Ceetar

metirish wrote: May I suggest that the Daily News is a train wreck? Yes, but please don't provide any more evidence. Where did our good sportswriting/blogging thread go?

I hope we don't have more 90-120 minute games. Too fast. build some drama. plus, opponent throwing strikes or not, take some pitches, foul some off, give Gee a moment to catch his breath! Gee can be alright, but he doesn't have enough talent to always do that. when he hits his spots, sure, he can hang with anyone, but he can't get away with bleeding into the strike zone too much or a stingy ump. I don't think it's a surprise that Gee has excellent, and moreso as offense has declined (thanks in part to a bigger strike zone) leaguewide. Not knocking Gee by any means. I'm happy with what he's given us over the years and I'm not looking to chase him based on his abilities, but we still have (likely) upgrades.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Milwaukee. Woof. What? They're tied for the lead in wins with Bartolo Colon and Matt Harvey. Good company right?

d'Kong76 wrote: Ceetar wrote: And Rey Ordonez made the majors too. HEY! No playing the Rey card! He could've used a Designated Hitter.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Saying "pitchers should learn how to hit" seems a little facile to me. Not every top athlete can learn how to hit. (Didn't Michael Jordan have problems hitting in Double A?) It's just that when a first baseman or an outfielder can't hit, he doesn't get anywhere near the big leagues, even if he's good with the glove. But a pitcher who can't hit will still advance because nobody ever cut a pitcher because he couldn't hit a breaking ball. And Rey Ordonez made the majors too. But the lack of hitting still hurts the team.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's absolutely why this is an issue "Absolutely"? I don't think you mean to use that word. I fear you're too caught up in your own agenda to actually read what's going on. This discussion was clearly triggered by two pitchers getting hurt. That's the trigger, not the reason.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: Sure, but if all pitchers took hitting as seriously as he did last year, this wouldn't be an issue. If you've been reading attentively, you'd see that that's not why this is an issue. If you're concerned that pitchers and teams don't take hitting seriously enough, by all means, advocate for a more serious approach be taken. Please put the Mets and their pitchers at the front of this advocacy. The way I see it, if teams are generally neglecting an improvable part of their game, it's an opportunity for the Mets. It's absolutely why this is an issue. Offense is down and it's starting to become a hot button issue. Pitchers are failing to hit at historic levels. Pitchers get hurt all the time, and plenty of times it's at the plate. Bumgarner is in the minority that sees it as part of his job. The other's don't. If this happened 20 years ago no one would be taking the complains seriously but because there is almost no value being added by pitcher's batting, it gets traction. It's an opportunity for everyone, and yet no one is taking it. Maybe the Dodgers, who did alright last year, but that could've easily been a fluke. I don't exactly have Sandy or Terry's ear though. Given control, sure, I'd rather the pitchers care about hitting than the DH, but given the state of the game right now, gimme the DH and stop with this farce.

Gwreck wrote: Madison Bumgarner, on the correct side of this issue. "What if he got hurt pitching? Should we say we can't pitch anymore? I hate what happened to him. He works his butt off out there. But I don't think it was because he was hitting. What if he gets hurt getting out of his truck? You tell him not to drive anymore? That's the way the game has to be played. I appreciate both sides of the argument and I get it. But [ending pitcher plate appearances] isn't the way to go about [addressing] it." "It's a beautiful game to me the way it is. That's obviously the way baseball started and I'm a traditional guy. I'm not much for change. I know people argue both sides, but for me, from what I see, it's a more challenging game. It's more challenging for managers. There's so much more that goes into it in the National League than, 'let 'em pitch until they can't get outs anymore.'" Sure, but if all pitchers took hitting as seriously as he did last year, this wouldn't be an issue. 17/66 with 2 walks, 2 doubles and 4 home runs. .258/.286/.470 he had the highest ISO on the team last year. Do something well as a pitcher. You don't have to be even replacement level, but have a serious slugging percentage, lead the league in pitcher walks (Jon Niese at 6 was one behind Strasburg), even execute picture perfect bunts 99% of the time and run hard would add more value than probably 95% of pitchers these days. They're not taking this seriously. And it's not just the pitchers, it's the entire organizations. Hell, the media doesn't help either. Occasionally you'll get a guy asking about a failed bunt by a pitcher, but rarely do see a manager asked hard questions about how a pitcher keeps failing to come through with RISP. "Terry, Colon has stranded 13 runners over his last three starts, in which you lost by a combined 5 runs. Talk about that." And then Terry never responds "Long's been working with him. He's been putting in some time in the cage and made an adjustment we think well help." No, we get jokes about maybe Colon can get 4! hits this season. Like it's a trivial piece of information and not important at all.

Frayed Knot wrote: This IS the rule to the game. -- What is? And where is that declared how that's going to be handled and who can and cannot block it? -- I have no idea what you mean by this. MLB has the power to alter rules with the consent of players and umpires depending on who is affected. In 1973 the AL decided to create the DH rule and did so via a vote by their clubs (by 2/3 majority I believe). The NL never did any such thing. I think this rule was previously a power of the league president, but I'd have to look at an archive for that. If so, where is the rule stating how that's handled now? club presidents? sometimes it's just Manfred decided these things,because they're usually trivial. -- NONE OF THESE THINGS can be decided by just one person, whether by the league presidents, or Bud Selig, or Rob Manfred, or Manfred Mann. And I have no idea what is being referred to as "trivial" where in the rules does is say the words 'may elect' means a vote of the league's clubs and/or consent of the players? Besides that that's how they did it to add the DH rule to the rulebook? The Merger of the NL and AL and the abolishment of the presidents makes them all one entity run by the commissioner. I mean, all these things are run by committees nowadays. It'd probably ultimately work exactly the same way instant replay rules and pace of play rules went into effect. Technically Tony Clark of the Players Association was in agreement with them, but I can't find any indication that his consent was required. They established a committee to address the pace of play, and then that committee, Clark, and Selig/Manfeld announced them. I don't think that went to a vote of NL owners.

