Ceetar

="Kong76":3tr9qw76]Alex Cora sucked, right now he isn't sucking. Is that better?[/quote:3tr9qw76] As far as I'm concerned, He doesn't suck. period. He's never sucked as a Met, and I refuse to expect or want that. Frayed Knot May 02 2009 11:18 AM That the backup middle infielder has the lowest (or among the lowest) RC/27, ... or OPS, or VORP, or M-O-U-S-E as compared to the regulars shouldn't exactly surprise anyone. My point in starting the thread was that there seems to be far too much hand-wringing over the fact that he's even playing (because of short-term injury) or that he's batting 2nd. Look at it this way: he's not sucking NOW, and as long as he continues not to suck I see it as a case of the backup getting rewarded for doing exactly what one would hope he'd do when he was pressed into service: getting on base and playing decent D. No one (as far as I know) is trying to make the case for starting him on a regular basis. Indeed if he winds up playing full time it means that something else has gone wrong that'll make the exact lineup order seem trivial. In the meantime, a few games here and there keeps him fresh so that Jerry won't have reservations about sitting Reyes for a day if/when he shows the need. batmagadanleadoff May 02 2009 12:13 PM ="Frayed Knot":2fu07wvp]That the backup middle infielder has the lowest (or among the lowest) RC/27, ... or OPS, or VORP, or M-O-U-S-E as compared to the regulars shouldn't exactly surprise anyone. My point in starting the thread was that there seems to be far too much hand-wringing over the fact that he's even playing (because of short-term injury) or that he's batting 2nd. Look at it this way: he's not sucking NOW, and as long as he continues not to suck I see it as a case of the backup getting rewarded for doing exactly what one would hope he'd do when he was pressed into service: getting on base and playing decent D. No one (as far as I know) is trying to make the case for starting him on a regular basis. Indeed if he winds up playing full time it means that something else has gone wrong that'll make the exact lineup order seem trivial. In the meantime, a few games here and there keeps him fresh so that Jerry won't have reservations about sitting Reyes for a day if/when he shows the need.[/quote:2fu07wvp] Nice post. I agree. But what did you mean here: ="Frayed Knot":2fu07wvp]No, not Phil Rizzutto's wife - but that guy who seemingly caused so much teeth-grinding in the IGT.[/quote:2fu07wvp] And who is "that guy"? If it's me, I'd like to know what I did that half the thread didn't do before me? And if it's some other guy, I'd also like to know so I can heap my own brand of Cora-related abuse. But seriously, if there was a problem with my Cora joke, someone should explain instead of labeling the post as senseless without ever explaining just what it was that made it senseless, and then throwing in some junk about being circle jerked. Edgy DC May 02 2009 12:53 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":3dkpmnh7]But when I piled on with an off the cuff joke, I was seemingly required to prove my post with the same rigidness and exactitude that one would demand from a physicist substantiating a scientific theory.[/quote:3dkpmnh7] Do you really want to continue to complain about me picking on you? Kong76 May 02 2009 12:57 PM Jeter does seem to have a shit-eating grin for just about every occasion, doesn't he. Frayed Knot May 02 2009 03:41 PM ]And who is "that guy"? Cora Mendoza Line May 02 2009 05:01 PM ]That the backup middle infielder has the lowest (or among the lowest) RC/27, ... or OPS, or VORP, or M-O-U-S-E as compared to the regulars shouldn't exactly surprise anyone. I like to think (maybe I'm wrong) that even the "Cora sucks" crowd recognizes that Cora is not measurably worse than most utility infielders, and that as long as That Guy Who Used to Suck but Suddenly Stopped Sucking is hurt, Cora's the only choice. The original teeth-gnashing was about Manuel going by the book and batting Cora - the classic "productive out" guy - in the #2 spot instead of sticking him in the #8 hole and saving all the early spots in the order for players who get "productive base hits." Rockin' Doc May 02 2009 06:11 PM Personally, I think the play of Alex Cora is far down on the list of problems with the Mets team. G-Fafif May 02 2009 07:49 PM Cora > Cairo MFS62 May 03 2009 04:58 PM Well, according to Manuel, Cora and Sheffield have an "edge".* Later *= from yesterday's early edition Daily News Story. Don't know if the link is still around. Benjamin Grimm May 03 2009 05:08 PM Does that mean they drive a Ford? Centerfield May 04 2009 06:48 AM In case there's any confusion about my point, let me clarify: 1. Alex Cora sucks (career OPS of .662). 2. Guys who suck should hit lower in the batting order, not second. 3. If Manuel batted him second because he knew it was a short-term lineup change, and because he had a hunch about him, so be it. If Manuel batted him second because he's a "guy who knows how to handle the bat making him ideal for the #2 hole", then that's dumb. 4. We've had an idiot manager who subscribed to the latter theory so I'd like not to deal with that again. (BTW, Miguel Cairo's career OPS is .670) Vic Sage May 04 2009 08:41 AM Centerfield (like famed forumite "13" before him) is, as almost always, correct. wow. tortured syntax. i think i sprained something. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 04 2009 09:37 AM ="Frayed Knot":3drom80m]That the backup middle infielder has the lowest (or among the lowest) RC/27, ... or OPS, or VORP, or M-O-U-S-E as compared to the regulars shouldn't exactly surprise anyone.[/quote:3drom80m] Fair point. Although the fact that he brings less speed to the table than, say, Brian Schneider IS a bit of a surprise. (Is it possible that some of the forum complaints might be colored a little by post hoc off-season whinging... namely, about the fact that there were other, seemingly better options for this role on the market? I know my feelings have a little of this to 'em.) Nymr83 May 04 2009 11:09 AM ]He's a great pro.......seriously I don't know why he upsets people(nymr) so much. it upsets me to see him bat 2nd, i dont think i ever said he shouldnt be a backup MI. edit, so i checked to make sure i wasnt remembering wrong and i wasn't. in the 5/1 IGT i said: ]Cora shouldnt be batting 2nd, drop him down between tatis and santos and move everyone else up a spot. a day or two earlier Manuel decided to bunt (what else is new) and i said i didn't like it but that if you're going to do it i guess Cora is the one to do it with (citing his statistics). god knows how you're calling me out here.

