Ceetar

I'm talking about Murphy the career player, and Bourn the career player mainly. And what to expect going forward. I would put my money on them playing closer to their career levels than their this year levels. anyway. I still think the Mets need power. I'm not necessarily advocating a 30 HR .310 OBP guy, but I think they need less players that hit 2 or less home runs. (Tejada, Thole, Torres, Murphy not far behind) As you showed, the Mets run scored numbers and OBP numbers are roughly league average even after basically adding 10 games to the denominator and nothing to the numerator. Do we expect this 10 game stretch to be part of the Mets overall 2013 outlook? I expect those numbers to tick back up after they rebound from this anyway. But their slugging is still sub-par, or par at best. The Mets can get on base but they're not particularly fast as a team, don't run the bases well, and hit a lot of singles. There is a lot of value added by hitting one over the fence and capitalizing on those runners the Mets often strand by being more station to station than most. I'm not saying add power at the expense of these other things, but adding that power is a hole in the Mets offensive game that would be valuable to fill. More valuable than adding a guy that's good on defense or speedy and can steal bases or hit lefties or whatever other offensive holes we're looking at.

metsmarathon wrote: the mets don't need power, they need production. and michael bourn produces. if you only look at offensive production, he's at 3.4 oWAR (offensive WAR). it puts his at 13th in the NL. wright sits at 5th in the NL with 4.4 oWAR. (hey, look, a fair chunk of david's value is defense. but who needs defense, right?) interstingly, and rather maddeningly, sitting tied with michael bourn at 3.4 oWAR is his near-analogue, angel pagan. ugh, what a fucking stinker of a trade that was. daniel murphy sits at 48th in the NL with 1.8 oWAR. he's tied actually with scott hairston and ruben tejada. ike davis leads the mets with 22 homers. he has plenty of power. but his production, this year, is horrible, at 0.3 oWAR (offensive component of WAR). True. Actually Ike Davis has gotten his OPS+ over 100, which is interesting at least. Wright has had a very pedestrian second half unfortunately. I wouldn't be surprised if he was at 4 oWAR a month ago. sad. hey, we need outfields and Pagan is a free agent right? I wasn't a real big fan of that trade, but I liked getting two players. and we still have those two players..who may or may not help next year. Ramirez has to be better right? this year being the oddity? I'm not saying Bourn isn't productive, i'm saying he isn't more productive than Murphy. I don't want to overpay someone like that, just because they also play good defense. I don't want to be forced into a second-tier option because the Mets are desperate. I think they do need power. They're still actually up there in OBP and even in runs scored. But they need to raise their slugging to better utilize that OBP. It was the same problem last year, and i thought Duda/Davis and maybe Torres and Murphy actually hitting a couple would help. (or Bay? naah) didn't work out that way.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: With all due respect... if you think that Michael Bourn is inferior to Daniel Murphy in any baseball-playing way other than "ability to get white Met fans to buy green shirts with his name/number on the back," you're fucking high. Bourn is objectively better at walking than Murphy, and his on-base skills (walk rate/ground-ball rate) are both better than DM's AND getting better. He benefits from good BABIP numbers, yes, but he's also the rare kind of player-- namely, a speedy lefty-hitting one-- who can sustain such rates. The one-- ONE-- area where Murphy has the career edge-- isolated power-- he really doesn't have an edge in anymore; his isoP numbers have dropped steadily and precipitously in each of the last three years. Murphy has a higher career OBP than Bourn. And has had a higher OPS in every season except this one. (which would be about equal at Bourn's career SLG w/o the flukey home run numbers) Bourn's OBP last four years: .354, .341,.349,.352. Sure, he's better at getting on than Murphy _this year_ but Murphy still has the better career numbers. (You could toss out Bourn's early years as he was still learning the way it made sense to toss Reyes' early years when talking OBP, but Murphy's played half the time Bourn has so maybe Murphy takes more walks in the future too..) Sure, Bourn does actually walk more, but Murphy strikes out less and hits the ball harder. The comparison is silly anyway, but I was just looking for an in house comparison for offensive production. I don't think you should pay for defense and speed, and his hitting doesn't add enough imo.

