Ceetar

clearly he read yesterday's thread where I pointed ago Baxter is getting on base and Tejada isn't hitting so bat Mike first.

Cliff Floyd had a 9.4 ARM rating on Fangraphs in 2004.(2010 Francoeur had a 9.7) 04 Cameron 2.7 05 Beltran 1.5 only goes back to 02 though.

metsmarathon wrote: shoot, i must've blinked... Wife wants to see this, so we might this week/next weekend. Someone want to tell me where I should make sure I don't blink?

I know people have floated the Duda to first idea, but I like the Satin/Campbell/Flores solution better than that at least. With first at least you can theoretically find someone to hit a little, if you move Duda you're in essence replacing Ike with the..7th?..outfielder on the depth chart.

Edgy MD wrote: Ceetar wrote: You're old! Lose already! That would be a funny meme theme. I'm at work, but tonight, I so want to photoshop one of those billboards about legends with "You're old! Lose already!"

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Valley Fever is real and not something the beat writers made up. Conor Jackson was never the same. He officially retired this spring at age 30 after a few games with Tidewater. Yes, but his ACTUAL diagnosis was never confirmed at the time, and the beat writers never bothered to follow up on it. They were waiting another test or the doctors to look at the MRI or somesuch, or maybe the Mets/Davis never followed up. The initial report was that he had symptoms that indicated he might have Valley Fever. Jackson also isn't Davis, and had developed symptoms that Davis reportedly never had.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: NPR had a report on Valley Fever this morning on Morning Edition. I don't know how much relevance it has to Ike Davis (was he ever even officially diagnosed), but it was potentially very discouraging. The anti-fungal medication can keep the growth of the fungus in check, but it never eliminates it. I keep pondering the 'ever officially diagnosed' thing, and I can't find any indication of it. It surprises me what things the media chooses to dig up, and what they don't follow up on. Davis himself seemed to confirm it this Spring when he mentioned how he felt last year, but I sorta assumed that was a "best shape of his life" quote. I'm pretty sure he was never on medication though, I thought the initial report that he may have had it indicated he wouldn't need medication and had no symptoms. Either way, I really have no idea what to say about Davis. Valley Fever recurrence? Bad mechanics? Bad attitude? Drinks too much? Burr in his saddle? Possessed by Aliens? I'm as convinced he'll start a tear tomorrow as that he needs to go down to Vegas to 'work on some things'. (And clearly, if anyone else KNEW The answer, they'd have done it already)

That team pisses me off. Almost as much as that stupid Yankees meme going around acting like Jeter is some secret-agent directory instead of an old fat gimp. You're old! Lose already! someone take away their happy pills..

TransMonk wrote: Ceets making my April magic look like nothing now. and now you're 6 points ahead. come back!

I'd like Baxter higher up (perhaps first, since Tejada isn't hitting..) or at least ahead of Buck but otherwise I like this lineup. a billion runs. you heard it here first.

Adam Wainwright loses the no-hitter with one out in the 8th.

If it comes to the point where we can't find a starter that's clearly not worth keeping..well.. Gee experienced similar layoff problems early in the season so I'll give Marcum some more time. Some innings looked good last night at least..

Yes, he wasn't as hostile to them as he generally has been in individual cases. I sometimes think it's stats people he dislikes more than stats themselves. well to be fair, there are plenty of frustrating stats people. There's a lot of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing aspect to it where people parrot researched theories as fact without really understanding the reasoning behind them or how it fits into baseball as a whole. (i.e. ALL BUNTING IS BAD, STOP BUNTING) And there are probably even more frustrating anti-stats people like those who insist that if the stat wasn't in general use prior to 1960 then it's a useless piece o' shit invented by pointy-headed geeks who, because they don't sweat for a living, couldn't possibly know what they're talking about. breaking: people are frustrating all around. *resumes hermit status*

Frayed Knot wrote: So does Wright get an error on that play? I figure he does since the batter technically reached 1st safely. I would think so right? Error and..pickoff? just..out? gameday: John McDonald reaches on a throwing error by third baseman David Wright. John McDonald out at 2nd, first baseman Ike Davis.

Frayed Knot wrote: Yes, he wasn't as hostile to them as he generally has been in individual cases. I sometimes think it's stats people he dislikes more than stats themselves. well to be fair, there are plenty of frustrating stats people. There's a lot of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing aspect to it where people parrot researched theories as fact without really understanding the reasoning behind them or how it fits into baseball as a whole. (i.e. ALL BUNTING IS BAD, STOP BUNTING)

inconsiderate Bud Light drinkers was poetic about their old decrepit couch.

Edgy MD wrote: We keep changing issues here. Who is being lobbied for now? A more logically selected roster that features two backup infielders and better overall coverage and less redundancy in the outfield. Baxter and Duda stay. Ditch someone else. You don't need four other guys, particularly 3 right-handed guys. I'd keep Juan and Andrew and Jordany, but no one has a strong case for deserving to stay. Satin seems to be the only infielder in AAA hitting. Maybe you promote Flores, he's certainly got tools right?