="Edgy DC":1ekc2645]I'm still waiting for the article that says, "You know, it's a good thing this team is winning, because apart from that, they have no heart."[/quote:1ekc2645] Never going to happen. When the Mets start winning, people will be falling over themselves to declare what it was that gave the Mets heart. Met Hunter May 03 2009 06:18 AM My favorite part of that video is when they sing 'mister, you can be a hero" as the camera pans to Koosman. There is an oldtime autograph collector that I know from the Bronx. He's about 70 years old. He's gotten Ty Cobb and Cy Young's autograph when he was a kid. I once mentioned that Ed Sullivan taping to him and he told me he was there out back, alone, and got every Met to sign his WS program for him. SteveJRogers May 03 2009 06:48 AM ="Ceetar":123lz2r5]="Edgy DC":123lz2r5]I'm still waiting for the article that says, "You know, it's a good thing this team is winning, because apart from that, they have no heart."[/quote:123lz2r5] Never going to happen. When the Mets start winning, people will be falling over themselves to declare what it was that gave the Mets heart.[/quote:123lz2r5] Not really, in late 2006 the Mets were starting to show signs that they really were a "paper champion" and a team that couldn't take a punch. It would be proven in the NLCS that year. This year's round of "Mets have no heart" is a culmination of the Mets not getting the job done in the aforementioned NLCS, the worst choke job in the history of professional sports, and another choke job last year. Despite the use of small sample size stats, this is really the same tune that has been said about the franchise since 2007. You can actually pinpoint where it all fell apart to the sweep at Atlanta just before the trade deadline in 2006. Pretty much the last "important" games the Mets dominated and showed that they could be "championship material." The Mets haven't showed any kind of killer instinct since, but rather have been acting like the playoffs are entitled to them, that they can just throw out their equipment on the field and beat anyone. Ashie62 May 03 2009 08:07 AM Paper Champion 2006, 2007, 2008, and possibly 2009..Omar Goodbye, Jerry Goodbye. This core group of Mets Reyes, Wright, Beltran..suspect Frayed Knot May 03 2009 08:49 AM ]Not really, in late 2006 the Mets were starting to show signs that they really were a "paper champion" and a team that couldn't take a punch. You mean while they were cruising to a easy NLEast championship? What "signs" - aside from not winning every game by double-digit scores - were those? ]This year's round of "Mets have no heart" is a culmination of the Mets not getting the job done in the aforementioned NLCS, the worst choke job in the history of professional sports, and another choke job last year. Despite the use of small sample size stats, this is really the same tune that has been said about the franchise since 2007. You can actually pinpoint where it all fell apart to the sweep at Atlanta just before the trade deadline in 2006. Pretty much the last "important" games the Mets dominated and showed that they could be "championship material." This is all after-the-fact nonsense, part of a popular theory where something is declared to be fact by those who know they can't be proven wrong because the causes and turning points are retroactively determined only after the scenario plays itself out. batmagadanleadoff May 03 2009 10:23 AM ="SteveJRogers":2iazl18l] Not really, in late 2006 the Mets were starting to show signs that they really were a "paper champion" and a team that couldn't take a punch. It would be proven in the NLCS that year. This year's round of "Mets have no heart" is a culmination of the Mets not getting the job done in the aforementioned NLCS, the worst choke job in the history of professional sports, and another choke job last year.[/quote:2iazl18l] But do you believe all that? And does it mean that a team that doesn't get to the WS has no heart, even when their season ends in the 7th game of the LCS? TheOldMole May 03 2009 11:43 AM The worst choke job in the history of professional sports? What about Sonny Liston in Lewiston, Maine? SteveJRogers May 03 2009 12:28 PM FINE, in team season sports Kong76 May 03 2009 12:45 PM SJJ: The Mets haven't showed any kind of killer instinct since, but rather have been acting like the playoffs are entitled to them <<< Steve, you're just as bad as the guys who get paid by the papers here. How do you measure acting entitled? You (not you, I mean everyone) can get away with lack of killer instinct (although I'm not sure how that's measured either) because they totally blew it late the last two seasons. But acting en- titled? How do you act entitled on a baseball diamond, in interviews, etc. to the point that one can say, "that team looks like it thinks it's entitled?" Phooey, it's just another annoying buzz phrase when you break it down. SteveJRogers May 03 2009 01:19 PM Delgado's "sometimes we get bored" comment in 2007 is a prime example. There are times where it does seem in interviews, and reactions on the field that this team thinks it is the best team out there, but their play doesn't mesaure up to that. Or they act like the bully in the playground, where you just show that you are capable of fighting back, and they back off. Kong76 May 03 2009 01:43 PM I don't remember the bored quote, but I certainly believe you. I still think that when you get into "seems" and reading of "reactions" and derive entitlement it becomes a little bit of a stretch but at least you have a quote to leap from and that's more of an explanation I could get from a source like Wallyworld, et al. Edgy DC May 03 2009 02:32 PM ="SteveJRogers":1flq6nbx]="Ceetar":1flq6nbx]="Edgy DC":1flq6nbx]I'm still waiting for the article that says, "You know, it's a good thing this team is winning, because apart from that, they have no heart."[/quote:1flq6nbx] Never going to happen. When the Mets start winning, people will be falling over themselves to declare what it was that gave the Mets heart.[/quote:1flq6nbx] Not really, in late 2006 the Mets were starting to show signs that they really were a "paper champion" and a team that couldn't take a punch. It would be proven in the NLCS that year. This year's round of "Mets have no heart" is a culmination of the Mets not getting the job done in the aforementioned NLCS, the worst choke job in the history of professional sports, and another choke job last year. Despite the use of small sample size stats, this is really the same tune that has been said about the franchise since 2007. You can actually pinpoint where it all fell apart to the sweep at Atlanta just before the trade deadline in 2006. Pretty much the last "important" games the Mets dominated and showed that they could be "championship material." The Mets haven't showed any kind of killer instinct since, but rather have been acting like the playoffs are entitled to them, that they can just throw out their equipment on the field and beat anyone.[/quote:1flq6nbx] This is about 93% wrong. And "heart" /= "killer instinct"

="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"]] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

="Edgy DC"]I can't seem to get across to folks that when you win, you don't have to talk shit. You let the losers take their best crack, and when they're done, you coolly remind them you won and they lost and it's over. That's only if you're _actually_ the better team. And if you actually beat the team your smack talking to do it.

