Elster88

Are you addressing me?

1) Anyone who doesn't think Rickey belongs in the HoF doesn't understand Rickey's accomplishments and/or is unable to place them in the proper historical context. 2) Anyone who thinks Rickey belongs in the HoF but doesn't vote for him is using his vote for something other than what the vote is for. Anyone who falls into categories 1 or 2 shouldn't have a vote. CF is correct.

="Fman99":2e62iyx4]="Centerfield":2e62iyx4]I heard the Mets are about to make a serious run at Ben Sheets.[/quote:2e62iyx4] Don't tease us. Where did you hear this CF?[/quote:2e62iyx4] Val's uncle. Rockin' Doc Jan 06 2009 08:56 PM ="Elster88":2uq59gt4]="Fman99":2uq59gt4]="Centerfield":2uq59gt4]I heard the Mets are about to make a serious run at Ben Sheets.[/quote:2uq59gt4] Don't tease us. Where did you hear this CF?[/quote:2uq59gt4] Val's uncle.[/quote:2uq59gt4] Ouch! Spacemans Bong Jan 07 2009 12:39 AM ="Centerfield":1sw59tqo]The way Heyman is reporting on this Lowe situation, you'd think Boras has him in his back pocket. In his blog, he writes that the Mets might be falling behind in the race for Lowe. http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/hot_stove/posts/37542[/quote:1sw59tqo] You just noticed that? Heyman's Boras's boy in the media. Frayed Knot Jan 07 2009 12:20 PM Caught a radio spot with Gammons -- who was saying that, now with the internet being the main source of info these days, "several outlets" have essentially become [u:21mnwbyh]ScottBoras.com[/u:21mnwbyh], a place where the agent can get his message out whether it's actual info or not. He didn't mention Heyman (or anyone else for that matter) by name, but it also was NOT an ESPN appearance so it didn't give the feeling of being a 'all you lesser sites suck' rant either. He then went on to call one of the Brewer front office folks (forget which) "my personal hero" for running down a list of just about every Boras client and saying; "nope", "haven't talked with them", "not him", "not him either", etc., etc. simply because he was sick of hearing/reading public reports that had his team in talks with just about every client Scotty has. Lowe was mentioned as one of those guys who the Brew exec claims they're not talking to. Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 12:24 PM Yes, but I bet he didn't deny "lurking." Number 6 Jan 07 2009 07:53 PM Below is a link to part of the transcript of the Gammons radio interview FK cites. Some other interesting tidbits in there besides the comment on Boras's tactics in using online reporting to manipulate the market, though that's probably the most head-turning. Gammons doing quite a bit of bemoaning, but not wrongly on all points. Plus, the female member of the Globe's Red Sox reporting team is librarian-style cute. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 08:27 PM I'd like to show her my dewey decimal, if you know what I mean. Benjamin Grimm Jan 08 2009 07:54 AM ="The Boston Globe"] Lowe to meet with Braves Posted by Tony Massarotti, Globe Staff January 8, 2009 09:10 AM With the news that John Smoltz may be headed to the Red Sox, it should come as a no surprise that the Braves appear to be intensifying their pursuit of another free-agent pitcher: Derek Lowe. According to a baseball source, Lowe is scheduled to meet with representatives of the Braves this afternoon in Atlanta. The Braves have spent much of the offseason looking for another starting pitcher since since acquiring Javier Vazquez from the Chicago White Sox and now appear focused on Lowe as that alternative. Thus far, it has been a tough offseason for the Braves, who have come up empty in pursuits of Smoltz, pitchers Jake Peavy and A.J. Burnett, and shortstop Rafael Furcal, among others. Atlanta always has appeared to have some interest in Lowe, but until now, indications were that Lowe preferred to focus his sights on teams in the Northeast. At the moment, Lowe is believed to have only a three-year offer from the New York Mets worth $36 million, an average of $12 million per year. The Braves may be in a position where they have to guarantee a fourth year at a higher average annual salary in order to get a deal done with the pitcher. The Red Sox are not involved in negotiations for Lowe. metirish Jan 08 2009 07:59 AM Read in the Snooze today that the Mets and Boras are far far apart in the numbers , Boras is thinking 4 years $64 million while Harper says the Mets would go to $40 million to get the deal done but not add more years. Frayed Knot Jan 08 2009 08:06 AM Good find #6 This part kills me: Q: On whether they Sox will sign Varitek, a Boras client: Gammons: Well, if he calls and says, 'I'll sign at $2 