Gwreck wrote: Ceetar wrote: There is no way he's top 5 MVP this season. I'm not sure he should get any votes. He might not even be top 5 on his own team. Bourn leads the Braves with 5.7 WAR. That's third in the national league, behind only David Wright (5.9) and Andrew McCutchen (5.8). heavily heavily defense weighted. And I very much don't trust the defensive statistics. (not to say he's not good at it, just that it adds that much) Fangraphs had his last three Fld at 19.4, -6.4,17.2. Crazy fluctuation. Actually, he's worse than Daniel Murphy, besides the defense. He's having a similar year to last year, yes, but with a couple more home runs, which you never count on translating to New York and year to year. He's got 9, 4 more than his previous career high in hitter-friendly Houston. This is like Daniel Murphy leading the team with 12 in 2009. outlier. He's got 1 more XBH than Murphy in 100 more PA, and some of those are speed bases whereas Murphy's aren't. So what you're paying for is defense that might drop a bit with age. He's certainly a helpful piece to have (Daniel Murphy is a helpful piece to have) but I don't want to overpay for that. And the Mets need power and he provides basically none.

Frayed Knot wrote: Toronto, 2 runs down and a strike away from losing to the Yanx, gets a 3B HR from Colby Rasmus off of Soriano. He subsequently got booed off the mound for what it his 3rd blown save of the year (like Mariano would have fewer). Jeter countered with a leadoff HR in the bottom of the 9th to tie it, but the Yanx go hitless after that and the Jays win it in the 11th courtesy of an errant Derek Lowe pick-off throw. Rays lose but Orioles win (snapping the long ChiSox winning streak) so it's now Baltimore in 2nd 3.5 back and Tampa at 4.0 And Mark Texiera is scratch from the [crossout]Belmont[/crossout]err..next 5 games or so. after two more with the Blue Jays they have 3-3-4 with the Orioles, Rays, Orioles. Whether or not they coast or panic will be decided shortly.

Mex17 wrote: Unless you are that afraid that Bourn is going to transfigure into Vince Coleman, are you? I see him being a lot like Daniel Murphy. Quicker, better on defense at a premium position, but not as good a hitter with fewer XBH, though a few clear the wall. worth a lot of money and a commitment? no. There is no way he's top 5 MVP this season. I'm not sure he should get any votes. He might not even be top 5 on his own team. And he's coming off what looks like a career year. why overpay for that? I disagree that we _need_ speed on the 2013 Mets. I don't want slow guys, but substitute a little smart baserunning and good reads of baseballs on defense. I don't think it's ever wise to pay for speed, unless it's part of a total package and you're retaining your own guy. those things are better left to the rookies and younger guys, not the free agents.

Mex17 wrote: Incremental increases = Wright and Dickey walk after 2013. Not good enough. incremental increases in payroll, not talent. they're probably not as far away as you think. And if you pay them now, which is possible, they're not going anywhere. They may talk a big game, but the biggest think a club can do to "prove they're trying to win" is to give the player questioning it money.

Mex17 wrote: What I am talking about is nowhere near what the Dodgers are doing and I feel should be totally within expectations for a New York team to be able to afford. If it cannot happen, then; a) we were lied to by Wilpon and Selig, they should trade Wright and Dickey this winter, and c) Wilpon should do the honorable thing and sell off to someone who can pay the damn bills! Probably shades of gray there. I doubt the Wilpons drastically increase payroll (or that Alderson will) without the revenue and winning to back it up. The Dodgers are in a pennant race. Virtually nothing is coming off the books _this_ year. (Torres, Pelfrey, Rauch I guess depending? That's probably enough to spend on the bullpen. Only need 2-3 guys really..) I'm not sure $20 for two players and then futzing with the bullpen is necessarily the way they go. I also don't think they go with two multi-year outfield contracts. But one? sure. Incremental increases. That's probably where the Mets are right now.