I was already annoyed that the Mets bunted 4 times in the game. That's FOUR free outs. And they gave the Marlins two free runners. Amezega is now Babe Ruth? (He's actually never even faced Santana before that game!) Granted twice bunting was with Santana, but the chances are very slim that Santana's going to ground into a double play, and It's almost definitely less than his OBP. Even if he does make out, Reyes still has the same shot to drive in a run, and actually does have some power that he can get the second run in, even if it's still on first. This type of small ball, playing for one run, having no confidence in the players to get hits just bugs me.

="Nymr83":3g5owfso]Yeah, I don't see how Delgado is anywhere in the vicinity of ready to play if he couldn't be called upon in the 9th yesterday.[/quote:3g5owfso] Actually, didn't I read that Manuel said "I didn't have to ask him, he wasn't available."? Maybe that means Delgado was so bad it wasn't likely to be okay, or maybe it means Manuel had decided already that Delgado wasn't going to be pinch hitting. Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 08:59 AM I'm guessing he wasn't in the house. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 30 2009 09:31 AM ="Ceetar":27vrf8v4]="Nymr83":27vrf8v4]Yeah, I don't see how Delgado is anywhere in the vicinity of ready to play if he couldn't be called upon in the 9th yesterday.[/quote:27vrf8v4] Actually, didn't I read that Manuel said "I didn't have to ask him, he wasn't available."? Maybe that means Delgado was so bad it wasn't likely to be okay, or maybe it means Manuel had decided already that Delgado wasn't going to be pinch hitting.[/quote:27vrf8v4] Did we see him on camera in the dugout yesterday? Maybe CarlosDos needed a mental health day down the shore or catching "Obsessed" at the multiplex? (Like the season-ticket holder I sat next to Tuesday night who punched the air and let out random coyote-like screams every time Mr. Wright did his waving-and-missing routine.) batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2009 09:44 AM I wouldn't give Wright a day off against the Phillies. The New Coors Field at Philadelphia might just be the right tonic to fix whatever's ailing our third baseman. On a somewhat related note, Mets batters are next to last in HR's (Wright: one HR in 21 games) in the NL. This, more than anything else, is likely what's wrong with the offense because, as everyone here knows, HR's have a neat way of putting runs on the scoreboard whle simultaneously maintaining that RISP Avg. at respectable levels. Of course, with almost no Citi Field history as a reference to make some sense of the Mets lack of HR output this season, it's difficult to determine what sort of HR numbers should be expected. TBD. Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 09:45 AM Am I the only one who was calling for Wright to bunt in the ninth? G-Fafif Apr 30 2009 09:50 AM If we were to get over the notion that "you can't ask your RBI guy to bunt," then Wright bunting was worth a shot. Sadly, he's not your RBI guy at the moment. Winning the game takes precedence over labels. metirish Apr 30 2009 09:51 AM ="Edgy DC":1tu91gc1]I'm guessing he wasn't in the house.[/quote:1tu91gc1] Maybe he was hanging out in the bullpen.... batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2009 09:57 AM ="Edgy DC"]Regarding Wright, I was thinking the stadium eating up his flies to right center may be forcing him to adjust his swing, looking to drive the ball more and loft it less, but I don't know how much that would explain, looking like he is at belt-high fastballs over the outside half of the plate. I was also wondering whether it's the larger Citi Field dimensions that have Wright psyched out. I'm feeling marvelous right now. <-------------------------- If I was in charge of selecting those historical banners that hang in chronological order outside of Citi Field, I'd include that iconic image (above) of Throneberry lunging in vain for a bad infield throw that's destined to elude the first baseman. And those being the '62 Mets, Bob Gibson might've even scored on the play. That spectacular ineptitude is as integral to the franchise history as any Tom Seaver fastball. metirish Apr 30 2009 09:59 AM Is Wright even hitting a lot of fly balls? , seriously I don't even remember watching him and thinking that at least he tearing the cover of the ball but it's just not going out right now. G-Fafif Apr 30 2009 10:11 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"] If I was in charge of selecting those historical banners that hang in chronological order outside of Citi Field, I'd include that iconic image (above) of Throneberry lunging in vain for a bad infield throw that's destined to elude the first baseman. And those being the '62 Mets, Bob Gibson might've even scored on the play. That spectacular ineptitude is as integral to the franchise history as any Tom Seaver fastball. Seconded. Honesty in iconography, at least in a context where the wounds aren't fresh and deep, would be appropriate. I'd draw the line, however, at highlighting something recent and hurtful. That would be like trying to sell a book to Mets fans by placing Yadier Molina's home run follow-through on the cover. That would just be stupid. Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 10:18 AM He was hitting flies in the first homestand. G-Fafif Apr 30 2009 10:20 AM Do pop flies count? batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2009 10:23 AM ="G-Fafif"]="batmagadanleadoff"] If I was in charge of selecting those historical banners that hang in chronological order outside of Citi Field, I'd include that iconic image (above) of Throneberry lunging in vain for a bad infield throw that's destined to elude the first baseman. And those being the '62 Mets, Bob Gibson might've even scored on the play. That spectacular ineptitude is as integral to the franchise history as any Tom Seaver fastball. Seconded. Honesty in iconography, at least in a context where the wounds aren't fresh and deep, would be appropriate. I'd draw the line, however, at highlighting something recent and hurtful. Yep. There goes Marv, doing what he does best. Or worst. If that image did adorn Citi Field and Marv was still with us, he might remark that "he still doesn't know why his banner hangs outside of the new stadium". ="G-Fafif"] That would be like trying to sell a book to