Ceetar

Also, if Murphy continues to walk on ball-three, it'll be hard for him to lose his job.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Gotta be something else. Getting Todd Zeiled? Biggioed? The noise from the home run must have woken Brad Mills. The time to go lefty-righty with the in-inning pitching changes is probably before said HR, though. Wigginton'd?

http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2011/05/04/how-worried-should-you-be-about-dickey-not-very/ While 2010 probably had him playing above his head, I don't think it's so much the league catching up to him, though that surely plays in a bit. Guys starting the year in Buffalo don't generally get as much attention from other scouts. He also had the benefit of getting into a rhythm and feel for the pitch in the minors last year. I'm not proclaiming to be an expert in these pitch location charts, but I looked at the location charts on fangraphs http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxg.aspx?playerid=1245&position=P&season=2011&date=0&dh=0 and they don't seem to be a whole lot different. Although it doesn't really seem to separate the two types of knuckleballs (or the third that he's working in?) He has thrown a couple more fastballs a game this year, but it doesn't seem to be something that's getting out of hand. But maybe it is. part of the effectiveness of a knuckleball is that everyone knows it's coming. But the more you 'think' about throwing a fastball, the more a hitter can sit on it, the more a scout can track the trend of when you're going to throw it. I wonder if he's just overthinking it. Early on he was walking too many guys and getting in trouble, but he hasn't had the problem lately. just take the ball, and throw it. let the knuckle do the work?

G-Fafif wrote: Gary Cohen addressed the emphasis on OBP in general last night, noted that as philosophy of taking pitches taking hold around MLB, batters hesitating to swing at pitches in hitters' counts. We saw it with Thole recently. Like GC, I agree OBP a fine thing to emphasize, but there is an offensive downside. Then again, the Mets are a bunch of sluggers lately, so this isn't our problem. Yeah, they just have a better approach I think. They do more "First pitch fastball hitting" as Kieth notes all the time, and it seems like they're actually swinging on hitters counts more often. I think it was almost a year that they didn't swing last year 3-0.

and his wife rushed to twitter/facebook to make up a fake injury in defense of him. good stuff.

This feels too much like a memories thread. Beltran's great. I'm so glad he's healthy and playing on my team. Also, it's kinda sad that he's completely owned the Cardinals in 2 NLCS', one off Babe Ruth's record for home runs against them in the playoffs, and lost both times. Yet another reason to hate Brad Lidge I suppose.

Because, why not? Drafted by the New York Mets in the 41st round of the 2009 MLB June Amateur Draft. He's another 'born in '86' Mets farmhand. turns 25 in December. He's a switch-hitter, mostly plays first base although has seen some time at 3B/LF/RF. Played in the Gulf in 2009 (after graduation, was a Florida Atlantic Owl) , Savanna last year, and is on the Port St. Lucie Mets, often eating at Duffy's with his roommates: Matt den Dekker and Rylan Sandoval. Joined Twittertwo weeks ago. Facebook. tozga12 could be his handle. Single from the right side.S3Jq-u3pLsY

Edgy DC wrote: Into the Crawford Boxes! (The What?! I don't care!) Here's hoping Rodriguez gets to finish another game. What, you dont' think they'll score 16 in the top 9 and let Murphy pitch the bot 9?

Fman99 wrote: WACKY DP there. Heads up defense by Muffy. yeah. that was..odd. Diving stop, no one covering so Murphy outraces Bourne to first, then Hall tries to score from third, thrown out. 3u-2 on the dp.

b ah, gimme F-Mart. not thati dislike Pridie but

Mets are 106-172 @Houston. 2-2 there last year. This says Dillon Gee is 0-0 0ERA against the Astros, but 02 2.37 at Minute Maid, which must be a typo.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Bubba Bell has almost as good a name as Boof Bonser. I don't know anything else about him, but I'm inclined to think I'd rather have him on the bench during Ike's absence than Fernando Martinez, only because I'd rather see Fernando get his playing time. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the plan. But that wasn't an option yesterday. ;-) Martman probably starts today.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Hunter Pence is having something like a career year, leading the league in doubles, and posting a .376 wOBA. He still has a look about him like the Astros sent away for a Ryan Braun kit, assembled it the best the could, then found extra pieces in the box when they were done. Pence is leading the league in doubles? If so, only because Carlos was conceded the league by hitting all his fly balls OVER the wall yesterday. and Reyes only chimed in with the RBI single, no doubles.

bmfc1 wrote: I'm enjoying the current "communal KTE." With Adam Rubin's series previews making a KTE of less importance, perhaps this alternative format should become standard. Some of us don't read Rubin though, not that the communal format isn't fun.

