Ceetar

TransMonk wrote: Curtis batting second mystifies me. well, we have Eric Young batting first so..

Vic Sage wrote: The Nova injury was unfortunate; i was hoping he'd stay in their rotation and put up his usual replacement-level numbers, devouring them from within. Don't worry, the Yankees have the depth of a kiddie pool. I'm sure they'll find someone to put up sub-replacement level numbers for them.

Only Wright and Duda are above average hitters so far of anyone (active. Lagares too) with more than 30 trips to the plate. But still lacking a meaningful sample size. I mean, a 4/4 night puts d'Arnaud at .250, Tejada at .259, Satin at .333 and Granderson at .171. Granderson's starting to sink himself into a deeper hole by having sucked worse than any of the others so far. d'Arnaud perhaps suffering some rookie jitters starting the season? since, and including, the game he got his first hit he's at .270/.341/.405 with 3 XBH, 4 BB and only 3 Ks.

am I missing the new thread?

Edgy MD wrote: And yet, despite your analysis, people do walk him. You know, it feels more like Raul Ibanez to me. But if it doesn't work out, they move on quickly and without remorse. Even Ankiel was merely an inexpensive bridge to an internal option. Getting a defensively challenged veteran to take a hack with runners on base every now and then is fine as long as you don't commit two years to Julio Franco. The world needs pinch-hitters, too. I have no idea where Ibanez pulled out that season from last year in Seattle, but he hadn't been particularly good in years either. I guess that's the goal, but it's not particularly lofty. Abreu hasn't walked in over a year and even then he was pretty much only walking. 14 hits, 12 singles, 12 walks the last three months.

Edgy MD wrote: Why would you even throw him balls? Because extra-base-hit percentages have a way of feeding walk rates, and vice versa. With regards to good hitters, one is very often happening because the other is not. if he's still a good hitter, which is what I'm questioning. Last time he was even significantly above average was 2010 and all the other stats are falling off too. He's walking more but still getting on base less. batting eye isn't a skill that fades, but pitchers only need to nibble when they worry that a mistake will result in you hurting them. When pitchers realize you're not going to do that, they don't need to be as careful and no matter how good your eye is, you can't walk if they don't throw balls. Sure, sometimes it works out. Obviously the Mets know what they're doing and have more information than me. But this feels more like Rick Ankiel than it does Jason Giambi or even Gary Sheffield. Both those guys are at least Borderline HoFers. Abreu.. It just doesn't seem like he's got enough upside to make up for the likelihood that he's just done.

Frayed Knot wrote: I'd start Abreu as rarely as possible both because of his age and his (lack of) OF prowess. Besides, the good thing about using him late in games is that he'll take a walk as well as anyone and that tends to be a skill you don't lose with age. True, his BB% is still kind of ridiculous despite his plummeting XBH% and rising K%. But that was 2 years ago. Last time he had an above average XBH% was in 2010. Why would you even throw him balls?

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I got no problem giving the job of pinch-hitting late inning doubles and drawing crucial walks to a 40-year-old if he can handle it. I think that's a job that's in fact better to be staffed by an ancient guy. Now, I prefer my backup skill guys (SS, CF) to be as young as practicable in the event they are thrust into action. But there's just no way Abreu is going to take starts away from the outfielders other than the rare breather. He and Nieuwenhuis aren't doing remotely the same thing. It's not so much about the role they're (probably) filling right now versus what they could be doing. I'm sure Terry will actually start Abreu occasionally and use him too much. I'd rather Young and Nieuwenhuis than Young and Abreu as my outfield reserves. I just think that gives you more versatility all around. Satin might be able to handle the late inning doubles/walks bit anyway. Juan tweeted today that he feels fine, so I was projecting a return after 15 days but it easily could be another week after that.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ah. Anyway, I'd bet Niuwy goes away when Lagares returns at any rate Where are we at with Lagaras? 9 more days looks like. The way things stand now, yeah, probably, but if Kirk can get a couple of swings in and shows much of anything, they could get Jeremy Hefner's 53 back real fast.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I guess they feel like with lagares down they need the centerfieldiness of Niuwy around to keep leads safe. Only seen a few innings of Chris Young's CF action but perhaps he's not great there. Just the opposite I think. Alderson signed Young in part because he could play center. Nieuwenhuis is the better defender over all though and might even be the better hitter. ???? Uh sorry, I deleted the 'than Brown' bit.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I guess they feel like with lagares down they need the centerfieldiness of Niuwy around to keep leads safe. Only seen a few innings of Chris Young's CF action but perhaps he's not great there. Just the opposite I think. Alderson signed Young in part because he could play center. Nieuwenhuis is the better defender over all though and might even be the better hitter. of course, I suspect Brown's a better hitter than Abreu so really all bets are off. You COULD play Granderson in CF though.

That's gotta be a production problem right? I feel like i've heard a whisper or two here and there that the baseball is different this year.

Vic Sage wrote: unfortunately, the first 1/3 of the season counts too, and his overall performance was what it was. And you can say that about most players... if you take the worst 1/3 of a season out of most player's overall production in a given year, their numbers will look much better. But is Gee's performance in the later part of the season more indicative of his future performance, or is he just streaky and inconsistent? I don't know that the verdict in on that question yet. You have to factor in recovering from surgery into that. His improvement strongly correlates with an increase in velocity.

d'Kong76 wrote: Braves have a lineup, Mets do not ... still fighting over who gets to go to Vegas.

