Ceetar

Centerfield wrote: Ceetar wrote: Everyone finished the season active or at least recovering right?. That is literally everyone in baseball except Jennry Mejia. Even David Wright is "recovering". no it's not. guys have surgery in the offseason. Michael Conforto's timeline is April-May and he hasn't yet done baseball stuff. I think all the pitchers are either healthy or they had minor procedures that they've recovered from, it's just the offseason so they don't pitch. We're not waiting on status updates from any of them.

all our injury issues ARE behind us. Everyone finished the season active or at least recovering right? That's ahead of the game with a rotation these days. I'm sure we'll lose at least one before Opening Day, just by odds. there are also injury issues in front of us. they may or may not be related. there isn't a guy out there that doesn't come with that risk either. Mickey has already discussed possibly putting one of those starters in the bullpen. If you sign another guy, you do have to deal with the idea of putting some of those guys in the minors. Maybe one of Wheeler, Matz, Harvey. I haven't looked at what options they have, but demoting guys like that isn't a decision you make likely, all merit based arguments aside.

41Forever wrote: And her statement about Tebow is insulting to him. He's not there for entertainment. he's there to promote his own brand and image. also, they're all there for entertainment. That's what baseball is.

Centerfield wrote: Kristie Ackert says no Colon. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/mets-not-talking-colon-shouldn-bring-sexy-back-article-1.3772046 Source reiterates the party line that the starting pitching is just fine. Mets starters ranked 27th out of 30 teams. This is supposed to be the strength of the rotation. good news, 2017 is not 2018 and pitchers won't exactly replicate those results. especially Thor. and the 'party line' has always been that the Mets would like a reliable veteran arm.

Pitch Perfect 3 for all awards. the best movie I saw all year. also the worst movie I saw all year.

It's somewhat tedious to ascribe off-hand quote from a 'source' as a part of a plan instigated by the Wilpons.

Maybe, if he'll take a minor league deal and won't force the roster crunch unless we needed him, there's some value in a mop-up type 2-3 IP reliever for spots. He could bogart some wins that way too, he definitely has a better shot getting wins as a reliever, as long as you could convince him of that.

Frayed Knot wrote: Even *I* have enough of a life to where I could be doing things with that time. Are you not doing other things with that time? I mean, pitching changes are the perfect time to bitch about the manager on twitter and check other games.

Baseball is not in any danger. They should absolutely try to curb dead time, as they always should. But they're not exactly desperate to make drastic changes. Put the pitch clock in and hurry things along I guess, but baseball is not on some slow march to obscurity.

Nymr83 wrote: Tebow is invited! makes the cut even more fun.

I'm generalizing. Reducing a game from 3:05 to 2:55 or whatever literally isn't going to make a single person say "hey, now i'll watch!"

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Yes, but on the other hand, it's someone who goes to bed without seeing the commercials that air in the later innings. Making pitching changes quicker would help a lot, I think. Limit it to three warm-up pitches on the mound. (How many do they currently get?) 8. one commercial, for the time to get the reliever to the mound. as many warmup pitches as he can fit in before 45 seconds are up. go. no one truly cares about pace of play though. The biggest complainers are the media, so it just sounds louder.

if we upgraded the technology to call balls and strikes, fair/foul, maybe even safe/out, most replays wouldn't even need to happen.

no, the only real place to cut significant time, barring literally legislating that the pitcher has to immediately throw the ball again when he gets it, is to eliminate warmup pitches. This would also technically eliminate some commercial breaks though, which is probably why it's not being discussed. It's really the only time of game something isn't happening. Even replays if you dislike them have everyone arguing/discussing/clamoring about whether the call was or wasn't right. There's some bitching when it's like a play at first with 2 outs and no one on, but the drama when it's say a trapped catch in the outfield that may or may not score 2 and tie the game isn't dead time. And it feeds that outside the game discussion/fan debate that is important to interest in the sport.

we're more than 2 months from that concern though, and I think Adrian actually has more to lose with a bad spring training. even if they gave him the job off that, if Smith is mashing 10 games in in Vegas and A-Gon isn't, he's, well, A-Goner. Or at least back to the bench. Also just because Sandy promised him some measure of playing time doesn't mean Mickey has to put him in the lineup everyday. Here's a scenario for you. might be a long shot, but.. let's say they sign a guy. Frazier. Walker, whatevers. So we've got Cabrera, Walker, Flores, Rosario, Smith, Gonzalez. Those are the 6 spots, 2 backups 4 starters, presumably. what if David Wright is non-dead for a few weeks to start the season? The probability isn't zero. Do you hand it to Gonzalez, put Smith in the minors and bank on a Wright DL by say 4/15? or do you just cut Gonzalez and go with it?