Mets fans by placing Yadier Molina's home run follow-through on the cover. That would just be stupid. I read about your preference for Karl Ehrhardt and Collapse Guy as the cover to your book, and agreed with your thinking immediately. I suppose that your publisher thought that action shots of ballplayers would sell more books. But aesthetically, your idea was the smarter one. Frayed Knot Apr 30 2009 10:50 AM As mentioned above, the main difference so far is in strikeouts and power. The stadium could partially explain the power outage. I have no idea what to say about the Ks. Except that in his four full seasons in the majors to date Wright's hitting has been absurdly consistent in almost all aspects, including strike-outs where he's gone: 113, 113, 115, 118 See also doubles: 42, 42, 40, 42; HRs: 27, 26, 30, 33; OBA: .386, .381, .416, .390 Point being that, especially at age 26, I don't think he's a likely candidate to suddenly morph into a 200+ K/yr, slap-hitting drag on the lineup. We've got other things to worry about. OlerudOwned Apr 30 2009 12:56 PM I think he could offset some of that power-drag in Citi if he utilizes that handy knack for driving the ball the other way with power. But what do I know? Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 01:31 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 30 2009 01:55 PM That's the thing, though. He flies the other way with power more than anything. And those lofty flies used to land 5-12 feet behind the 371 sign and during the first homestand, they were hitting gloves on the warning track. OlerudOwned Apr 30 2009 01:46 PM Oh, alright then. I should preface most of my posts with "I haven't actually seen more than 4 of these games televised because of location, but..." Swan Swan H Apr 30 2009 07:00 PM Somebody find John Stearns, because the monster is coming out of the cage this weekend.

="metirish":vbesoyll] You don't sit a guy that's hot with the bat but when he's struggling is that a good time to sit him [/quote:vbesoyll] Unless it's Church or Castillo for course. Gotta get that .150 average of Sheffield in there. Nymr83 Apr 30 2009 06:36 AM Wright is hitting .270 or so, if he needs a day off then by all means give it to him, but he is hardly hitting poorly enough to be forced to the bench for a few days Frayed Knot Apr 30 2009 07:08 AM He had last night off and is getting today too. metirish Apr 30 2009 07:15 AM ="Nymr83"]Wright is hitting .270 or so, if he needs a day off then by all means give it to him, but he is hardly hitting poorly enough to be forced to the bench for a few days A soft .270 wouldn't you say? , no extra base power at all so far. Rotblatt Apr 30 2009 07:41 AM My biggest problem is the lack of power in combo with the strikeouts. If he were striking out more but hitting more dingers, that would make sense: he's trying (successfully) to hit more home runs. Instead, he's on pace for over 200 Ks and only 45 extra base hits (he had 118 Ks and 77 XBH last year). The good news is, he's had bad months before, and he's always rebounded. August 2006: 102 AB, .282 AVG/.313 OBP/.392 SLG/.705 OPS, 19 K April 2007: 90 AB, .244 AVG/.370 OBP/.311 SLG/.681 OPS, 23 K June 2008: 104 AB, .279 AVG/.350 OBP/.413 SLG/.763 OPS, 18 K April 2009: 82 AB, .280 AVG/.372 OBP/.390 SLG/.763 OPS, 27 K I think he'll be fine; his strikeout rate is elevated even in the context of the worst months of his career, but he's still getting on base at a good clip, so it's not like he's seeing the ball THAT poorly. If the team were playing better around him, we'd probably hardly notice his problems. Yes, he needs to turn it around, but he's always done so in the past, and I expect he will again. Nymr83 Apr 30 2009 08:09 AM even in his bad months he's still getting on base at a nice clip. maybe he should be batting 2nd protected by beltran instead of 5th? if he's getting on base but not being the RBI-man then thats where he belongs anyway. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 30 2009 08:13 AM Neither Wright nor Reyes are hitting with the kind of authority you'd like to see. But, I'm CAHNfident they will both improve. Not to drive this thread out on further tangent, but another fear of mine is that Delgado is entering one of those patented Met Injury Mystery periods. They say with complete confidence he should be available for Philly yet he was so bad he couldn;t be asked to PH yesterday. Yeah sure. Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 08:22 AM Agreed. The pitcher is wilder than a Wyoming cougar and the bases are loaded. Tying run on third, winning run on second. He has to throw fastballs. What righthanded pitcher in his right mind wants to throw fastballs to Carlos Delgado when Delgado knows they're coming? I'd send him up there if he had to take a crutch with him. Regarding Wright, I was thinking the stadium eating up his flies to right center may be forcing him to adjust his swing, looking to drive the ball more and loft it less, but I don't know how much that would explain, looking like he is at belt-high fastballs over the outside half of the plate. Nymr83 Apr 30 2009 08:34 AM Yeah, I don't see how Delgado is anywhere in the vicinity of ready to play if he couldn't be called upon in the 9th yesterday. Ceetar Apr 30 2009 08:52 AM ="Nymr83":3g5owfso]Yeah, I don't see how Delgado is anywhere in the vicinity of ready to play if he couldn't be called upon in the 9th yesterday.[/quote:3g5owfso] Actually, didn't I read that Manuel said "I didn't have to ask him, he wasn't available."? Maybe that means Delgado was so bad it wasn't likely to be okay, or maybe it means Manuel had decided already that Delgado wasn't going to be pinch hitting. Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 08:59 AM I'm guessing he wasn't in the house. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 30 2009 09:31 AM ="Ceetar":27vrf8v4]="Nymr83":27vrf8v4]Yeah, I don't see how Delgado is anywhere in the vicinity of ready to play if he couldn't be called upon in the 9th yesterday.[/quote:27vrf8v4] Actually, didn't I read that Manuel said "I didn't have to ask him, he wasn't available."? Maybe that means Delgado was so bad it wasn't likely to be okay, or maybe it means Manuel had decided already that Delgado wasn't going to be pinch hitting.