million,' they might do it. ... How Scott Boras looked him in the eye and said, 'By the way, I turned down $10 million [in arbitration],' is beyond me. [Varitek] would have made a minimum of $10 million, maybe $11 million. And there are a bunch of guys like that -- Jon Garland, Orlando Cabrera. There are a bunch of guys who are not even going to come close to what they made in arbitration. Q: On whether Varitek wanted to accept arbitration and Boras steered him a different way: Gammons: I don't know. I know the players' association was strongly advising agents not to take arbitration. They felt that teams were trying to control players for one year at a lesser amount than they'd have to pay down the line. But again, if you're Jon Garland or Ben Sheets or Orlando Cabrera or Jason Varitek, it cost you a lot of money. FK: The MLBPA seems to have this attitude that they won't give in to the owners even in those cases where it hurts their members. HAH! They can't control us. Just watch, we'll have our players take 80% pay cuts just to show them they can't control us!!! Yeah, you showed 'em all right. Fman99 Jan 08 2009 09:37 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1cpmrst4]I'd like to show her my dewey decimal, if you know what I mean.[/quote:1cpmrst4] I'd knock her right in her Breeders' Circle�. Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2009 06:00 AM Ken Rosenthal on Mets Hot Stove Report last night says that, while the Braves are now looking like competition with the Mets for Lowe, as far as he knows, nobody other than the Mets has expressed any interest in Oliver Perez. He's pretty sure that the Mets will end up with either Lowe or Perez. metirish Jan 09 2009 06:31 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3nzbjmer] He's pretty sure that the Mets will end up with either Lowe or Perez.[/quote:3nzbjmer] Any shot at both? , I think Lowe for what is being talked about would fine in terms of money and more importantly years and Ollie for four years and $40 million would be sweet. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 07:33 AM "Any shot at both?" I highly doubt that. Maybe one of them plus Petey, or plus Wolfie, or plus Redding, etc., but I don't see them inking two $12-$15mil/yr hurlers in the same month, not just on account of the money but also giving up the draft picks that would go with doing that. Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2009 07:43 AM The only way I can see "both" happening is if the Mets sign Lowe and there's really no other market for Perez. In that case Boras might be willing to have Ollie sign a one-year deal with the Mets and try the market again after the 2009 season. Not a likely scenario, I don't think, but a possible one. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 07:45 AM Well, there may be one $12 million guy and one $11 million guy. My mind is open. Let's not cough at Ollie's return. Two interesting stats about him: He had a 3.77 ERA after Manuel and Warthan came in. Lefties slugged. .271 off of him. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 07:50 AM I like Ollie and the only thing that gives me any pause is the Mets seemingly casual attitude about having him back. He's obviously got great talent and some flair, and he;'s healthy as far as we know, yeah? And he's 8 -- EIGHT -- years younger than Lowe. 8! Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 07:57 AM .271! Nymr83 Jan 09 2009 08:22 AM ="Edgy DC":1qbzwli1].271![/quote:1qbzwli1] 105! * Perez's league-leading walk total Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 08:29 AM The walk rate also dropped precipitously after Manuel came in, from 5.97 to 4.21 per nine innings. Nymr83 Jan 09 2009 08:35 AM if he'd done that over his 194 innings he'd have walked 90, still good for 5th most in the leaguw. so his walks went from atrocious to merely bad. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 09:15 AM And Lowe is old and fat and pretty dicky. Nobody's perfect. Frayed Knot Jan 09 2009 11:11 AM Petey comes out in favor[/url:nsem0o4a] of the Mets signing Lowe ... he also comes out in favor of the Mets signing Petey!! metirish Jan 09 2009 11:15 AM Hilarious from Pedro in regards to Fred and Jeff. ] "I don't go to the papers a lot, but I know what happened to [team owner] Mr. Fred Wilpon, and I feel very badly for him," Martinez said, referring to Wilpon's investments with alleged swindler Bernard Madoff. "I feel very badly for the whole organization that those things happen. I wish I could do something. I just pray that [Wilpon] bounces back and we can give him the World Series that he deserves." John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 09 2009 11:32 AM Pedro's pissed because Madoff stole more than he did from the 'pons. Nymr83 Jan 09 2009 11:32 AM ="Edgy DC":er6x240t]And Lowe is old and fat and pretty dicky. Nobody's perfect.