Ceetar

I actually stayed in that area once before, the last time the Mets were down there. Got to the hotel the same time as an ambulance. No idea what was going on. Felt like your typical just out side the airport hotel strip. Right off the highway, so suits me. I'm hoping for a captivating game to keep me occupied while driving, which means I'll either get a 12-0 blowout with little going on, or it'll be a snoozefest through about 8 and the Mets will get the go-ahead run to the plate just as I pull into the hotel and have to get out.

d'Kong76 wrote: #6 to be retired in August ... they're gonna run out of #'s Somebody down the line, maybe 20 years from now, will start rumbling about unretiring the numbers. It'll probably be about some phenom prospect type who they think would do more honor the the number more by wearing it or something.

Edgy MD wrote: Where outside of Baltimore? Maybe I can buy you a mass-produced prefabricated adult beverage. Linthicum Heights. I'd welcome it, but Google tells me that's the other side of Baltimore from the fabled Villa de Laura. And it looks like my ETA is like 10pm best case (really anytime "before the game ends" is best case) and ETD is 9:30am the next morning. 6.5 hours each way so I'm doing my best to split it up as much as possible over the three days.

I will test out 710's signal tonight. Leaving around 6:30 to head down towards Virginia and stopping for the night just outside Baltimore. Of course, if it gets spotty I'm going to switch to MLB At-Bat so such test may be stunted.

An interesting Beyond The Boxscore post about hard hit percentages. http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2014/5/6/5678758/babip-separating-fact-from-fiction Spoiler: Granderson is getting pretty screwed by luck, Tejada maybe not so much.

Vic Sage wrote: Well, at least this is an argument to discuss, though i don't know if judging modern players by Babe Ruth's WORK ETHIC is really useful. At any rate, he's an extreme example, because he was their best hitter AND their best starting pitcher, throwing over 200-300+ innings a year, even with 133 IP as a full-time OFer in 1919. That may well be too much to expect of a normal human being. But a guy who can give you 150-200 PAs and 50-60 IPs would not necessarily be working harder than a full time hitter or pitcher. The question is, i think, assuming that such athletes existed (and I believe they would, if minor-league systems allowed them to exist), does this roster flexibility help a team? And if so, does it help only a little or alot? And if it would help alot, is it only conservative traditionalism that prevents it from happening? I'd certainly like to see it attempted more often, even If I disagree that it's as possible/likely as you outline. I think it's more likely guys like Babe Ruth are the exceptional guys that are able to do both. These are the elite. Specialization is not a sin though, it's just often taken to extremes too often. That 12 year old that doesn't drop football for baseball might not ever develop the skills necessary to succeed at MLB without the specialization. At least not enough to beat out the guys that do devote that extra time. If you sent Mike Trout back to the minors for 4 years to pitch, he'd probably become at least a capable pitcher. If you sent him to the Knicks, he'd probably be a fine player. I think specialization is born of the increase in the level of competitiveness. Ike Davis was a top draft pick, considered to have the athleticism/talent to be able to succeed. And baring a couple of months here and there over the last couple of years, he hasn't. That couple of hours a week to work on his delivery in order to pitch, keep loose, work on the arm muscles, has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere would be his hitting practice. And what happens the next time he slumps? Does he skip a throwing session to get more cage time in? Does that cause his pitching to suffer? Babe Ruth had plenty of work ethic, more so than his fellow players anyway. First ballplayer to have a personal trainer. Yes, that probably pales in comparison to the work guys put in nowadays, but I just don't know if most players have the ability and work time to become good enough to be useful at two different tasks. That's where the specialization comes in. the limited usefullness lefty-mashing slugger on the bench, through specialization, is almost always going to be better than the versatile guy who can also pitch 2-3 innings a week. And the dedicated reliever is almost always going to be a better pitcher. Right now (And as Edgy mentioned, we already have a 26th man roster sometimes and it seems right around the corner along with the NL DH.) carrying the two better players at the individual tasks is more valuable than saving the roster spot by consolidating them. And managers know this. It's why they burn through benches and bullpens so fast. That marginal platoon advantage for one or two matchups a game helps more than the occasional 15 inning game where you end up short because you burned everyone. Especially because the other guy probably did too, so you're not even at a competitive disadvantage. That said, a 23 man roster would go a long way towards some of these utility guys trying their hands at pitching and some other creative usages. It'd also speed up the game because less pitching specialists means less 3-pitcher innings.