Frayed Knot wrote: So while that whole 'bait-and-switch' tactic might get you on the air with some of the local hosts on the NYC affiliate of ESPN, I can't see it working with any of the national crew and I couldn't imagine why I'd want to talk baseball with any of them anyway even if it did. True. It's fruitless. I'm just tired of seeing people (And I generally avoid the ESPN sycophants and what not) talk down to baseball and bash it. They pump up Football's popularity based on their own criteria. It's like only looking at an RBI list to decide who's the best baseball player. It's way more nuanced. But chasing away the people that want to talk about baseball does not mean that no one wants to talk about baseball. Of course, these same people bitch about having to talk about this Tebow guy and then keep talking about him.

I think Bourjos is basically crap that had a good (not great) one year. But I guess if you could steal him low.. Justin Upton is very good, but he's basically got a free agent contract (I didn't realize that) so if they ARE looking to move him, they can't be demanding _that_ much. 10, 14, 14 basically, after only making 7 this year. So his price tag is only rising and he had a down year. no way to know how much we have to spend. I guess you can figure a modest raise if you can sell it as a really good move to Fred or Jeff. I suspect that's where Alderson is.

Gwreck wrote: Yes, that's what I acknowledged earlier. Presumably that problem has been deferred to 2015, which is when the rotation comes back around to the NL East-AL East matchup. you think it'll go East-West in 2014 then? (Astros!) I guess we arguably played the East this season, even if it wasn't part of the new scheduling stuff. I'm intrigued by all the new kinks in the schedule. Just pondering, but probably it's better to get an @ AL matchup in September. rosters expanded, more chance guys are nicked up a bit, can probably get the most use out of the DH spot then. Whereas in April, pitchers aren't going quite as long, so you'd be using a pinch hitter anyway. The home and home the Phillies have with Cleveland is just weird, and they actually have off both Monday and Thursday around one of the series. if the Phillies got Cleveland, wonder who we get the extra game with. We saw it some this year, but it creates opportunities for 6 games stretches in a city where you play the White Sox and Cubs back to back. you nkow the beat writers are going to salivate over that.

Swan Swan H wrote: Hay's appearances on Scrubs were a hoot. [youtube]FtAma-2uK_Y[/youtube] that's how I know him.

the 'normal games' I mean the scheduled games when the AL East plays the NL East. You could potentially have 7 Subway Series games.

first off, I'm worried about over-compensating for the lefty thing. If Duda and Nieuwenhuis end up not being true major leaguers, we don't quite have a lefty problem anymore. Ike and Murphy and Thole, but I'm not sure that's worrisome, especially if they trade Murphy or do upgrade with Thole. (although I wouldn't rule out his year this year being concussion related) Do we need two? maybe. ruling out Bay. anything we get from him is "good problem to have'. Personally I think you might keep Torres, although he's been so streaky, so let's just say '4th outfielder' along with Hairston who hopefully they resign. so yeah, two. Duda and Nieuwenhuis probably float around, but having two other guys would help. I doubt you make two big free agent signings there though. so I suspect they'll bring in a second guy via trade and probably a lesser guy. Justin Upton is the dream, I doubt it happens though. B.J. doesn't seem worth what he's going to get, but I'd certainly take him at something reasonable though, he's a good age and plays good D and CF which I think is really important for next year. iffy on Bourne. He's not excellent or anything. But he's speedy, plays good defense, will be 30. Wouldn't want to give him too big a contract either though, and it seems like he's going to get one. Victorino will be 32, and is having his worst year of his career. seems on the down swing. Swisher? ugh. He's really not that good, bolstered numbers by YSIII, really bad defensively.. Older..Pass. Delmon Young seems like a prefect candidate to come to New York and Jeremy Burnitz it. Michael Cuddyer, or Chris Young, or Jacoby Ellsbury I'd consider in various trades though. i'm really not sold on this outfield market. McHugh, Familia and Murphy for Justin Upton? *Shrugs*

Mets � Willets Point wrote: Edgy DC wrote: Good point. The Dodgers would get to carry on the their post-2004 tradition as serving as a rehabilitation spot for former Red Sox. Full stop. I'm trying to think -without peeking - what post-2004 Red Sox previously ended up in Dodger blue. Derek Lowe comes to mind, and Nomar Garciaparra was traded from the Red Sox mid-2004 and then made his way to the Dodgers but I'm blanking on anyone else. I believe you're missing the obvious one.

