Ceetar

Metfairy too! n y fact, here right now. M

Trachsel was 0-1 with a 14.54 ERA across two starts in the postseason.

MFS62 wrote: Speaking of CY Young, does the WAR statistic look even better (or worse) when you remember he played a 154 game schedule, or does the stat factor that in? Never really thought about it until this thread. Pitchers made many more starts in those days, so maybe that smooths out the number. Is there such a thing as a WAR/start or WAR/IP stat? IMO, that would be era-equalizing. Later WAR is all about era-equalizing. and it's a cumulative thing. so more starts=more WAR (unless you have an Ollie P start I guess..) And there's a lot of park-adjusting/league-adjusting stuff tossed in too.

Edgy MD wrote: He was a Phillie before they were the damn Phillies, and that robbed him of a more than a few numbers in the win column, I think. Tyler Kepner just posted this. Here's the complete list of pitchers in MLB history with 3,000+ strikeouts and fewer than 750 walks: Curt Schilling. I don't hate him because he was a Philly, just upset they'd get another hat is all. That was actually Ruben Amaro Jr's last year in the majors. Yeah, I imagine wins and ERA is what hurt him, pre-moneyball revolution or whatever. Hoffman probably shouldn't have gotten that many votes as a reliever either, and then there were the Randy Johnson votes despite the league switch. Man, '98 was a crazy year wasn't it? pitching wise too.

Edgy MD wrote: By the way, big fat vote for Schilling. I don't know if it's big and fat, but yeah. Haven't dug into numbers as much with him. his ERA seems a little high, but it does look like that's inflated a little around the beginning/end of his career. Quite a few impressive years and dominating years. 300 Ks twice. Damn good postseason numbers. Damn, 15 complete games, 300 Ks, led the lead in innings pitched with 268.2 and not even a singular Cy Young vote? he's a damn Phillie though.

The insinuation that they were doing crooked things with Madoff is still there. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. It was the return on the money invested that mattered, and it's not like they're the complete idiots bumbling along they're made out to be sometimes. If they're backloading and deferring and investing that money, it's with a very clear mind to get ahead, the same it was back then. That they're still doing it only suggests it remains a viable strategy. (Although Santana's was presumably destined for Madoff depending on the timing) It's NOT accurate that Wright can get the same contract elsewhere (for one, it's a year way. for two, he's not actually permitted by baseball rules to discuss that with other teams, meaning it's just speculation) What's with this 'current value' stuff lately? seems like a new buzzword. I get the concept behind it, but there's plenty of value and security in putting money away too. That deferred money Santana's "giving up"? it's only actually giving up money if he could turn a profit by investing it into future value beyond bank interest right? Sure, a dollar down to me or you lowers our debt and therefore mortgage interest payments and all that, but presumably Wright and Santana aren't quite burdened with this stuff. he's choosing a conservative investment, but investing with the Wilpons, and will end up earning more than his contract's cold hard numbers all the while extending the date in which he'll earn a paycheck and helping out his teams financial flexibility.

"market value" is not "What people speculate Wright could get given an averagish Wright season in 2014" it's more akin to what other players of his ilk get, the Zimmerman's and the Longoria's et al. No comparisons are perfect of course, tax rates, cities, teams, even the players themselves are not identical, but it's a lot more telling than projections about 2014. It's easy for someone 'close to' the people making the decisions to fictionally spend that $160/8 on Wright a year from now.

Edgy MD wrote: If you want to take issue with a particular voter and his explicit explanation for his non-vote, please cite it and do so. But that person wouldn't speak for all the others who elected not to vote for him, and certainly not for the majority who did. no? rumors spread like wildfire and these guys respect each other. When one person writes he thinks Bagwell did something, some others might waver and think to themselves "hmm, makes sense at least.." It's hardly just one or two guys who have engaged in this holier than thou judgement on baseball players and PEDs. There are columns and columns written up already about specific voters. Just google "I'm not voting for Bagwell" if you haven't already gotten the gist of it.

Edgy MD wrote: Let's not get overbroad, here. Jeff Bagwell didn't get to 500 homers or 3000 (or even 2500) hits. He's a great candidate in my mind and a better candidate than some who did reach those milestones. He got 56% of the vote last year, and most that reach 50% reach 75% so the idea that he's being blackballed is a little overstated. It sometimes takes folks a while to sort a legacy out of context. time? they have 5 years. 6 now. voters have indeed come out and said it's basically their own personal suspicions that he took something that is why they're keeping him out. He looks like a Hall of Famer to me and I've ready plenty of convincing cases for him and none against him (he didn't get 500 homers or 2500 hits isn't one). Yeah, he'll eventually get in, but that doesn't mean he's not being snubbed.

Edgy MD wrote: Yeah, but there's being a bad human (and Cobb isn't the game's, or the Hall of Fame's, worst) and there's cheating at the game (which, I think the record shows, Cobb did too, if not at the same level as some others). I don't think it reflects poorly on a writer to make that distinction. Just make it well. and maybe, just maybe, consider using actual evidence?

MFS62 wrote: If I had my choice of the Uptons, I'd pick Kate ..., or are we just talking baseball? Later I think David Wright could score with Kate at that plate at least as well as Justin.

MFS62 wrote: Aren't all the major league teams getting that additional $10 million per year in national tv contract money real soon? Yes, there's money coming off the books next year (I'm not sure how much because of the structure of the Bay buyout), but have any of the writers even mentioned the use of the new tv money? Why can't the Mets add that (or part of it) to the back years of any contracts they are offering? Later it's more than $10. I think it's like $25..