[/quote:27vrf8v4] Did we see him on camera in the dugout yesterday? Maybe CarlosDos needed a mental health day down the shore or catching "Obsessed" at the multiplex? (Like the season-ticket holder I sat next to Tuesday night who punched the air and let out random coyote-like screams every time Mr. Wright did his waving-and-missing routine.) batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2009 09:44 AM I wouldn't give Wright a day off against the Phillies. The New Coors Field at Philadelphia might just be the right tonic to fix whatever's ailing our third baseman. On a somewhat related note, Mets batters are next to last in HR's (Wright: one HR in 21 games) in the NL. This, more than anything else, is likely what's wrong with the offense because, as everyone here knows, HR's have a neat way of putting runs on the scoreboard whle simultaneously maintaining that RISP Avg. at respectable levels. Of course, with almost no Citi Field history as a reference to make some sense of the Mets lack of HR output this season, it's difficult to determine what sort of HR numbers should be expected. TBD. Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 09:45 AM Am I the only one who was calling for Wright to bunt in the ninth? G-Fafif Apr 30 2009 09:50 AM If we were to get over the notion that "you can't ask your RBI guy to bunt," then Wright bunting was worth a shot. Sadly, he's not your RBI guy at the moment. Winning the game takes precedence over labels. metirish Apr 30 2009 09:51 AM ="Edgy DC":1tu91gc1]I'm guessing he wasn't in the house.[/quote:1tu91gc1] Maybe he was hanging out in the bullpen.... batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2009 09:57 AM ="Edgy DC"]Regarding Wright, I was thinking the stadium eating up his flies to right center may be forcing him to adjust his swing, looking to drive the ball more and loft it less, but I don't know how much that would explain, looking like he is at belt-high fastballs over the outside half of the plate. I was also wondering whether it's the larger Citi Field dimensions that have Wright psyched out. I'm feeling marvelous right now. <-------------------------- If I was in charge of selecting those historical banners that hang in chronological order outside of Citi Field, I'd include that iconic image (above) of Throneberry lunging in vain for a bad infield throw that's destined to elude the first baseman. And those being the '62 Mets, Bob Gibson might've even scored on the play. That spectacular ineptitude is as integral to the franchise history as any Tom Seaver fastball. metirish Apr 30 2009 09:59 AM Is Wright even hitting a lot of fly balls? , seriously I don't even remember watching him and thinking that at least he tearing the cover of the ball but it's just not going out right now. G-Fafif Apr 30 2009 10:11 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"] If I was in charge of selecting those historical banners that hang in chronological order outside of Citi Field, I'd include that iconic image (above) of Throneberry lunging in vain for a bad infield throw that's destined to elude the first baseman. And those being the '62 Mets, Bob Gibson might've even scored on the play. That spectacular ineptitude is as integral to the franchise history as any Tom Seaver fastball. Seconded. Honesty in iconography, at least in a context where the wounds aren't fresh and deep, would be appropriate. I'd draw the line, however, at highlighting something recent and hurtful. That would be like trying to sell a book to Mets fans by placing Yadier Molina's home run follow-through on the cover. That would just be stupid. Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 10:18 AM He was hitting flies in the first homestand. G-Fafif Apr 30 2009 10:20 AM Do pop flies count? batmagadanleadoff Apr 30 2009 10:23 AM ="G-Fafif"]="batmagadanleadoff"] If I was in charge of selecting those historical banners that hang in chronological order outside of Citi Field, I'd include that iconic image (above) of Throneberry lunging in vain for a bad infield throw that's destined to elude the first baseman. And those being the '62 Mets, Bob Gibson might've even scored on the play. That spectacular ineptitude is as integral to the franchise history as any Tom Seaver fastball. Seconded. Honesty in iconography, at least in a context where the wounds aren't fresh and deep, would be appropriate. I'd draw the line, however, at highlighting something recent and hurtful. Yep. There goes Marv, doing what he does best. Or worst. If that image did adorn Citi Field and Marv was still with us, he might remark that "he still doesn't know why his banner hangs outside of the new stadium". ="G-Fafif"] That would be like trying to sell a book to Mets fans by placing Yadier Molina's home run follow-through on the cover. That would just be stupid. I read about your preference for Karl Ehrhardt and Collapse Guy as the cover to your book, and agreed with your thinking immediately. I suppose that your publisher thought that action shots of ballplayers would sell more books. But aesthetically, your idea was the smarter one. Frayed Knot Apr 30 2009 10:50 AM As mentioned above, the main difference so far is in strikeouts and power. The stadium could partially explain the power outage. I have no idea what to say about the Ks. Except that in his four full seasons in the majors to date Wright's hitting has been absurdly consistent in almost all aspects, including strike-outs where he's gone: 113, 113, 115, 118 See also doubles: 42, 42, 40, 42; HRs: 27, 26, 30, 33; OBA: .386, .381, .416, .390 Point being that, especially at age 26, I don't think he's a likely candidate to suddenly morph into a 200+ K/yr, slap-hitting drag on the lineup. We've got other things to worry about. OlerudOwned Apr 30 2009 12:56 PM I think he could offset some of that power-drag in Citi if he utilizes that handy knack for driving the ball the other way with power. But what do I know? Edgy DC Apr 30 2009 01:31 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 30 2009 01:55 PM That's the thing, though. He flies the other way with power more than anything. And those lofty flies used to land 5-12 feet behind the 371 sign and during the first homestand, they were hitting gloves on the warning track. OlerudOwned Apr 30 2009 01:46 PM Oh, alright then. I should preface most of my posts with "I haven't actually seen more than 4 of these games televised because of location, but..." Swan Swan H Apr 30 2009 07:00 PM Somebody find John Stearns, because the monster is coming out of the cage this weekend.