RealityChuck wrote: And 2001 is hardly Kubrick's best, either. It suffers because Kubrick painted himself into a corner, then gave up, using a flashy psychedelic light show instead of resolving their problem. It was the triumph of bright, shiny objects over plot and characterizations and is ultimately responsible for all the empty films that are special effects and nothing else. I did enjoy it when I saw it (in a UFO class in college), but I enjoyed the three subsequent books much more. I know they made a 2010 movie but I haven't seen it. But I think having read the books and the explanations contained within has probably colored my opinion of the movie in retrospect. I think it probably could've done with out the starchild and flashy bits at the end. leaving the ambiguity to why Hal, a presumably perfect computer, did what he did. but maybe not. The movie is iconic at this point, the sound track too. I don't know if it's cultural impact makes it a 'top ten' or not though. I do remember reading somewhere on the "life imitating art" front that one of the astronauts going to the moon noted similarities to something in the movie. I should watch more Kubrick movies, and also, read more Clark novels.

Lefty Specialist wrote: And you can get past the call screeners by saying you want to talk about the Giants or Cardinals. "And here's Bob from Weehawken, NJ who wants to talk about the Giants....." "Yeah, do you think Lincecum can have a bounce-back year in 2013?" perfect.

wait, lots of information where? all I saw was a tweetpic the way I read the CBA, the Mets and Yankees would still play the normal games against each other as the interleague divisional stuff says. and they'd then retain the rivalry stuff, able to 'choose' (or be selected as however the schedule falls?) a 3 games series or 2 and 2. I hadn't heard about the 2-2 for the normal part though. I thought the rest of the schedule, outside the rivalry, was goingto be balanced by division?

Frayed Knot wrote: I'm surprised that Cowherd didn't simply follow this news with his usual 'go-to' move: opining that the Dodgers re-hiring the 84 y/o Scully is simply more proof that the only people that care about baseball are nearly dead senior citizens anyway. I kinda want to organize a day in November where a ton of people start calling into ESPN Radio and other of these types of shows and asking baseball questions all day. Particularly on a "Football Friday/Monday/everyday" "Good win by the Bears. yeah, so about the Cubs, who do you think plays Right Field next year? When is Theo going to address this?"

bmfc1 wrote: You're right Ceetar--Perhaps Thursday-Monday v the MFYs, with the teams switching locales after Friday. on the other hand, both the Yankees and Mets are dealing with 1000+ per game attendance drops. They might welcome the M-Thursday sellouts.

bmfc1 wrote: I thought that the 4 games with Boston were interesting, two back-to-back series (two games in Boston and then two in Philadelphia). I doubt that FOX and ESPN will want the Mets-MFY games to be played on weekdays. because Boston is the designated rival. silliness. you can probably fit four games over a wraparound weekend if the Mets/Yankees decide to go that way. luckily I don't think FOX or ESPN has much say in the schedule, only flexing games to night on Sunday/Saturday. I'm curious if when the divisions line up Al East versus NL East if we get 7 subway games though.

bmfc1 wrote: MFP schedule for next year (I don't know if this is real... I found it via the 506.com message board): http://twitpic.com/and8q7 If true the Phillies get the Royals second series out, and home opener.

Mets will go 93 hours+ without losing a game for the first time in a while. edit: late June in LA.

Much like the Mets with Wright, Pirates struggle when McCutchen doesn't hit for two.

Edgy DC wrote: Welcome back, Mex. The distinction between the Mets and Dodgers that I recall being made by MLB is that the Mets re-invested money liberally into the team while the Dodgers' owners pocketed revenue. At any rate, I'm certainly not asking the Mets to behave like the Dodgers. it wasn't just revenue they were pocketing if I recall, but basically stealing from the team. Red Sox look to be fairly big winners here, money wise. opens them up to a lot of things. If there's a team in New York frustrated by this deal, it's not the Mets.