Edgy MD wrote: So, on a scale of 1 to 20 (as they rate 'em in OotP) how do you frame the relative defensive value? I think it looks something like this. Current Defensive Value (1-20)Potential Defensive Value (1-20)Tejada911Quintanilla78Flores38 I see it more like this. I give them minor kudos for trying something, but I'm extremely skeptical and have been since they floated it in Spring Training. And either way, it's not a no-brainer good idea and that there aren't any other better ideas is on the Mets which does mitigate any praise for this promotion. I mean, it's assumed Flores can probably hit in the majors, but it's hardly a given. Tejada has a .302 OBP with a low BABIP and a high LD%, but even if you don't think he's due for slight improvement there, not making an out three out of 10 times, even factoring in the 5 IBB, might be the best option of the bunch AND he's also the safest and probably best defensive option. This is why I don't just hand Flores the job here. Work him in so he's getting his swings, and if it's becoming clear he can hit (even if you just ride a hot streak) play him more and more.

well part of it is convincing anyone in charge of such decisions to actually do so. The four best hitting pitchers by fWAR in 2011-2014 are Zack Grienke, Mike Leake, Clayton Kershaw and Yovani Gallardo. They've been used to pinch hit a mere 17 times in their combined careers. There are other caveats of course. Pitchers rarely throw other pitchers breaking balls in the dirt and the like. I'm sure the percent of fastballs is crazy high. Once a pitcher gets a reputation for maybe being able to hit a little bit, the guy on the mound tries a little harder, which means the pitcher-batter has to be even better to really add value as a pinch hitter. In theory I love the idea, but even a .200/.300/.400 pitcher is probably less valuable than a lefty/righty masher type. And is the increased batting power of your 6th pinch hitter more valuable than being able to have that same guy pitch an inning or two in the 17th? The other side, a hitter pitching, intrigues me a little more, but with the state of most bullpens, particularly the back-ends, if you can get batters out with anything approaching reliability you're probably going to be a reliever already. Benjamin Grimm wrote: I've heard that when Babe Ruth was still in the Red Sox pitching rotation, but also playing as an outfielder, that he batted ninth on days that he pitched, and cleanup on days that he was in the outfield. I never checked to see whether or not that was true. He's also quoting as saying doing both (pitching and playing OF) was too much and supposedly the Red Sox desire for him to keep pitching was part of what upset him about the team.

I think he'll get one start over the next week or so (At SS. Maybe he spells Murphy a day and gets one of the DH spots?) But is frequently used late in games for some reason since Terry seems determined to PH for Tejada. If he comes through and Tejada continues to have all his Line Drives be at people (because he IS due for a double here and there) he'll start getting more and more time. But it could just as easily go the other way. Pinch hits and blunders in the field late.

Next Mets game is 50 hours away now. Hate that.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: What do the green dots in the "C" column mean? I'm drawing a blank here. challenge.

Edgy MD wrote: I imagine folks have gotten killed. According to this 2003 report, 35 fatalities had occurred to that date at major and minor league ballparks since 1900, though only five are "ball related." those ball-related ones are probably people lunching for balls...over the edge of the upper deck.

Edgy MD wrote: That's the problem. The netting will go up after someone gets killed. Latter day stadia have placed the seats so much closer to the plate. I snuck down to the front row after a long rain delay at a Bowie Bay Sox game. I was without my glove, and a Josh Barfield liner very nearly knocked my head clean off. I have no idea how I managed to dodge it, and I still suspect that the ball didn't miss me at all, but rather somehow changed composition and phased through my head. Or perhaps it did kill me, and this is my afterlife purgatory. eternally inept offense against the Marlins. That's your purgatory. Why did you drag me down here too?

Mr. Automatic.

Put down your phone and pay attention! ...what do you mean people have always been distracted and not paid attention and it has nothing to do with smartphones?

Edgy MD wrote: Poor Jeff doesn't have a lanyard with an access badge. "Badge? You don't need to see my badge. DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM!?"

Edgy MD wrote: Lunchbucket gave me some praise (I'm trying to figure out how ironically) for taking on FB dopes over the complete loss of perspective over this campaign, but it's not even the marketing department's biggest blunder of the last 12 months. How soon folks forget Cougargate. Still pissed they shut that down. That was cool.

I'm really just ranting. (I'm way more annoyed at the offense/lineup construction last night) I don't think anything's decided either way and it's certainly something to keep an eye on. I just don't think Dice-K throwing 4 innings in the bullpen every game is setting him up for long term success. But on the other hand, he's always been been a throw a billion pitches kind of pitcher. Thinking back to what I've read about him in the past, it seems like Red Sox fans were always infuriated that he'd be at 95 pitches through 5 regularly and it always seemed like Dice-K shrugged it off and felt like he could pitch more innings and he got pulled due to the rampant 100 pitches means you're done philosophies. He's also crazy slow and throws a lot of balls to boot. It's sorta infuriating to watch. But 8 BB in 10.1 IP is not going to get it done. Even the 6 in 10.1 he had prior to yesterday is bad. I think Keith was ready to strangle him.