Yes, any league MAY ELECT to use it. That means that by a vote of the league's clubs (approval by the owners) and, because it is a change in the rules of the game, consent of the players, a league may agree to start (or stop) using the rule But that's a far different scenario than Manfred sitting up on high saying: 'I decree that starting tomorrow ...' This IS the rule to the game. And where is that declared how that's going to be handled and who can and cannot block it? I think this rule was previously a power of the league president, but I'd have to look at an archive for that. If so, where is the rule stating how that's handled now? club presidents? sometimes it's just Manfred decided these things,because they're usually trivial.

Edgy MD wrote: Remind me: What was the reason they nearly invariably wore black with Glavine on the mound? The rule/rumor/theory is that the starting pitcher got/gets to choose the uniform. Glavine liked the black.

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: Considering I believe the only thing that has to happen (either for adding or removing) is simply the Commish to be all "Make it so" at the beginning of the season. He's a commissioner not a dictator and as such can neither make it happen unilaterally nor banish it. This is an owners + players decision. The best Manfred, or his successor, can do is try to steer the argument. The Rulebook wrote: 6.10 Any League may elect to use Rule 6.10(, which shall be called the Designated Hitter Rule. It's simply "let it be so"

Considering I believe the only thing that has to happen (either for adding or removing) is simply the Commish to be all "Make it so" at the beginning of the season. So seems rather inevitable, especially if offense continues to fall and be deemed a problem.

Not until he proves he's clean.

I'm on board. I've given up hoping the pitcher's will actually taking hitting seriously. They don't. As amusing as Colon is to watch, he's hurting the Mets with the bat. (although small sample size this season he's actually helping) Pitchers openly joke about not being paid to hit. They're not taking it seriously at any level. It gets worse and worse every year. It's so low right now that a truly innovative team would be training their pitchers to hit just because the adding value of all your pitchers even hitting .200 is significant. Pitchers hitting is now like actually throwing the 4 balls for an intentional walk. There is very little strategy difference even. Besides the bunting thing, which again, is because pitchers can't hit. It's a couple of handfuls of decisions a year where it's truly a conundrum whether to give your pitcher another inning or pinch hit for him. it makes the strategy tougher for the pitchers too. Instead of having holes to work around so you rarely have to get burned by the 8th or 9th guy, you legitimately have to pitch and figure out how to get guys out. There's no lull in the cycle.

If Mets were sloppy last night, how will they look in a night game after a late night game in another city?

we need to bring the black back.

stunted spring and long track record will overrule the small sample start. Murphy will be fine. And they're certainly going to wait until he has a hot streak if they're going to shop him. And if not, he probably plays all season and gets a QO (and the Mets will make it known he won't start in 2016) which he won't accept.

Right, they always say when you fall down you should get right backup on the Teixera

well, oops. getting ready to do Simon Says with Cuppy

TransMonk wrote: I seem to remember Alexa doing some "Free Shirt Friday" promo commercials and some-such last season, but nothing more. Gelbs was Kevin's backup last year, right? If so, it's only right that he got the job with Kevin's departure. Maybe Alexa is Gelbs' backup now. will be interesting to see. Yeah. she, along with Cristina and Brandon are the 'in-game promo entertainment guys' or something like that. But I thought it was a Citi Field/Mets promo not an SNY one. Not that those lines aren't blurred.

TransMonk wrote: Ceetar wrote: They let Alexa do some interviews in Spring Training. Can we call her up or is there super-two considerations? I don't really care about Alexa (I think the sideline reporter is mostly unnecessary), but it does seem as if a lot of the Fox-y networks are moving to Erin Andrews-esque eye candy to deliver the fluff in baseball and all sports. Ms. Andrews even bumped out Pam Oliver a couple of years ago as the #1 sideline reporter on FOX NFL. If one Googles "sideline reporter", the words "hottest", "beautiful" or "sexy" appears in the majority of the top results. If it gets more folks watching (for whatever reason), it's hard to see SNY not eventually following suit with a young blonde. Oh, and I'm not a fan of Gelbs. Little bit of catch-22 here. Need more women in prime roles in baseball, but not because of how they look. But does that make it hard to give Alexa, or someone else, the job? Of course, it's not _really_ tricky, as long as you make the decision for the right reasons and make the job as in depth as it's been and not demote it to eye-candy fluff. The Mets didn't actually seem to interview for this job though. They just kept it internal and went with Steve. I wasn't even aware Alexa was a SNY employee, if she even is, until this Spring. I figured she worked for the Mets. But of the only two (three, I'm forgetting Eamon..) to try out I liked her best.

Orosco

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd like to see the streak at least hit 12, since the Mets have never done it before, but I'm really hoping it hits 14. After that, they have my blessing to lose on Monday, if they feel they have to. hell, the Marlins suck, they can drop a few to them if they pick it up again against the Nats.

If we're taking/took back New York, then any game in NY is technically a home game right? The Mets haven't lost in the Bronx since June 10th of 2012. They're riding a 4-game winning streak in that building, and since we know this Mets team goes to at least 11, it should be a cake walk right? At least, a cake walk for C.C. Sabathia who purposely came to camp fat despite the rest of the team dieting. It's Jacob deGrom against Michael Pine Tar Pineda and it seems to be a chilly day so expect to get a little sticky. The Yankees acquired Pineda for Jesus? Montero who was gonna be a stud catcher until he wasn't, and David Phelps, who we faced earlier this week.