Edgy DC wrote: It'd be a factor one way or the other. I'd stay far away from drawing a cause-effect conclusion. This is why I don't get worked up over it. I trust Sandy knows how much more valuable Reyes (etc) is than a closer, and if there is a cause-effect relationship here he'll prevent the vest.

themetfairy wrote: bmfc1 wrote: They have that stupid hill in center field. I hope that Carlos Beltran gives Jason Pridie a lesson in how to navigate that artificial impediment. That's my thought. One day that stupid thing is going to cause a serious injury. They also have a stupid train in the outfield that runs when an Astro hits a home run. Artificial and lame. The place does have incredible chili cheese fries, though.... i'm surprised it's not in the rule book that the playing field has to be flat. But I guess way back when there used to be flag poles there, but it was 490 feet away, not 400. But I guess those non-mandatory rules about uniform playing surfaces are what makes baseball great too.

Odds are 3:1 that R.A. Dickey shows up to the park today looking like Jason.

metirish wrote: Ceetar wrote: Beltran's gonna get booed. it's got to be the most redundant booing going on at the moment. Gary will be incredulous about the booing. I think Howie's the one that reminded me he'd get booed. I'd forgotten. He hits pretty well against the Astros, i closed the br page but it was above .850 OPS with a bunch of home runs. I'd like to see his numbers in Minute Maid Park as a Met, but I haven't quite figured out where I can do those double splits.

Beltran's gonna get booed.

We've got a problem.

Frayed Knot wrote: smg58 wrote: A nice win. I think it's clear that Beltran is all the way back with the bat, and from the small bits I've seen of the games he looks to be running better now than he was in April. He's certainly trotting better. That's certainly the best way to keep those knees fresh.

If the season picks up and he has a good year, he could challenge Benitez before he's done.

I just don't really care about the color schemes, and would love for them to do something completely random like Orange tops.. What struck me most was the reasoning behind it. the city in shadows bit. That's cool and actually ties into the Mets tradition stuff. the other was the 'windows' thing in the script that he suggests with opening it up a little. I think that'd be a good compromise actually.

meant 8/18. The _Rockies_ are in the middle of a homestand then though. which would mean it actually _would_ work, and i'mj ust confusing myself. the Mets aer actually enroute from San Diego Where they play an 'afternoon' game at 3:30, 6:30 here, 4:30 in Denver. nayway, players stretching on the field now. maybe they'll play.