well, relievers on May 5th are full of small sample size stuff anyway. I don't question the move to go to Dice-K as much as representation of absolute faith in him by leaving him in as he threw ball after ball after ball. Relieving is new to him, his preparation has been a story, and he's seemingly been up every day for innings at a time. Maybe this is just coincidence or growing pains but it just seems like Collins should've had those things in his mind and pulled him early. And this comes just after he left Mejia in after he's presumably lost it as well. It's just starting to look like a disturbing trend. Then there is using your "closer" in the tie game on the road, which he rarely does. Given that and Valverde's non-use (big park and his problem has been home runs. Would've been a more logical one-inning choice than Dice-K?) I'm starting to suspect Jose is again the favorite for closer.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'm so done with Dice K. I don't get it. He's clearly not ready or prepared for the bullpen and is seemingly warming up constantly throughout the game. Well, there's a role for guys who've been starters all along but find themself on a staff where there is no room in the rotation or they are not quite up to the rotation's standards. This role is "long relief." But instead of using Matsuzaka and Torres in such a role, Terry has become enamored of them and used them as his righthanded setup guyzzz. I think he'd be better advised to use Germen and Familia (and Valverde) in this role. As their position in the pen now is geared for neither high leverage nor long stints, they don't really have a role. Yeah, I just meant that Matsuzaka doesn't seem to be prepared for the role they're seemingly using him in. So either figure that out or send him down to get better in the reliever mindset. This "Is he wearing a hat?" nonsense is rubbing me the wrong way. I agree on Germen and Familia though. I'd like to see them get more innings. Valverde I'm not sure about but he's pitched twice in two weeks so clearly he should pitch at least a little bit more. Terry's flavor of the week bullpen management is a little grating sometimes.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: One of the best things about Mean Girls, to my mind? It was an adaptation of a book... a how-to guide to teen behavior for parents. Ha! I still snicker that the father in the movie is the janitor from Scrubs.

Frayed Knot wrote: Obviously the pen in general and DiceK in particular take the biggest lumps for this one, but once again we do the score early then try to sit on the lead thing. In this case there were two runs out of the first four batters but then just one for the rest of the game. P.S. Don't forget Farnsworth when it comes to beer distribution. I'm so done with Dice K. I don't get it. He's clearly not ready or prepared for the bullpen and is seemingly warming up constantly throughout the game. If this is the role he can best help the team in, get him down in Vegas working on his warmup routine, or just designate him the closer so he knows roughly exactly when he's coming in. And what happened to Germen? He was pitching pretty well, had a muck up against Atlanta and has been used sporadically since. He had a crappy game at home against the Marlins too when he gave up those home runs, but two of 12 bad appearances ain't too bad (and last night he really only gave up a grounder.) so why the sudden doghouse treatment? The bullpen sucks, use the guys that have been succeeding.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Uh, that's not a good defensive outfield. And check out Q getting back-to-back starts! I have more faith in Niese getting on base.

Edgy MD wrote: Saw a preview of that last week, and it seemed weepingly bad. Probably one of the oldest and (and emptiest) comic tropes there be. My wife wants to see it, so I can report back if you like. (if we actually see it..best intentions, etc) I kinda like Leslie Mann and as I said about Mean Girls, I do sorta enjoy the trope some if it's done right. As long as you don't really take yourself too seriously and mix in enough humor. (checks) I AM conflating the movies. It's not Mean Girls it's John Tucker Must Die. .Mean Girls deals more with the new kid trying to fit in makes real friends but ditches them to be popular but then realizes what's important trope. Produced by SNL's Lorne Michaels and written by Tina Fey, so that probably explains some of the cult following. Anyway, yeah, it'll probably suck. Hoping for enough comedy that it'll at least have it's moments, but not hopeful.

Frayed Knot wrote: I didn't know until the rash of TENTH ANNIVERSARY articles and retrospectives (at least a dozen in the last week or so) that the movie MEAN GIRLS was a major cultural touchstone in this country. I mean, look, I realize that I was way out of the target demographic for this flick and all, but I don't think I even heard about it until years after it was out and even then it was only because Lohan was becoming such a mess by that point that that movie was brought up to show that there was actually a time before she was a human train wreck. But apparently MEAN GIRLS was THE culturally shared experience for the first decade of the 21st century with more quotable lines known to all than anything since maybe CASABLANCA, or at least since ANIMAL HOUSE. I'd noticed that as well. I saw the movie years ago and even enjoyed it, but I don't know when/why it suddenly became such a..thing. It seems like the last year or two. I also always conflate it with John Tucker Must Die. I think that new movie with the three women all sleeping with the same guy and conspiring against him is basically a grown up version of one of those two. Again, conflating.