Vic Sage wrote: https://www.sny.tv/mets/news/smith-should-get-chance-to-compete-with-gonzalez-for-first-base-job/264882428 "There is somewhat of a defined role as far as starting a certain amount of games," Gonzalez said, adding that he'll serve as a mentor of sorts for Dominic Smith during Spring Training. Yeah, let's see how that goes. Sandy told him what he needed to hear to be signed. The only way Gonzalez is starting the majority of the games by mid-April is if he's hitting and Smith is not, and in all honesty, if he's legitimately contributing, fine.

Vic Sage wrote: now that i hear that that A-Gon is being granted the starting 1bman spot going into camp (or rather, its his to lose), and that they are PLANNING for Smith to be sent down, i'm downgrading my indifference on the deal to a negative "feh". Its one thing for A-Gon to come into camp as insurance, and as motivation for Smith, and to help groom the kid, but to give him the preference as the starting 1bman? Giving up on a 22-year old with real minor-league production? That's just... stupid. citation needed.

according to baseball-reference Alex Trevino Karim Garcia Perez Armando Reynoso Juan Acevedo Fernando Salas Rigo Beltran Frank Estrada Elmer Dessens Luis Ayala Ricardo Rincon were all born in Mexico.

Walker is the best choice. Nunez would be fine, i guess. he really doesn't walk enough though.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Centerfield wrote: He passed his physical. That means he's totally healthy right? Did Ray Ramirez administer it? If so, all bets are off. Ray Ramirez doesn't work for the Mets, so I hope not.

technically old, but MLB just tweeted this with videos of 1988 Mets on Sesame Street http://m.mlb.com/cutfour/2018/01/17/264815160/mlb-players-on-sesame-street?partnerId=sf83239461&sf83239461=1

Zvon wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: In short, zvon, batting average tells you about what happened. But it tells you a lot less about how the player performed (because of all the statistical noise-- most of it fielding-related-- that Ceetar outlined) As such, it's got less predictive value than other measures (such as line-drive percentage) I don't doubt any of that. I'm just saying don't dismiss batting average altogether (to Ceets). I'd like my card backs to include all the new stats, they are very telling. But I'd also like to see the B.A. right there at the end. yes, but the reason you like to see it is because you've always seen it and it feels right and helps you relate modern players to ones you remember. but it's faulty and fails to really do an adequate job of that. They're fine trivialities. like uniform numbers, or RBI or pitcher wins.

Edgy MD wrote: Matthew Brownstein of The Times is reporting that Sandy is hoping for May 1 with Conforto. That's serious business, probably suggesting that the Mets need to live life as if they're looking at August 1. And I think I like the Bruce deal a lot more upon reading that. actually this is literally exactly the same place we were yesterday, as per Alderson. That was always the timetable, always the date. There have been no updates and won't be until roughly when camp opens. But perhaps it does make the Bruce signing more palatable.

I'd rather give Nimmo a 2B glove.

Zvon wrote: Ceetar wrote: Fielders just don't muff a lot of balls. you hit the ball on the ground, it's an out. 76% of the time. you mention a fielder could drop it, that's luck. it doesn't make it a good strategy. it's part of the reason bunting is typically bad, because simply putting the ball in play is not helpful. less and less so, as fielding is better and better. If you can't hit it hard, better to take the strike than flick it into play hoping it works. Literally 69% of the time a line drive becomes a hit. That's just logical, less time in the air means the fielders cover less ground. Reaching approximately 25% of the time on errors is substantial at the MLB level. That's a big amount considering these guys are the best who play the game. A manager can do a lot with that extra amount. An outfield error isn't luck! That's baseball. That's being human. That's part of the game! One of the things that makes this game great. I don't wanna watch perfect robots play. Most of the time I see it done these days bunting sucks, so I agree w/u there. There are only a few good times to give yourself up. Of course it's better to take pitches that aren't in your zone as opposed to trying to flick em somewhere. Good hitters don't do that very much at all, unless they are seriously fooled. Part of the game. I'm also sure, like you, that line drives become hits more than any other type of contact (I like that 69% info). But there are other types of hits and they all count. I'll have to read and address the rest of this later tonight, heading out. of course all the hits count. they're still lucky and not reproducible. That's not 24% reaching on error, that includes hard hit balls through the holes. 1.6% is the reached on error percentage for last year. ish.