Zvon

Mex17 wrote: It's January 20th for Pete's sake, and so many guys are still out there, including most of the top ones. I understand that this new generation of executives think differently and are effectively (without colluding with one another) causing a market correction, but at some point you have to sign people and get ready for Spring Training and the season. Either there is going to be an explosion of news really soon or a lot of major league caliber players who have baseball left in them are going to be applying to their local Wal-Marts for jobs. And, on a side note, I can easily see this market correction leading to big-time labor strife down the road. If sabermetric inclined GMs are now not willing to pay for the decline years of players, then the players should then demand that they get arbitration and free agency earlier in their careers. Are the owners going to be willing to move on that, and what will the players have to give up on order to get it? Pace of play concessions maybe? Mex17 wrote: It's a good year to try some good old collusion. Correct the market this winter because all the big prizes are hitting free agency next winter. But if the MLBPA attempts and/or succeeds in having this labeled as collusion, I will not be a very happy camper. Great posts. I don't care what either side does. If ticket prices go up faster than the rate of inflation, I will not be going to games anymore. As it is, as a form of protest, I've only been to a handful (maybe two handfuls) over the last decade. I have never stepped foot in Citi Field. Don't care if I never do. MLB.tv does me just fine for $99 bucks a season (I'm grandfathered in at that rate for a bit because I was an early subscriber). Like David Ortiz says: Every teeng, every gaane!

I picked Wilmahhhh cause what I want is Walker and I think something F'd up is bound to happen to him before opening day. DON"T LAUGH! Unfortunately I'm not joking.

What I want and what I think is so closely woven together............

Edgy MD wrote: I like how "meh" is just a touch above indifference, while "feh" is just a touch below. I should have incorporated "meh" into the poll. I did not know that! Seriously, you guys are getting too funny. There are too many funny posts to add a quote to that opinion and I refuse to play favorites.

That looks like a good one you've got brewing Steve. Of course I have no clue as of yet.

Mister Rogers, is that Beltran pic the dreaded NLCS hook K? I love the Gil pic. Looks like it's been done up artsy style but it's too small to tell exactly what was done to it. If thats the NLCS K, there's a card there. ....But there's a card in everything! (

Ceetar wrote: Zvon wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: In short, zvon, batting average tells you about what happened. But it tells you a lot less about how the player performed (because of all the statistical noise-- most of it fielding-related-- that Ceetar outlined) As such, it's got less predictive value than other measures (such as line-drive percentage) I don't doubt any of that. I'm just saying don't dismiss batting average altogether (to Ceets). I'd like my card backs to include all the new stats, they are very telling. But I'd also like to see the B.A. right there at the end. yes, but the reason you like to see it is because you've always seen it and it feels right and helps you relate modern players to ones you remember. That could very well be correct sir!

Ashie62 wrote: My little baseball world lives in AB R H 2B 3B HR SB W L ERA K BB WHIP /SLASH lW.A.R. Thats my story and I'm stickin to it. lol. And you're an old timer like me. An older timer IIRC. If you can't sway me no one will. #unswayed in SJ

Did you see the workout vid?! It's on some fb page. I said I wanted to do that too! I forgot to add: and in slow motion like them! That's an interesting workout. I like it. Maybe I can again find & link. I'm a member of waaaaaay too many fb pages. The Star Trek:TOS people ARE THE WORST! I'm pretty sure they will eventually ban me for inadvertently locking horns with other members.

Centerfield wrote: (As an aside is it legal for the TCD Administrator to campaign for a cover? I think this is a direct conflict of interest. Stockholm has been put on notice.) lolol

BLUNDER is terrific. They turn his nickname on it's ear, just as is called for by the story. Turning WONDER into BLUNDER may feel cheap and obvious elsewhere, but there's nothing cheap about it here, not on this day. He earned it. They work the backup head NATIONAL DISASTER into the subhead. That SHOULD have been the story. But Syndergaard's demigod pride actually made things worse, and they recognized that was the real lede. The Mets didn't just lose the game, their season died that day, way earlier than it should have. Look at Ray Ramirez' enormous watch! Ray is in exactly the scurrying, helpful-yet-useless position you expect eager mortals to be in when trying to support the grave work of giant superheroes. It's right out of the movies. He's Clark Gregg or Giovanni Ribisi or somebody. They took the time to set 23-5 in red with a white outline. While lamenting Thor's pride-before-a-fall and the extended leave that you anticipate it will all cost, let's not forget how historically bad this loss was. The Daily News wasn't about to let you. The Daily News #1 medallion, bumped almost completely off the page because they don't want to cover anything else. GOD OF BLUNDER is the Mets Tabloid Cover of the Year and you all know it. LOLOL. Great post. I just can't back a headline that puts any of our boys in a bad light. At least not when it's up against a positive one.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: In short, zvon, batting average tells you about what happened. But it tells you a lot less about how the player performed (because of all the statistical noise-- most of it fielding-related-- that Ceetar outlined) As such, it's got less predictive value than other measures (such as line-drive percentage) I don't doubt any of that. I'm just saying don't dismiss batting average altogether (to Ceets). I'd like my card backs to include all the new stats, they are very telling. But I'd also like to see the B.A. right there at the end.