[/quote:er6x240t] he's old and relatively fat, but he was good the last 3 years in LA, i'd take him over Perez. where did you hear he was "dicky"? metirish Jan 09 2009 11:36 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3up0zjlh]Pedro's pissed because Madoff stole more than he did from the 'pons.[/quote:3up0zjlh] Exactly what I was thinking , Pedro at least got away with it. Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2009 11:39 AM It looks like Lowe has been pretty solid. He may not be as flashy as Perez, but I'll take solid over flashy. Especially after the last two seasons. Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 11:47 AM ="Nymr83"]="Edgy DC"]And Lowe is old and fat and pretty dicky. Nobody's perfect. he's old and relatively fat, but he was good the last 3 years in LA, i'd take him over Perez. where did you hear he was "dicky"? It's all over. Say his name out loud right now, and I guarantee, if at least three persons are within earshot, one of them will respond, "That guy's a dick!" Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 11:54 AM That's ambiguous. To clarify, by dick, I mean racially exclusive pill-popping carousing boozehound: http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2006/04/lowes_double_bad_day.php metirish Jan 09 2009 11:58 AM What a dick Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 12:03 PM You hear that, Nymr? Nymr83 Jan 09 2009 02:07 PM he doesn't count, he read the hit-piece that looks like it came straight from the wife's divorce lawyer. ok, maybe he's a dick, but he pitches well and doesn't look like a distraction on the field (Ramirez-style) so whatever. the Mets need pitching, even pitching with flawed personal lives. Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2009 02:14 PM Yeah, we're looking for a pitcher, not a brother-in-law. Zvon Jan 09 2009 02:28 PM I read they gave Scott Boros a tour of Citi Field the other day. WTF? Nymr83 Jan 09 2009 02:33 PM "...and on your right you'll see the private suite we reserve for players' agents, but only if their clients have signed with us..." Edgy DC Jan 09 2009 03:02 PM Since when are you Mr. Tolerate Personal Flaws? Nymr83 Jan 09 2009 04:13 PM since we needed the pitching Edgy DC Jan 10 2009 09:29 PM Root the Yankees. They got it all. Me, I'm definitely for the non-dickulous. Frayed Knot Jan 11 2009 09:18 AM Not exactly anything new here, but Newsday's Ken Davidoff suggests[/url:3tucfsf7] that the Mets "remain confident" that they'll wind up with either Lowe or a return engagement by Ollie Perez. He mentions the recent Braves meeting with Lowe - but that's just one team. He goes on to quote pitching-hungry Brewer GM Doug Melvin as saying that; "I haven't even talked to Scott Boras" Also the Phils recent re-upping of CH Park pretty much fills out their rotation. While the BoSox have put a retainer on the rehabbing law firm of Smoltz, Penny, & Saito. Ashie62 Jan 11 2009 09:38 AM Omar hires the law firm Trickem Dickem & Lickem to pursue a starting pitcher. Derek Lowes numbers are solid over the last 3 years. He throws strikes. Is he a dick? As said earlier ask a few people about anyone and we're all dicks. I'm a dick and have a small one to prove it. I wonder if Oliver Twist is pissed the Mets made him sing for his supper this season and is apparently likely to see his price drop. Maybe Ben Sheet's price will go down to reasonable lets take a shot territory.. metsguyinmichigan Jan 11 2009 09:08 PM If the Braves get Lowe, that makes it easier to sign Perez, no? One fewer team with money looking for a starter? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 11 2009 09:46 PM Braves apparently have signed that Kenshin Kawakami guy. If he's a starter, maybe they're out too. Centerfield Jan 12 2009 08:16 AM Ken Rosenthal said they were "all over" Lowe in an article over the weekend. So if you follow the logic of this thread, the Braves really like dick. metirish Jan 12 2009 08:39 AM Here's a new wrinkle to the Lowe talks. Jon Heyman ] Mets: Lowe-ball pitcher needed A secret batting practice session with David Wright, Daniel Murphy and Nick Evans last September at Citifield convinced all the players that the Mets' new home won't be the pitching park Mets people expected, but rather a launching pad for home runs. And some within their hierarchy have used this inside knowledge to stump for Lowe, a groundball pitcher, suggesting he might work better than Oliver Perez, a flyball pitcher. Lowe