="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"]] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive.

="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]="RealityChuck":27hreoq1]="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"]] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

I'm thrilled with the new park, although I do agree that I could do with more pictures and such. Name the concessions after old Mets, put at least the Mets logo in those barren stairwells. Some things I noticed in this thread: The Acela Club. I'm 99% this is the Diamond Club, where you basically have to have a premium ticket and _then_ make reservations. The Promenade Club is indeed only for the infield 400level promenade sections. The Club's kinda overrated (i was there for the Sox game). It's got TVs, a full bar, and standard ballpark fare that you can just as easily get right behind it in the food court area. Due to the handicap seats, the cameras, and the sections in front of you, you really can't see home plate from inside. Especially if the fans stand up. I heard a rumor that they were going to start letting _everyone_ on the Promenade in, but if that's the case it'll become the most overcrowded horrible area anyway, especially if it's cold. I'd avoid the LF outfield seats on the top two levels if I could, but I'm happy with every other view. A couple of blocked corners, but that's nothing new. The standing room, especially on the Promenade where feels like basically watching the game from the Mezz tunnels at Shea, but without being in anyone's way, are excellent. The field level standing views are nice too, come with tables and cup holders, but get crowded. The food is pretty much amazing, and you can get the regular stuff too. The beer selection, 29+ and counting, and 'only $7.50 for premium, is excellent too. I wouldn't buy beer at Shea because I wouldn't overpay for crap, but now I will. Some of the beers are even exclusive to Citi Field. I miss Shea, but I'm quickly falling in love with this place.

="Edgy DC":250omu6m] What's MM's right hand doing here?[/quote:250omu6m] Icon inspired by this Kurt Snibbe post and the lion's new 'fiercer' logo: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=snibbe/090421&sportCat=nfl Yeah, Carpenter probably isn't waking up with nightmares about Reyes, but my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 09:59 AM ="Ceetar"]... my point is that the Mets used to run the bases in a way that gave pitchers nightmares, and they don't anymore. Actually, the way the Mets used to run the bases under Willie gave me a nightmare. It seemed as if that team couldn't go one week without having one of their own thrown out at the plate by four or five footsteps. RealityChuck Apr 29 2009 10:09 AM ="Edgy DC":1qfj9mu7]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:1qfj9mu7] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury. Rotblatt Apr 29 2009 10:10 AM ]Lifting a starter after six with 100 or so pitches and a five-run lead just fries my butt. Totally. He's been too quick to yank starting pitchers (up to and including Johann), and while, yes, our bullpen is better this year, if we overwork our relievers, it won't stay that way. I'm not a fan of the bunting either, but I feel like he's been better than Willie on that front, and leaving his decision to stick with Green last night aside, his bullpen management has been better as well. So I'm going to go with, he's an improvement, but he could be better. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:20 AM With the way this new park looks like it's going to play , a lot of doubles and triples , it would seem to suit smart aggressive play . I would like to see Beltran and Reyes play with more abandon . Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:21 AM ="RealityChuck":3pp7aa9r]="Edgy DC":3pp7aa9r]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:3pp7aa9r] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:3pp7aa9r] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 10:32 AM ="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]="RealityChuck":27hreoq1]="Edgy DC":27hreoq1]And it's also an option to pinch-hit a righty there, isn't it? Or was Castro incapacitated or something?[/quote:27hreoq1] Basic baseball strategy 101 (as indicated by Earl Weaver*, who knew a thing or two): avoid using your last catcher as a pinch hitter. If the catcher gets injured (and catchers are more likely than other positions), you're screwed. *Weaver pointed out how important Elrod Hendricks was to the team, despite his poor offensive stats, since he allowed Weaver to switch catchers and still have Hendricks on the bench in case of injury.[/quote:27hreoq1] I don't know if it's 101, but Bobby Valentine sure ignored it left and right. Earl Weave spent his career in the American League, and once 1973 came around, this issue was only theoretical to him, and so he never had to weight it against other values. He certainly didn't manage in an era of 12- and 13-man pitching staves, when nobody could afford to carry a third catcher. It's a valid value, but changing times and circumstances from Weaver's force it to be weighed fairly against other values.[/quote:27hreoq1] Last year, even when we had three catchers, both Willie and Manuel still seemed reluctant to use one. To me, It's a low-risk situation. Sure, it's possible your catcher gets hurt and you have to make someone else squat behind there. But to me, that's managing scared, managing not to lose. Try to win, and if that's using Castro off the bench, do it. metirish Apr 29 2009 10:38 AM We used to have Joe McEwing as the emergency catcher and IIRC Woodward more recently. Who on this team would serve in that role? Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 10:49 AM Santana, of course. batmagadanleadoff Apr 29 2009 10:52 AM I'd like to see Johan catch his own pitches. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 11:12 AM I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 11:55 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1wn2ynbr]I want to see the 27-man roster and the abolition of the DH. Those two extra players would return us to the number of position players that were on rosters before pitching staffs increased in size from ten to twelve. Among other things, teams would be able to carry a third catcher.