drive, and the will to succeed This is their year, there's no doubt about it They'll make some noise in the playoffs, you just wait and see The Mets are destined for greatness, and soon they'll be crowned The kings of the NL East!

[attachment=0]pitchers.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=0]reds.jpg[/attachment]