is far from a certainty to join the Mets, however. He is in play for the Braves and quite possibly the under-the-radar Phillies. The Brewers and Angels are outside possibilities (the Red Sox have to be out now after signing Cooperstown-bound John Smoltz). At this point, Lowe appears most likely ticketed for one of those three NL East teams. The Braves still have $60 million to $80 million left over from what they didn't spend on A.J. Burnett. But if Lowe goes to the world champion Phillies, that would give them a superb five-man rotation and put them in a dominating position to win the division for the third straight year. Even so, the Mets don't appear to be all in for Lowe to this point. GM Omar Minaya, who met with Carlos Beltran and Carlos Delgado during their recruitment periods and plans to meet soon with Pedro Martinez, has yet to meet with Lowe, who has huddled with the Braves and Phillies already. It seems that while some Mets people have stumped hard for Lowe, Minaya prefers the young left-hander Perez, which might explain their lukewarm $36-million, three-year offer to Lowe. Unless they change their stance, maybe Minaya will get his wish and be able to go after Perez after all. I had not heard this before , I knew about the BP but not that CF might be a launching pad. Of course we won't know until actual play but still I shudder at the thoughts of that. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:53 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 09:42 AM ="Nymr83"]he doesn't count, he read the hit-piece that looks like it came straight from the wife's divorce lawyer. Read it again. The depositions are open public records. That he threw his wife over for the FOX chick, that's public knowledge. That he was (is?) using Adderall, prescribed by a team doctor without an exam, that comes from his deposition. That the Red Sox suspected a drinking problem, his deposition also. That he got drunk in the clubhouse after games with the clubhouse manager, that comes from Trinka. But the manager disputes only the degrees, not the facts, though the degrees are higly relevant. That he was busted after a domestic disturbance, there's no independent source, but it can't be hard for a reporter to find one, and we don't get a denial. The explicitly segregated dinners, right out of the horse's mouth.Not in that report, in March 2006, Lowe whined that "he just didn't care" and wanted to go on the disabled list with "emotional distress" because of the hard times brought on him when he was discovered to be a womanizing jock. I mean, carrying on with a TV reporter, who could have expected that to go public? smg58 Jan 12 2009 09:27 AM [url:1dwd0gfh]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:1dwd0gfh] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield. seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 09:50 AM ="smg58":27rfu7sx][url:27rfu7sx]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:27rfu7sx] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:27rfu7sx] That was what I remembered also, not the "launching pad" thing. Heyman's an ass. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:56 AM ="seawolf17":18o7iaxe]="smg58":18o7iaxe][url:18o7iaxe]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:18o7iaxe] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:18o7iaxe] That was what I remembered also, not the "launching pad" thing. Heyman's an ass.[/quote:18o7iaxe] I don't buy that linked story either, at least not all of it. I think we'll have to wait and see. I think stuff like the batter's eye and lighting has as much or more to do with it than fence heights and configurations. The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 09:57 AM ="smg58":1lloyi2s][url:1lloyi2s]http://www.amazinavenue.com/2009/1/7/711009/citi-field-where-homeruns[/url:1lloyi2s] Amazingly, it wasn't hard at all to find an article suggesting exactly the opposite of what Heyman says about Citifield.[/quote:1lloyi2s] This was a good read. By the way, I was always under the impression that Citi Field would favor the pitcher slightly. So Heyman's piece notwithstanding, am I misremembering? metirish Jan 12 2009 09:58 AM No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad. Frayed Knot Jan 12 2009 10:01 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM According to the Mets, CitiField was designed to be, at worst, neutral and hopefully favoring pitchers somewhat. But like someone said above, the proof is in the playing and all kinds of things can affect the final outcome that may not have been thought of by the planners. It's a lot more than just the numbers on the wall. Was it the new place in