Ceetar wrote: Fielders just don't muff a lot of balls. you hit the ball on the ground, it's an out. 76% of the time. you mention a fielder could drop it, that's luck. it doesn't make it a good strategy. it's part of the reason bunting is typically bad, because simply putting the ball in play is not helpful. less and less so, as fielding is better and better. If you can't hit it hard, better to take the strike than flick it into play hoping it works. Literally 69% of the time a line drive becomes a hit. That's just logical, less time in the air means the fielders cover less ground. Reaching approximately 25% of the time on errors is substantial at the MLB level. That's a big amount considering these guys are the best who play the game. A manager can do a lot with that extra amount. An outfield error isn't luck! That's baseball. That's being human. That's part of the game! One of the things that makes this game great. I don't wanna watch perfect robots play. Most of the time I see it done these days bunting sucks, so I agree w/u there. There are only a few good times to give yourself up. Of course it's better to take pitches that aren't in your zone as opposed to trying to flick em somewhere. Good hitters don't do that very much at all, unless they are seriously fooled. Part of the game. I'm also sure, like you, that line drives become hits more than any other type of contact (I like that 69% info). But there are other types of hits and they all count. I'll have to read and address the rest of this later tonight, heading out.

Ceetar wrote: yes, I do know better. and i've seen and read the math. batting average is so luck-riddled it's useless for telling anything of value, striking out isn't really a distinctly worse way to make an out. Duda is a very good player. Luck riddled? Explain that. I dinky hit is a hit, especially in the box score. Example: Dan Murphy had a lot of hard hit balls that were safe hits, singles, doubles, a triple every once in a while, and HRs, and he had his share of dinky hits too. Good hitters have a larger amount of dinky or "just dropped in" hits because they make more contact. Nothing lucky about a batting average when you look at it at the end of a season. If you are over .300 you are a better hitter than many other batters. It's really that simple. Aside from double and triple plays a K is the most unproductive out there is. A fielder, like Muffy, could muff a grounder. And outfielder could drop a routine fly ball. Unless there's a passed ball or wild pitch involved a K does absolutely nothing, kills rallys, & kills runner advancement. Just because baseball these days is fine with the K & K rate of individual players that doesn't mean, at least to me, that it's inconsequential. All my opinions and I'll eat my words if you can definitively prove me wrong. I really dig the new stats, I'm not some old guy yelling at a cloud, but I keep a place for the old ones and appreciate them still. Duda is a very good player.

Ceetar wrote: striking out isn't really a big deal. Ceetar wrote: well for one, batting average is basically a worthless statistic and I wasn't even looking at it. Tsk, tsk, kids today. Brainwashed and conditioned by what they are told are the new improved stats and that the old one's were garbage. Sure, there are better indicators of specific things, but don't be totally dismissing the old school stats. They can be at the bottom of your list, but keep them on your list. You should know better than that Ceets. You're a very intelligent guy. Striking out isn't really a big deal. Tsk, tsk.

41Forever wrote: SteveJRogers wrote: Met Guys From Michigan? BAM! Nice job! WOW!!!! Another great list. Me thinks one member here is going to be a bit embarrassed for not getting this. But then you gotta stay up pretty late to beat Mister Rodgers to the punch.

I git Wheeler above Matz, in my little book that probably makes no sense.

Wheeler! You want me to bust a vein over here?

seawolf17 wrote: Ah, nuts. I think I used the wrong guy and inadvertently revealed the other answer above with Josh Satin. All guys who hit as many home runs as Mets as their uniform numbers. Gary Sheffield 10 Desi Relaford 8 Melvin Mora 6 Mike Marshall 6 Jim Beauchamp 5 Ed Bouchee 3 Billy Cowan 3 Luis Rivera 3 Josh Satin 3 Tom Grieve 2 Leo Foster 1 Tony Fernandez 1 Esix Snead 1 Darrell Ceciliani 1 Terry McDaniel 0 Bobby Valentine hit two, but didn't wear 2 as a player. So he kind of doesn't count. Wowahahow! Great list.

seawolf17 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: "Its ok, I guess" Same. If he gets more than 100 AB, something has gone horribly wrong or REALLY really right. I only see the horribly wrong side.

Feh OE: my reasons are in another thread. I hate typing.

I guess if I didn't vote for either I'd be akin to one of those assholes who don't use all their HoF votes. Meh, gotta go with Big

Frayed Knot wrote: Doug 'The Lord' Harvey - 87 31 years as an ump (all with the NL); 18 as a crew chief; 4,673 games. HoF Class of 2010 Actually just found out a few minutes ago. My favorite all time ump. I guess his family is as low key and humble as he was. His passing barely made a ripple. None of my brothers knew. And just a few weeks ago I ran into a pic of him and opened a folder for UMPS and saved it, thinking maybe Ill make a set of cards with umpires on em. Bummed.

Centerfield wrote: Just read up. Back issues. Herniated disk. That usually doesn’t get better on old guys. Yikes. Anyway, low risk move. I doubt they will trade Dom smith because of this. This^ I'll add I'm not too thrilled. They BETTER NOT trade Smith and have Adrian our starting first baseman. Unless they get a Trout or someone similar. Ha. [attachment=0]smithchance-z18.jpg[/attachment]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I like this one. Not a wise ass, punny, or attempting to be funny headline. I wrote a song about it... Wanna hear it? Here it go.. Its not wise ass punny, or attempting to be funny heeeeaadline, ahhhAHHHHahhahhh. Thank you very much! MFS62^ I'm on a Calhoun Tubbs kick. lol. QfzDUpB88x4