[/quote:1wn2ynbr] No, it would allow managers to carry that 14th or 15th pitcher -- and LaRussa would use them all in certain games. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:10 PM I want to see the aboltion of Jerry Manuel HahnSolo Apr 29 2009 02:26 PM Jerry certainly opened himself up to questions today, no doubt. mario25 Apr 29 2009 02:27 PM Hitting Santos for Castro today was absolutely dumb..... metirish Apr 29 2009 02:28 PM Howie on the radio was great during this move...." Jerry will probably say he's playing a hunch".... Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:31 PM There shouldn't even have been a bottom of the ninth. Frayed Knot Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Probably banking on Santos being faster and less of a chance at a K. Ashie62 Apr 29 2009 02:32 PM Post game conference should be a hoot Somewhere, Castro is secretly happy Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:44 PM Managing Scared Fire him before it�s too late. Send away the pitching and hitting coach while you're at it. If you're really desperate to keep HoJo with the organization, make him the new bench coach. Why give away 4 outs? Why pinch hit a guy that�s hot for a guy that wasn�t watching the game and hasn�t been watching what Lindstrom was throwing. We all know this team needs confidence. so what kind of confidence does it show Castro in that spot? Murphy that he�s replaced defensively and would�ve been up in the ninth? Reyes when you won�t let him steal early in the count or only hit and run and tell him when to go? Or that you're constantly bunting in front of him like he can't drive the guys in himself. Drawing the infield in in the first. Managing scared. Manuel set the stage from the very beginning saying �Even though it�s the first inning, I don�t think you guys are going to score enough runs to win if we let this run score.� Well, ask and you shall receive. Benjamin Grimm Apr 29 2009 02:46 PM I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying. Ceetar Apr 29 2009 02:51 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":1qalul5w]I can only imagine what the Pessimistic Mets Fan is saying.[/quote:1qalul5w] Sadly, I think the pessimistic part is redundant for too many. Including Manuel, which is the problem. I still think the Mets will sweep Philly though. metirish Apr 29 2009 06:57 PM ] "I thought Santos had a better shot," Manuel said. "I think Santos has a little shorter swing, and when you have a little shorter swing, it's easier to get to a guy that's throwing in the upper 90s. If it had been a different, let's say a sinker-slider guy, Castro would have continued to hit." Kong76 Apr 29 2009 06:59 PM OMG, there was a thought process. Swan Swan H Apr 29 2009 07:09 PM Then why didn't he start Castro Tuesday and Santos today against Johnson, who throws in the upper 90s. And how does that explain the two ropes Castro hit off of Johnson who, it has been noted, throws in the upper 90s? Bunk, I say. A move for the sake of making a move. Rockin' Doc Apr 29 2009 07:22 PM Unlike Perez, Castro is apparently not one of Jerry's guys. John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 29 2009 07:34 PM It was a giant Fuck You disguised as a strategy. I'm sure he was trying to get the front office's attention. Edgy DC Apr 29 2009 08:23 PM I'm pretty sure it was more of a Fuck Off than a Fuck You, perhaps with a little Eat Shit and Die on the back. My word, what a severe disrespecting of Castro that move was... the whole week, in fact, has been. duan Apr 30 2009 10:33 AM [url:2si8vtww]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php[/url:2si8vtww] ok so here's the deal, our runs scored/against totals would lead you to believe our record should be 10.4 wins 10.6 losses. .500 basically but essentially only one game out from where we are. However, if you look at the actual production of our hitters and pitchers, EQR and EQRA you see that we 'should' have a run differential that's a substantially more positive. That's probably being caused by one of three things or more likely a little of all of them - luck, bad defense (on our part) and bad in game management. metirish May 01 2009 10:06 AM Edgy DC May 01 2009 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 01 2009 10:36 AM I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot." Ceetar May 01 2009 10:18 AM ="Edgy DC":1tga2tmb]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:1tga2tmb] Especially when 8 of them were intentional passes to Alfredo "The Babe" Amezega. I understand not pushing a guy too far when he's straining and struggling and his arm feels like it's going to fall off. When a guy blows them away in the 7th on 8 pitches? yeah, maybe let him start the 8th. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:45 AM I am starting to believe that part of this mess has to do with the presence of two career closers in the bullpen. Everything has been done to try to keep Putz on as equal footing with Rodriguez as possible, right down to the entrance music and video board hoopla for both guys. Is it not feasible that Manuel feels the need to (there's no easy way to write he next phrase) stroke Putz' ego, giving him his eighth innings while keeping Frankie on for the ninth? Letting a starter go eight disrupts the balance here, and all winter the talk was how they were essentially dual closers? If that is the case it needs to stop NOW. Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. I just believe it was less about saving Santana than it was about getting Putz in the game in a crucial situation. Edgy DC May 01 2009 11:49 AM I think Putz was pitching the eighth because the plan is to pitch him the eighth. I don't think it's about his ego so much as about the formula on the page. In fact, I think sticking to the formula shows less respect for the player. As long as you go by the formula, it's always the player's fault when the team loses. "The eighth is his job. He didn't get it done." Benjamin Grimm May 01 2009 11:56 AM ="Swan Swan H":1ls4bnfd]Santana should have been out there for the eighth Wednesday, no doubt. [/quote:1ls4bnfd] Even Bill Gallo thinks so. Swan Swan H May 01 2009 11:57 AM And I think the plan is to pitch him in the eighth because he owns the eighth. Manuel would have bypassed a lesser light who had earned the eighth on merit, but Putz was decreed the eighth inning guy. You may not think that matters, but I think it matters a lot. Bypassing Duaner Sanchez or Aaron Heilman to go right to the closer is different, primarily because Mets management spent all winter answering questions about how happy Putz would be if he is not the closer. It matters. Fman99 May 01 2009 11:59 AM ="Edgy DC":10swftyk]I don't think there's anything new about pitch counts or that they're a bad idea. I just ask that they need to set limits with a more complex thought process than "100 sure sounds like a lot."