.393 BABIP in 2007 in his best year. I'm certainly not upset that he signed for that much as a Brave.

I'm both tickled and disturbed that I'm getting old enough to actually look at candidates and remember most/many of their careers and actually feel somewhat qualified to actually decide if I think they're worthy.

Turner's lady friend, apparently. A treasure chest of photos. https://twitter.com/court_with_a_K

Edgy MD wrote: Justin was livetweeting that Vegas trip, and he was operating in dangerous territory. If the media liked him less, or maybe just if he was more than a fringe/backup type guy, he'd probably be getting a lot more flak.

Farmer Ted wrote: Turner's lady friend, apparently. A treasure chest of photos. https://twitter.com/court_with_a_K ooh, fun. Turner has a public gallery on his facebook from '09 that reads "Vegas: PG Version" I can only imagine what the other one is like.

Josh Satin, not on the 40 man, is now engaged. Justin Turner is apparently dating someone, and defriended many of his female 'friends' on facebook as a result. David Wright supposedly was still with Molly Beers as recently as this summer.

Edgy MD wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I think I could switch under the right circumstances. If for example I lived in another city and they had an admirable team. I would also root for the Mets but I'd only rule out the MFYs and Cardinals probably. I intend to root for the O's. But I'm not sure how much I'll actually care. I think it's different when you have kids. not only kids, it's different if you have someone to root with or go to games with. Say you move to a new city with a new job and make friends with some people that go to 10 games a year and are real fans. It's hard not to get swept up in that if you love the sport anyway. (and they're not evil scum of the earth Phillies or something) Sharing the fan experience is half the deal.

smg58 wrote: Ernesto Frieri had a 2.30 ERA and 90 strikeouts in 68 innings, but why settle for him when you can pay for a more "experienced" closer coming off an injury? Both LA teams are hoping that a seemingly infinite amount of cash can overcome a very finite amount of baseball sense. It hasn't happened yet. if they're thinking about madsen as closer, I hope Sandy's on the phone with the Angels about Frieri right now.

Vic Sage wrote: the thing about the PEDs brigade is that Bonds and Clemens were clearly HOFers before their late career Roid-induced surges, whereas i think the HOF case for McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero relies primarily on their Roid years. before the time we _think_ they started PEDs anyway. They were probably using amphetamines and other stuff before that too, just like everyone else. Of course we don't even know that it helped either.

On the other hand, maybe Piazza can be the 'good guy' in comparison to Bonds and Clemens. Or that's what they're saving Bagwell for..

Edgy MD wrote: Total wins is what you're after, and total wins is what begets more money. best economy of wins just saves the Wilpons some cash in the short term. No, money saved can be spent --- and often is spent --- in the pursuit of wins. I don't understand how this can be elusive. The pursuit of wins. That's it, but that's not what we're after. We're after actual wins, and the probability (which is all we have to work with really) is higher that Dickey gives them to you. No matter what you think about Myers potential. Trading a guy Dickey's age for a guy Myers age which his potential and financial commitment is easy if 2013 and 2014 don't exist. but they do. And what happens in those years greatly influences what happens in 2015. I'm sure I can dig up a lot of business jargon articles too. Gotta spend money to make money, respect the customers you have NOW, etc. If you're just going to make fun of my attempt to simplify a numerical representation of my point, I'll just stop here.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Ceetar wrote: there is no salary cap, hence infinite. Do you have infinite money to spend? Sure. I could go to the bank. I could take out a loan. I could sell my car. I could get a second job. I'll get a paycheck on Friday with more money. two weeks from then I'll get another one.

Edgy MD wrote: OK, Angel Pagan. 1. That wasn't about obtaining a more secure position. It was about reducing salary and jettisoning a player the management had lost confidence in. 2. Obtaining a more secure position does not mean to guarantee protection from failure. The notion of a diversified portfolio is about risk management, not a risk-free existence. Trading R.A. Dickey for Wil Myers would not be the same as trading Angel Pagan for Andres Torres and Ram�n Ram�rez? Why bring what up? And what's with that finite/infinite thing? I hate trades. All of them. there is no salary cap, hence infinite. there is a maximum amount of production. it's the sum of the 25 players on the roster, and the playing time they'll get over the course of a season. Let's say, just for math's sake, that if each player is worth 4, they can all add up to a total of 100 wins. Dickey is a 4. If you trade him, almost definitely replacing him with a 2, the max total is now 98. You do that a couple of times and suddenly it's almost impossible to make the playoffs, no matter how secure you are. The Mets don't have a ton of 4s, and if you don't have any your max is 75. Even if Myers is a 2, and that 2+2 gives you just as much production as the Dickey+0 outfielder we have now or the scrub we end up with if Alderson doesn't do anything (which is unlikely), you have a bunch more money saved but NOWHERE to spend that money. Especially given that Dickey doesn't cost much, and if they can work out a reasonable extension won't, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to spend the MONEY on the 0 because it provides the maximum value for production. Trading Dickey is taking a step or two backwards in hopes of finding a better way forward, but there's only so much time you can spend looking for the best path when it's possible you're already on a good one. Total wins is what you're after, and total wins is what begets more money. best economy of wins just saves the Wilpons some cash in the short term.