Edgy MD wrote: Benjamin Grimm wrote: Marlon Byrd isn't at all likely to be a starting outfielder on the next Mets contending team even if, as hoped, that happens as soon as next year. F. that. The contender is right before your EYEZZ, baby. And Marlon Byrd probably STILL isn't part of it.

That's fine, but you don't need both of them, and no matter if they're burying Satin or not, he's hit more than enough in AAA to be given a legitimate shot too( yes yes, he's 28 and no longer a prospect). Lagares has barely played there. But that's the OF thing. I'm not sure Jordany has talent. He has athleticism, which isn't the same thing. It can certainly have value in places, and the high-power/low-success PH role isn't a horrible thing, but It's not worth that much either. but even if you want to go by performance Baxter has enough time here to warrant more playing time, and he's been an above replacement level outfielder, which is apparently hard to come by on this team. You don't need Byrd, Brown, AND Lagares. Juan's probably the most 'prospect' of them, the fastest, and the best defender. Let Valdespin back him up in center. fine. But you don't need both Byrd and Brown then. Josh Satin bats righty, but if he's backing up Murphy and Ike that's fine. (except, like Turner he hits righties better. Valdespin may have range, but he seems to be a poor defender. And both times they had the option they went with Turner over him anyway.

Edgy MD wrote: I imagine if Satin was bouncing around the diamond for the Mets, you wouldn't like him at any of those positions either. My point is I'm tired of carrying extra bad outfielders and want a second backup infielder. I'd prefer a lefty and a MI, but we don't really have that.

I don't see convincing evidence in the minors that Baxter can't hit lefties. It's not like our righty outfielders are hitting them, and Baxter is clearly the second best outfielder on the roster right now (After being second* best last year too) *I might prefer him over Hairston overall valuing the extra OBP over SLG, but certainly those were two useful halves of a platoon last year.

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Yeah, crazy to dump Valdespin for Satin, we don;t need another RH hitter and besides Muffy looks like he could use a blow at 2B. I don't like Jordany as an infielder and I don't like Turner as the 4-position backup either. Satin is hitting, but sure, grab a lefty.

The Official Playing Rules Committee made the following changes that will be in effect for the 2013 season: � Amended Rule 1.15(a) to clarify legal colors for fielding gloves. � Amended Rule 2.00 (INFIELD FLY) Comment to include the situation when interference occurs during an Infield Fly. � Amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE (a) Comment) to include the situation where an intervening play occurs at home plate prior to the batter-runner being declared out for interference out of the three-foot lane. � Amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE (d)) to clarify when a spectator is considered to have reached out of the stands. � Amended Rule 2.00 (INTERFERENCE) by deleting the last sentence, �On any interference the ball is dead� in order to account for cases where interference does not result in an immediate dead ball (e.g., batter�s interference, catcher�s interference, etc.). � Amended Rule 3.05(d) regarding situations in which the pitcher is at bat or on base when an inning ends and requirements of such pitcher to resume pitching the next halfinning. � Amended Rules 4.01(e) Comment, 4.10 Comment, 4.12(a) Comment, and 4.12( Comment to include Wild Card games at the Major League level regarding non-application of certain portions of Rules 4.01, 4.10, and 4.12. � Amended Rule 4.12((4) to explain the results of a suspended game that is not completed prior to the last scheduled game between two clubs in a championship season. � Amended Rule 6.05(h) to include foul territory in cases when a batter is called out for throwing his bat and interfering with a fielder attempting to make a play. vi Summary of Rule Changes for 2013 Note: Rule changes for 2013 are underlined in this edition of the Official Baseball Rules. 2013 Official Baseball Rules_2013 Official Baseball Rules.qxd 2/5/13 10:54 AM Page vi

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: That's why you all have to drop what you're doing and join me on the Lagares Bandwagon. Unless or until his hitting is sustainably atrocious (talking 75-100 more ABs), he's got to be, with apologies to Jordany Valdespin, the Man Right Now. Duda, Lagares, Baxter, mix in Brown and Byrd as needed, dump Valdespin for Satin.

the rule change he must be referencing: (d) If a pitcher who is already in the game crosses the foul line on his way to take his place on the pitcher�s plate to start an inning, he shall pitch to the first batter until such batter is put out or reaches first base, unless the batter is substituted for, or the pitcher sustains an injury or illness which, in the judgment of the umpire-in-chief, incapacitates him from pitching. If the pitcher ends the previous inning on base or at bat and does not return to the dugout after the inning is completed, the pitcher is not required to pitch to the first batter of the inning until he makes contact with the pitcher�s plate to begin his warm-up pitches. So Porter is actually correct....IF it was the first batter of the inning. (Note the absence of the 'substitute batter' caveat like in the other part of the rule) edit: still not correct, because that rule only applies if the pitcher was already in the game, not one brought in at the beginning of the half inning. aside, I LIKE this rule change. (although this was already the rule, it's the 'staying on the field' bit that's the change right?) The Joe Torre Rule, since he always did that? Letting a pitcher you're going to replace go in, take his warmup pitches, get set, and THEN go to replace him always annoyed me and it's one of those delay of game strategy things I'm glad they got rid of. But, does anyone actually know this is the rule?