Ceetar

Frayed Knot wrote: As I pointed out the in a similar discussion a few days ago (about Wright in general but not specifically about retirement) this "reduced capacity" of which we speak is, counting the approx half-season worth of ABs amassed during the tail-end of last year plus the beginning of this one, a slash-line of .260/.372/.419 with about 18 HRs & 30 doubles over a 500 AB span. Reduced as compared to younger David Wright? - Sure Indicative of someone ready to be put out to pasture? - Not yet anyway but he's like 2 for his last 20, clearly he's done now right? flash forward to a month from now after he's hit 6 home runs and has a .405 OBP. but he's like 3 for his last 24, clearly he's done now right? He just _looks_ done.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I've been journalizming forever and would say I quote less and less all the time. I only try and use quotes when they truly say things I can't. And I cut the crap out of them and use only parts that move the story forward. 98% of the sports-story quotes published are worthless anyway, like the Gomez one. Doesn't change my thoughts, but I wonder how many high-ups are going: "Make sure you have player quotes in there!" because they're clinging to the idea that the beat guys having access to get mostly meaningless say-nothing quotes is the only thing keeping newspapers afloat.

Zvon wrote: My biggest fear is a sudden retirement. Like one day next week he says, nope, I can't do it any more. That would really floor me. Ugh, this sounds very stupid but I'd rather see him in there giving us whatever he has left as opposed to any other scenario (that doesn't involve a fantasy). So I'll watch his decline gracefully with respect. It'll be hard sometimes, to watch, but behind that I know this is very hard on him, so I temper my feelings with care. he was arguing himself into the game on Tuesday, so I can't see that happening.

If you want to clean the quotes, don't quote them. paraphrase. Otherwise, quote them as they say it.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I would think that if they're shifting dramatically like they've been, most pitches will be on the inner part of the plate, and it's gotta be pretty hard to hit that the opposite way. But if the shift is on, and you see an outside pitch, you have to be ready to poke it the other way. I'm pretty sure I've seen Lucas Duda do this a couple of times, but the opportunity has to be there. Actually most of the pitches to Duda are middle and middle-down just off the outside of the plate.

Centerfield wrote: You know, reading through that old thread again, it looks like we all thought he was unlucky last year, and we are thinking the same thing this year. I understand that the low BABIP suggests bad luck. But is it really? I mean, if he hits the ball to the same side of the field every time (which it seems he does) and it's the same side that all the fielders are standing on (which it almost is) then shouldn't we expect that his BABIP would be lower than pure chance would suggest? I don't know the answer. Just thinking out loud. Not really. Shifting hasn't really affected BABIP too much from what I understand. also his career is .299 and they've definitely been shifting against him for a while, so it's not likely that that number is artificially inflated.

batmagadanleadoff wrote: We already know that the Wilpons took out insurance on Wright's contract. but not the terms and deets. and it's often not possible for the last few years. I know he's dropped to only 9 percent better than an average player this year, but hell I'm not wishing he'd sit out. Also where's the "Plays through his contract thanks to the NL adopting the DH" option?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't think they intend to injure the guy either. That's insanity. But if given the choice of taking a 15 or 20% chance of compromising Harvey's chances of one day signing a nine figure contract so that the Mets might make an extra $40M or $80M in the post-season, I think I know how the Mets are thinking. Especially these Mets. I hope so. That's what I'd want them to do. I don't think it's a 15-20% chance either, I think it's very close to the number of extra pitches he throws. So if instead of 3300 pitches he throws 3630, he's roughly 10% more likely to get injured.

Centerfield wrote: Seven days is a long time, and we are giving away at-bats to a guy with a .576 OPS. TJ Rivera's hot streak may not last long, but why not try to catch some of that lightning while it lasts? Call him up. Give him a chance at forging the TJ Rivera Game. well there's the argument that Rivera's hot streak wouldn't exist against say Max Scherzer and Gio Gonzalez, but I do agree it's worth a shot. But Duda's back and Wright's stiffness cropped up suddenly and I certainly don't think it was the plan to start Campbell.