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I like statues. I'm not thrilled with the statues the Tigers made, or how they have them placed. But fans love them. If there is a Seaver statue, there would be the same disputes we have over retiring uniform numbers -- who is worthy, who is being snubbed, etc. That said, I like honoring our history and we can't honor Seaver enough. but hell, arguing over that silly stuff is half of the fun isn't it?

I dunno, I could see Seaver saying he should have a statue. Maybe more so if he was a NY resident or around more though. He's probably halfway thinking "A statue would be nice, but then they're gonna drag me out of my vineyards to go over there and pose with it.."

MFS62 wrote: Just a tangental thought. Isn't rewarding a player like that contraty to MLB contract guidelines? IIRC, you can only include performance bonuses for things like games played or innings pitched, not "counting" kinds of stats. And taking money away for outs? I'm sure the Players' Association would have severe heartburn over that. Later That's all BS anyway. they do whatever the hell they want for the most part. It's not quite the same as the contract though, and I think it's more part of rookie contracts under those first 5 years or whatever. i.e. I don't think this applies to David Wright, et al.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: I've never been a huge statue guy, but it'd still be neat to have one. Maybe re-imagine the Shea Goodbye pitch in the parking lot with the Shea bases? That would be another epic botch by the Mets, having their statue of Tom Seaver depict him at the age of 63. It's gotta be a 1969ish Tom Seaver, in pitching motion with his knee dragging along the ground. And it has to look like him! that's why I said re-imagine. Probably want Piazza to be younger as well.

Skirts the border here, but Carlos Beltran might be a decent example. 21, 1999 6.4% 22, 2000 8.5% 23, 2001 7.7% 24, 2002 9.8% 25, 2003 12% 26, 2004, 13% 27, 2005, 8.6% 28, 2006, 15.4% 29, 2007, 10.9%

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I used Tejada only for the general idea that maybe, a 24 or 25 year old major leaguer is mostly set in his ways. My post wasn't specifically about Tejada or about HR's. And I guess that Tejada isn't yet 24 or 25, so he wasn't a great example, I suppose. Neither was using the HR stat, because hitting HR's prolifically requires sheer physical strength at least as much as, and probably more so, than technique. This is his age 24 season. I'd actually guess that 24-25 is right around the end of where (most) guys really start getting set in their ways. A college draftee or non-top tier prospect probably is just starting to get to the majors so there's probably still a little bit of polish to go around. Of course, this isn't new. They started in 2011. Tejada was 21. even Daniel Murphy was only 26. It's system-wide. I'd guess it's guys like Nieuwenhuis, den Dekker, and Puello who we'd really want to 'judge' the system on. I wasn't trying to refute your point by using Tejada, just felt like looking up Tejada's stats when you mentioned him. Maybe he IS a good example of a guy who's not quite as talented but they're trying to get a little more value out of by this philosophy?

thought this thread was a knock at Jeter. I've never been a huge statue guy, but it'd still be neat to have one. Maybe re-imagine the Shea Goodbye pitch in the parking lot with the Shea bases?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: It's not about home runs though, it's about making solid contact. Tejada has had a high line drive % in the past. It's no secret that pitches on the outside corner are harder to drive. I know. I used HR's as an analogy. How many 25 year olds with terrible walk rates transformed themselves into excellent base on ballers? a handful. But Tejada doesn't have terrible walk rates. average more likely, and both 2010 and 2011 he had about a half percentage above average. (he's at 7.5% career and average from 2010-2014 is around 8.1%ish) He's also got above average bordering on great K%. (14% compared to league average up around 19%.) Tejada also has a career .301 BABIP but it was .228 last year and is .258 this year. Also his OBP is a tick above league average so while that's not 'excellent' it's still well, average.

sounds like it might simply be a ratio stat 2x Total Bases / Outs Made. It's not about home runs though, it's about making solid contact. Tejada has had a high line drive % in the past. It's no secret that pitches on the outside corner are harder to drive. So you zone in on a spot, and go for it. "Oh, this guy occasionally throws sliders that stay up a little when they're inside, I'm going to wait for that". This has benefits and drawbacks, much like any approach. It might help guys avoid swinging at junk pitches designed for weak contact or balls that tend to drop out of the zone. But it also might lead to more Ks, especially with 2 strikes where if you're only going to swing at certain pitches you're leaving part of the strike zone exposed. But obviously the whole thing is more nuanced than that. I'm sure there's a different 2-strike philosophy and that it differs for each player. Hudgens and (I don't remember the assistants name yet) are doing more than repeating rhetoric. It makes sense that a high-K high-power guy like Chris Young fits with their philosophy. I don't know if it's the "Best" philosophy, but it's seemingly viable enough. Ultimately though, it's about getting good players overall. You might be able to milk a little extra value out of these guys via a uniform system, but you can't put lipstick on a pig or hypnotize a 4th outfielder into being a star.

metirish wrote: Collins took him out so Gee would have a good feeling .....I mean fucking really?, That's Collins default answer to why he pulled a pitcher. I assume he's got this reply so rehearsed he can actually nap while he's giving it.

Frayed Knot wrote: So did we get an explanation as to why Gee was pulled despite a 3 hitter and only like 70 pitches? G&K speculated about the tangle he got into at 2B, but if it wasn't that or some other cautionary reason (blister, etc.) I was very much against yanking him at that point. Yeah he's been known to fall apart somewhat quickly at times but, as Keith pointed out, he's not going to bust through that threshold by not being allowed to even try. I agree, but I assume the logic was he got hit real hard that last inning, there were only two innings to go with 6 pitchers who didn't pitch yesterday and 7 that won't pitch tomorrow so why not?