[/quote:10swftyk] I blame the Base 10 number system. If we were binary, like computers, I suspect Johan would be allowed to throw 10000000 (translation = 128) pitches before he got the hook. Centerfield May 08 2009 08:43 AM We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 08:56 AM ="Centerfield":1ki0y39w]We get on him when he's bad, so to be fair, we should mention it when he does something we like. I LOVE that Manuel got tossed last night after the Victorino con job. That ump is an idiot, and coupled with the blown DP call from before, absolutely deserved the mouthful Jerry gave him. I hope the ump watched both replays afterwards and felt like an asshole.[/quote:1ki0y39w] Agreed. So... who do give the stinkeye for using a 37-million-dollar arm for a fourth night in a row with Putz (and Stokes) very much available to alterna-close? Centerfield May 08 2009 09:00 AM I have no problem with using him there. This is the Phils after all. Give him tonight, and maybe even tomorrow off. Frayed Knot May 08 2009 09:03 AM I didn't have a problem with using him either. It just suxx that the ump put us into a situation that led to using him. metirish May 08 2009 09:07 AM Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:13 AM ="metirish"]Rodriguez says he wanted the ball , do i believe that? I'm going to take him at his word. Manuel swears that Rodriguez will not pitch tonight. My wife was watching the game with me and after Rodriguez got the last out and did his emotional thing she said he screamed Pu�eta at the sky. She explained to me it's equivalent to screaming " hell yeah" in that situation as Rodriguez was excited about the out. Pu�eta though has many meanings . My Filipino grandfather used to scream it at the television when a wrestler would pause too long on the top ropes, preening, before frog-splashing an opponent. I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? [As in, "Four days in a row? Pu�eta, isn't why we got a second closer in the first place?"] metirish May 08 2009 09:25 AM ] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:27 AM Anybody take notice of Church striking out in the bottom of the eighth with a runner on first and nobody out after digging himself into an 0-2 hole with two bad sac bunt attempts? It appears as if Manuel favors the late inning sac bunt this season, what with Putz and K-Rod available to finish the game. This is the third time I remember Manuel using this strategy in the last two weeks. I didn't like this sac bunt attempt. Church had been double-switched into the 9th spot in the batting order: therefore, the top of the order followed. Whenever the ninth batter, or top of the order batter leads off the inning by getting on base, the team is especially poised for a big inning. I was able to tolerate the tactic more than usual only because the Mets already had a two run lead. But I would've been dead set against that bunt had the game been tied. Fman99 May 08 2009 09:32 AM ="metirish"]] I believe that it's usually meant to express disappointment or consternation, no? Yes , but it also can be used to express excitement , missus also told me it means " jacking off" too I should've read this whole thread before I started yelling "pu�eta" here at work. Whoopsie. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 08 2009 09:32 AM Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. Edgy DC May 08 2009 09:33 AM I noticed. I liked it not. metirish May 08 2009 09:38 AM It may have been Manuel that called it , he could well have been in the tunnel shouting " Jesus Christ Sandy Church needs to put down a sac bunt". batmagadanleadoff May 08 2009 09:38 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":352csoiu]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it.[/quote:352csoiu] I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 09:53 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]Actually, the Church bunt was a Sandy Alomar call, since Jerry had been run by that point. As I've said here a million times already there has to cpome a point where they start analyzing the sac bunt based on the chance they can even do it properly, much less its success when executed. Hate hate hate it. I can't prove it, but I'd bet that Manuel "managed" to call for that sac bunt from wherever he was, underneath the Citi Field stands. Wearing a fake second beard?

I think Manuel's been a disaster. I wasn't unhappy with Willie myself, but when it seemed likely a change is what this team needed, I wish they had done it. Instead they stuck with a familiar guy, a guy who'd been with the team for the collapses, as well as supposedly being the guy who was pushing for the 9th inning decisions in game 7 in '06. To me he's a guy who never trusts his players, to a point that he actively doesn't trust them and instills no confidence in them. I think they should've brought in someone from outside the team, with a fresh perspective, and had him work with Wright and Reyes to lead the team that way. Instead, Manuel has been second guessing Reyes and Wright since he got here. The big thing is his over use of the bullpen and how matchup happy he is, to a fault. I also have issues with how un-aggressive this team seems on the bases. Whether it's the lack of stolen bases, or not going first to third. I've heard Manuel say that he's told Reyes to pick his spots more. In previous years, _every_ body was bouncing around the bases, threatening to steal, taking big leads, distracting the pitcher so that it was rare that a pitcher was on the mound without at least some distraction with a guy on base. Even pitchers were doing it! Remember how we ran all over Chris Carpenter impressive streak of not allowing a lot of stolen bases, and how he hasn't been the same since? It's never too early to fire Manuel.