Edgy MD wrote: The Nunley's carousel was better than all or most of them. is! it _is_ better than most of them.

d'Kong76 wrote: Or until one of the internet 'reporters' Tweets his feelings about it. yes once Adam Rubin throws a fit about something you know it's real.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yes that's what I had, a can. I like beer in can more than a bottle anymore. I'm not sure why. The Rockaway is real good fresh from a tap. Citifield deserves credit for trying to reel in a bunch of local brews but at $10 a can it's tough! That's why I suggested parking lot drinking. I don;t have a favorite parking-lot beer, the "session" IPAs are good for that, I guess, but also when the weather is warmer than its been so far this year. Can beer keeps the beer fresher. even brown bottles let in 5% light and have oxygen that kills beer. Cans don't have those things. There are two taps of craft stuff on the promenade on "The Piazza" behind home plate. you'd probably pay 7-8 for some of these on draft in NYC anyway, so a $2-3 surcharge for the park doesn't bug me that much. But then I'm frequently seeking out stuff and even sometimes 4 or 6 packs can be $4 a beer anyway.

soupcan wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: Lefty Specialist wrote: Or that off the field distractions don't start becoming an issue The 42-year-old hurler has been dragged into Manhattan court by Alexandra Santos, 38, who claims the $7 million-a-year player, and married father with four sons, is a deadbeat dad who failed to pay child support for two elementary-school-age kids he fathered with her ... Non-story really. It's been ongoing for over a year and his wife has complete knowledge of it. yeah but it's not real until the post discovers it obviously.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I enjoyed a Rockaway ESB, brewed in nearby Long Island City by Lunchpail's soccer coach. As for drinking in the vicinity of CitiField, back in the 90s I was known to quaff imports at several joints around Woodside/Sunnyside including the Ploughboy, which I don;t even know exists anymore. In my old age I'd be more likely to pursue beers in Long Island City, a hub of city craft-brew activity conveniently located off the Vernon-Jackson stop of the 7. In addition to Rockaway, which is interesting inasmuch as its probbably the only craft brewery ever not to lead with an IPA but with an English style, you have Big Alice brewery and Transmitter brewing, which I believe specializes in stinky sour beers (never been). LIC also has nice beer bars including Alewife (been) and Bierocracy (never been). In conclusion, Citi Field beer drinking is best done out of a paper bag in the parking lot. harsh! although paper bag in the parking lot is better than most places. Can I quote you on that? How shall I quote you on that? Most of the quotes are Person - Organization, so MBTN? Would you like me to email this? where? Thoughts on the ESB, or another NYC/Citi type beer that you'd want to rep? Or which beer you'd like to drink out of the paper bag in the parking lot?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Scherzer will shirley get his share of whiffs but has also been vulnerable to the long ball. Look for me in 510 tonight, maybe drinking a craft beer to help Ceetar's research project.... Boom! deets!

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: he won't, he can't, even if he goes 4/4 that doesn't justify the decision to sit your good hitter for your crappy bench guy. Winning is always good. you can hit on 19 in blackjack and win, doesn't justify your process.

Zvon wrote: According to reports, no injury. Just TCs decision to bench him. I don't know that that will help Duda. Nothing fazes him. He just had a day off. I think he needs to work it out at the plate. I'd love it if Campbell made Shorty look like a genius tonight. he won't, he can't, even if he goes 4/4 that doesn't justify the decision to sit your good hitter for your crappy bench guy. If he's truly healthy anyway. Need more than a publicly stated report from Alderson to believe that.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Scherzer will shirley get his share of whiffs but has also been vulnerable to the long ball. Look for me in 510 tonight, maybe drinking a craft beer to help Ceetar's research project.... Not really my project technically, but thanks ;-)

Not specifically Mets, but I'm helping out with a beer and baseball ebook project and am looking for a quote or two about beer near/in Citi (or YSIII) if any of you want to help out.

