Elster88

Valadius wrote: Fucking Castro. I coulda sworn one of the reasons why I was told Castro should start next year was his stellar defense.

Edgy DC wrote: We're advocating an awesome amount of rest. He may tend to pitch better on more rest. He also tends to pitch more without it. And that's no small affair. This is silly. Who cares if he pitches better on more rest or on less? The point here is to shut him down for the remainder of the season. I doubt the two extra weeks rest will make much a difference on Opening Day 2006.

You can't say Diaz will only be a fourth outfielder any more than you can call him the next Manny Ramirez. No one knows one way or the other. ____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

The reason you may not remove the shutouts is because they may fall within the range which the majority of the scores fall. Example: 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 15 The range here would obviously be 0 to 3, so you remove 15 only. Obviously when the numbers are crunched for the Mets the zeroes may get removed, they may not.

Is Ankiel starting tomorrow? Then we have a shot. ____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

ABG wrote: So...shut down Pedro the rest of the year? Yes, says I. I like this idea. Let him go back to that beach and sleep for three days or whatever he keeps talking about. ____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

I like your chart, though in a nutshell that's what I was going to do, only using some fancy terms and more specific calculations I learned in one of those boring "stats as a scientific measure" classes way back in freshman year. Give me some of my thunder back. ____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

Rotblatt wrote: ="Elster88"]]Neither is the cherry-picking argument (if we take out the 5 best games, etc.). That's not cherry-picking. Basic statistics. The majority of scores fall within a certain range, and you remove the outliers. What you have left AFTER removing the outliers tells you what a score is likely to be on a certain day. ____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw Um, randomly deciding to remove 5 games--with the number 5 picked completely abitrarily--has nothing whatsoever to do with outliers or statistics. You don't just say, "I bet there are five outliers!" and get rid of them. You define terms--what offensive output am I measuring? Runs scored? Earned runs scored? Batters reached? OPS? Then you plot all the games out and look for a pattern, from which you find outliers. So yes, it is cherry picking. Which is fine and still fun to look at, but don't pretend it's statistical. I don't think you know what I mean. You find the range under which the majority of the scores fall. If there are some that are outside that range, you discard them. Those that are going to be discarded (if any), are going to be the extreme highs and exterme lows. This is not cherry-picking. I'm not sure how to explain it better without actually doing the math. I'll get around to doing this out one day. I was referring to runs scored, since that's much easier to use than figuring out the OPS for each individual game. ]Um, randomly deciding to remove 5 games--with the number 5 picked completely abitrarily--has nothing whatsoever to do with outliers or statistics. You don't just say, "I bet there are five outliers!" and get rid of them. When did I say this? When did I pick the number 5? I don't know if there are five, less than five or more than five, and never said I did. I can tell you without doing a single calculation that the two games in Arizona are meaningless when trying to figure out the Mets' average offensive production, but those are the only two I am sure of offhand. As an educated guess, I would say there are more than five. Possibly some of the times we were shutout will be eliminated, too, though those are much more likely to be included. ]but don't pretend it's statistical. Yes, it is statistics. It is a way of removing error and reducing the influence of extremes from a measure of average. This is a way (obviously not the only way) to figure out what the average offensive output was for a team over a season. I would argue that it is better than simply taking the runs scored as a total. And for me it's more fun than looking up numbers on a website, which is why I plan to do the math out. ____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

I really didn't think there would come a time again this year where I would be hoping for .500 Let's rest Glavine, Reyes, Floyd and Pedro for the rest of the year like Bart said and shoot for a high draft pick.____________________________This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

Reyes was picking the shit out of his nose. ____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

]Neither is the cherry-picking argument (if we take out the 5 best games, etc.). That's not cherry-picking. Basic statistics. The majority of scores fall within a certain range, and you remove the outliers. What you have left AFTER removing the outliers tells you what a score is likely to be on a certain day. ____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

Just read the first post again. Basically what he's saying he could've said in three ideas. 1) I knew the Mets wouldn't make the playoffs. 2) I told you so. 3) I'm taking off work for four days to sit in unbelievable seats for free to watch exciting playoff-implications baseball which you guys can't do in your stadium. Haha, sucks to be you. To top it off, he's not a Red Sox fan, he's a bullshit bandwagoner. I've appreciated a lot of the stuff he's posted, but if one of my FRIENDS said those three things to me, I'd say "You're an unbelievable prick, don't talk to me anymore." (Of course, I doubt anyone who I was friends with would do this.) Lastly, he was able to stretch those three thoughts out into a long post. _____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

Benson 5 Beltran 2 Reyes 1 Matsui 1 Zambrano 1 _____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

This has been done...but I don't remember where. JD do you remember which thread? Someone link it. _____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

]We're on pace for 728 RS, our best, again, since 2000 (807), and good for a tie for 6th in the NL, 16th in the majors. That's indisputably good. Not indisputably good. 6th in the NL is above average, true, but 16th out of 30 teams is not good, it's average. And we had this argument already, and JD made many salient points about the blowouts which contributed to this. Rotty, I think you are thinking with your heart too much. Just take a look at what has happened since Arizona, please. W 1-0, L 2-1, L 4-1, W 6-4, L 8-2, L 3-1, L 4-2, L 5-4, W 7-1, L 4-2, L 3-1, L 4-3, L 5-0 That's 31 runs in 13 games, or 2.38 runs per game, including a 7 spot and a 6 spot. I don't think Piazza and Cameron make a huge difference when inserted back into the lineup either. And we pulled this off during a stretch which was easily the best chance to make the playoffs since 2001. _____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

]respectable tie for 10th in the NL, 19th in the majors This is not respectable, this is below average. Seeing as how hitting is 50% of the game, I don't see how below average can be acceptable or respectable for any team with playoff aspirations. _____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

I see nothing wrong with letting Looper come back as a setup man IF there are no better in-house options. And that's a big IF. _____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

IMHO, people make waaaaaay too much of the impact of blocking young guys. _____________________________ This post had the designation 159) Bob Shaw

Looper did give us one of the better back cover pictures in recent years, the one after closing out the second 2004 Subway Series on the Post that had the caption "Kings of New York". _____________________________ This was Elster88’s last post with the designation 160) Kazuo Matsui. Bye Kaz! I hope to post as you again.

Seriously, you wonder why people have a short temper when it comes to your posts? _____________________________ This post had the designation 160) Kaz Matsui

Zvon wrote: ="TheOldMole"]I do feel better with Matsui starting at second. I mean, relative to as good as one can feel these days, which is...eh... he's hittin....... He seems to have improved his focus at the plate. I don't believe in focus. He was probably focused every time all year long equally as much as he is now. Just happens to be hot now. Or hotter, at least.

Zvon wrote: Then Matsui singles and Beltran wiffs. UGH. Beltran is pressing. Him trying to steal 3rd last night is a prime example. He took that upon himself thinking he has to do something to help. Some help that was. Floyd didnt even move up behind him. Thats bad baseball. It was bad baseball, but I think it was also the first time he got caught trying to steal third in two years.

It doesn't matter my friend. There are no playoffs, there will be no playoffs. _____________________________ This post had the designation 160) Kaz Matsui

I miss the days when you ejected toast. _____________________________ This post had the designation 160) Kaz Matsui

Now there's a game that means nothing. _____________________________ This post had the designation 160) Kaz Matsui