There's an article in the WSJ about something Picard did that's sorta not true or something to that nature. WSJ wrote: Madoff and the Mets; The bankruptcy trustee is using dubious methods based on flimsy evidence. The Wall Street Journal May 11, 2011 Bernie Madoff perpetrated the largest financial fraud in American history, but are his crimes now being compounded by the trustee charged with unwinding the Ponzi scheme? We're beginning to wonder after scrutinizing the evidence against Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, the New York Mets owners who stand accused of colluding with Madoff. Messrs. Wilpon and Katz and their families are being sued by Irving Picard, a New York bankruptcy attorney appointed to liquidate Madoff assets and recover money from those who benefitted from his Big Con. Mr. Picard is borrowing from the method of overzealous prosecutors everywhere: distorted accusations, tailored for the media, that intimidate public figures into settling to avoid further embarrassment. His methods raise basic questions of transparency and due process. *** In an amended complaint in March, Mr. Picard is looking to recover $295 million in fake profits that the Wilpon-Katzes made from Madoff investments�i.e., other investors' money that Madoff allegedly passed on to them. He is also seeking $710 million that they withdrew against their principal, to repay the investors who came out net losers. Mr. Picard claims they were sophisticated businessmen who knew or should have known that Madoff's returns were too consistent to be true, and that they "willfully turned a blind eye to every objective indicia of fraud before them." One of Mr. Picard's marquee pieces of evidence is supposedly Peter Stamos, a friend of Mr. Katz and an investment partner. Mr. Picard claims Mr. Stamos "repeatedly warned" the Wilpon-Katzes that Madoff's returns were fishy. But the Wilpon-Katzes later obtained Mr. Stamos's deposition, long after Mr. Picard's accusations had been splashed all over the New York tabloids�and it turns out that his full testimony directly and specifically contradicted Mr. Picard's selective edit. In 1972, the Wilpon-Katzes founded Sterling Equity Partners, a closely held family partnership that manages their empire of real estate, professional baseball, a TV network, and private equity and hedge funds. Sterling first invested with Madoff in 1985. In 2002, Sterling joined with Mr. Stamos to create the hedge fund Sterling Stamos. Mr. Picard contends that Mr. Stamos "openly questioned Madoff's legitimacy for years and recommended to the Sterling Partners that they should redeem" their other investments with Madoff. But Mr. Stamos actually testified under oath that "I'm embarrassed to say that I said to Mr. Katz on a number of occasions that my assumption is that Mr. Madoff is the most honest and honorable man, among the most honest that we will ever meet. Number one. And number two, that he is perhaps one of the�my assumption is he's perhaps one of the best hedge fund managers in modern times." Mr. Picard maintained in court and led the media to believe that Mr. Stamos was a whistle-blower. Mr. Stamos did send an email in December 2008 saying that "Fortunately, our firm did not invest with Madoff. That firm and fund wouldn't make it through our risk and ops controls�lack of transparency, no third party administrator, etc. Unfortunately, our partners�Saul and Fred�against our recommendations invested as individuals and through their real estate firm. Based on the public evidence so far, it looks as if Mr. Stamos was merely being a good fiduciary, urging the Wilpon-Katzes to diversify their investments and warning them about the risks of proprietary trading strategies like the one Madoff said he was running. The Sterling partners had about nine-tenths of their securities investments with Madoff, Mr. Picard estimates. As Mr. Stamos put it, "What I recall telling him [saul Katz] was don't put more than 10% of your assets in any one manager." Mr. Picard also makes much of an email from Sterling Stamos's chief strategist Ashok Chachra calling Madoff "too good to be true" and a "scam." But that email was sent a day after the fraud was exposed�and Mr. Chachra testified that beforehand there was "no reason to think there was anything wrong." His deposition, which the Wilpon-Katzes also obtained, reveals that Mr. Picard's team did not ask Mr. Chachra about the email, while Mr. Stamos said that "I can't recall ever using those words to describe Mr. Madoff." Mr. Picard left out such details because the case in still in "pre-compliant discovery" under U.S. bankruptcy court rules. Defendants aren't entitled to see even exculpatory evidence until litigation begins months from now, and they couldn't respond publicly until they countersued. So far Mr. Picard has refused to open his case. After the Wilpon-Katzes acquired Mr. Stamos's deposition from his lawyer, Mr. Picard's shop sent a letter threatening them for their "premature self-help efforts" and for "pressuring third-parties" to supply the same information Mr. Picard already knows. His legal strategy seems to be to prevent the public from knowing all the facts before passing judgment. What else is he keeping under his hat? We could continue with other distortions, but let's get to what seem to be Mr. Picard's most damning allegations. In 2004, the Wilpon-Katzes had an option with Cablevision to buy back the valuable broadcast rights of the Mets for $54 million, and a narrow contract window in which to do it. As the deadline drew near, the bank loans they had applied for hadn't come through. So they approached Madoff to withdraw the $54 million as a contingency plan, but Madoff claimed their accounts were "in the market" and that he would give them a bridge loan instead. The only documentation for this unorthodox transaction was a false agreement on Mets letterhead describing it as an "investment" by Madoff's wife in what would become SportsNet New York, the Mets station. As it happens, the bank loans closed in time and the Wilpon-Katzes repaid Madoff the day after he wired the money. They say they trusted their friend Madoff in a frantic business moment and didn't know what they were signing. But in any case, how is any of this evidence of their knowledge of a pyramid scheme? *** So should Messrs. Wilpon and Katz have known that Madoff was a crook? After all, he eluded serial Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, and he was once a pillar of the community, even briefly the Nasdaq chairman. His crimes depended on credulity in affluent circles, and trust is necessary for betrayal. The Sterling partners did not earn extraordinary returns as high as 100% to 900% typical of some high-level Madoff clients. But more pointedly, do the investment errors of the Wilpon-Katzes�the failure of due diligence, their nondiversified cash management strategy�prove they were complicit with Madoff? Or do these errors merely prove they were lousy investors? The latter explanation seems more plausible, but it doesn't help Mr. Picard's strategy to recover more funds by portraying the unsympathetic rich as villains. Mr. Picard has virtually unconstrained discretion under the bankruptcy code, including subpoena power and a team of investigators and forensic accounting experts. He has billed for $175.5 million in fees. Yet rather than shed more light on what happened, he seems most interested in collecting fortunes from public figures by humiliating them into a settlement, before his claims are ever tested in court. Madoff's crimes did enough damage and shouldn't be compounded by treating his victims as accomplices without unequivocal evidence or due process.