Frayed Knot wrote: So 41% looking-K's so far this year as opposed to 33% in his last full(-ish) season. Might be a stat that bears watching as the season goes on. Also, not sure what the overall pct on called-v-swinging 3rd strikes is but 41% called does seem high. 81/317 for the Mets as a team. 25.5% 24.8% last year. 33% for Wright in 2007. So is a bit high right now but it'd only take 6 in a row swinging to get him to 34%. So still relatively small sample. Lefty Specialist wrote: As for Duda's low BABIP it's not a matter of luck, it's a matter of the shift. That's not going to improve unless he hits it to different places. This is demonstrably false.

Edgy MD wrote: Yes, shifting works. That's why I advocate for a plan to combat it. Filtering this through a bottom-of-the-ninth scenario kind of queers the argument beyond recognition. Well it DEFINITELY doesn't work in the aggregate, but I was addressing the idea that if you desperately needed one hit, in one situation, if you should drop down the bunt and the answer does seem to be. No.

Frayed Knot wrote: My main concern with Wright is not just the number of Ks -- already 20+% more than last year's partial season in only 70-some% of the PAs -- but the seemingly large percentage of them that are looking. I'm not quite sure specifically what to make of that (becoming more of a guess hitter?) but it's noticeable. btw, anyone know of an easy way to find K's-looking vs K's-swinging? 17 looking, 27 swinging. I went to his play log on Fangraphs and ctrl-f for 'struck out looking'. I don't know if there is a better way. 37 and 74 in 2014.

Edgy MD wrote: (1) You don't have to bunt well in order to beat an extreme shift. Adequate suffices (2) Yes, making them let up on the shift is an aim of the occasional bunt. Getting an easy hit now and then would be another aim. But successful bunts, unsuccessful bunts, foul bunts or just squaring can all affect the positioning. (3) It ain't just DooDoo. I don't know that we have data on how good Duda is as a bunter, but I bet it's not even adequate at this point. Is honing his bunting the best use of his time? 2. I doubt unsuccessful bunts are affecting the positioning. When the teams pull spray charts and see next to nothing in terms of hits on the ground to the left side, they're not going to move a guy over there based on a few times he squared or fouled out from the advance scouting reports. Every pitch he's thinking about the outside corner and squaring is one where he's not looking for a pitch to drive. You're literally giving up home runs for a few easy singles. I'm not sure what the numbers look like for 2-strikes, but I'm not convinced it's worth taking that approach even there. 3. Duda's the classic example, but yes, they shift everyone because it works. What's the max certainty you can get on getting a hit to the left side like that via bunting or what not? 80%? That's probably high. This suggests it's like 50% and probably lower for guys like Duda and other extreme shifters. Duda reaches base safely 34.3% of the time. Bottom 9, down by a run, bases empty, I want Duda swinging no matter how much they're shifting. There could be no one there but the first baseman and the pitcher and it's probably still more likely the Mets score by him swinging.

nobodies getting fooled by Lucas Duda or some other masher occasionally deciding this at-bat he's going to lunge over the plate to slap one the other way, or working hard on bunting well in order to drop one down the third base line. You'd have to do it so regularly for it to move the spray charts. Unless you mean show bunt the first pitch to try to get guys to take a few steps over or in. I don't want Duda looking to flick pitches on the outside corner to the left trying to avoid the one guy there. I want him focusing on driving the ball. Which he does to all fields. He's only an extreme pull guy in terms of grounders. And grounders aren't really where Duda's going to be successful. .his low BABIP is a factor of luck, not the shift.

d'Kong76 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Also, lay down a few bunts just to gum up the shift works. Bunting is beneath the dignity of nobody. Professional hitters should be able to slap an outside pitch the other way 2-3 times out of ten without laying down a bunt? I forget where I heard it, but bifl... That's what the opposition WANTS you to do. Look for the outside pitch to slap the other way rather than the inside pitch to drive over the wall. They even pitch him that way. The top 3 of 20 pitch zones on Brooks Baseball are just off the plate middle-away, and the two zones down from that. These are also the areas of the strikezone that are extended for lefties that aren't for righties so even though they're balls, they're sometimes called strikes. And they're off the plate, so it's not like you're driving it the other way, you're hitting a soft two-bouncers to the one guy playing over there who slings it to first and you're out. And bunts probably have a high-percentage chance of going foul, given that you have to reach for it.