Philly or in Cincy (or maybe both) where open areas behind home/3rd led to wind tunnels that carried the balls out towards RF much more than anyone thought. Neither was necessarily designed as homer-happy palaces. CF is going to be more enclosed than Shea and also turned some 25-30 degrees to the north. Not sure how much/if those will factor in. I think Heyman is taking a quickie impression based on an impromptu BP session and drawing a whole lotta silly conclusions from it. batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM ="metirish":3lsk2pws]No you are not misremembering but I think Heyman read Jeff Wilpon talking about Evens " even hitting them over the wall" and came to the logical conclusion that it must be a launching pad.[/quote:3lsk2pws] I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season. TransMonk Jan 12 2009 10:03 AM I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad". If I had to predict, I would say Citi will play similar to the new Ted in Atlanta. Similar elevation, dimensions and direction. Anything's possible depending on how the wind reacts, but I haven't seen much evidence to this point that Citi will favor HR hitters. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 10:09 AM ="TransMonk":2hobzjr5]I don't know why anyone would think the new park will be a "launching pad".[/quote:2hobzjr5] A single batting practice session with three players, that's why! seawolf17 Jan 12 2009 10:52 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":wqe3qe7s]The Mets have also indicated the fences can go up or down if needed, I think I read somewhere.[/quote:wqe3qe7s] I say they put them up when we're in the field, and down when we're at the plate. Benjamin Grimm Jan 12 2009 11:24 AM Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 12:45 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":ips0smpy]Bill Veeck tried something like that in the minor leagues. He had a chain link fence installed on a track on top of the regular fence. When the home team was batting, the fence would be rolled off to the side, and when the visitors were up it would be rolled back into place. Needless to say, he didn't get away with that for long.[/quote:ips0smpy] yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers. Gwreck Jan 12 2009 06:12 PM ="Nymr83":1gekmyvr]yeah, but that leads to a better idea that you might get away with... having a higher "portable" fence in games started by your flyball pitchers than you do in games started by your groundballers.[/quote:1gekmyvr] I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that's actually prohibited. Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 08:02 PM Yes it is. Teams need league permission before changing ballpark dimiensions, and I'm certain they'd be intolerant of a team changing them daily on the basis of who is pitching.. Nymr83 Jan 12 2009 08:47 PM is the height of a wall included in dimensions though? or are "dimensions" just the distance from homeplate to the wall? Edgy DC Jan 12 2009 09:00 PM I guess it's a valid question, but I consider the z axis to be a dimension. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 12 2009 09:39 PM I am sure that changing fence heights would require prior league approval. Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 06:16 AM Yeah, something like that would almost certainly be done between seasons and only after notifying MLB and probably after waiting for permission. All Jeffy said was the OF was designed with the possibility of fine-tuning the wall height in mind (and maybe even small changes in distances in some spots) so that if minor adjustments were needed it wouldn't mean tearing out certain seats and blocking the views of others if the place started to look too hitter-friendly (or, presumably, too pitcher-friendly). MFS62 Jan 13 2009 06:46 AM Discussion about whether or not CitiField will be a launching pad is premature because the wind currents when Shea is down are not known yet. Later Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 07:18 AM but isn't shea basically behind homeplate which is closed off anyway? i'd only expect shea to significantly effect the winds there if shea was facing an open part of stadium. i have no proof of this, but i got the feeling every game i went to this year that citifield was having a huge effect on the winds inside shea Centerfield Jan 13 2009 07:54 AM Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe. Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 13 2009 08:05 AM ="Centerfield":3os7gt8v]Back to the original topic. Heyman has the Braves going 4 years, close to $60 million for Lowe.[/quote:3os7gt8v] Gak! Where's Ben Sheets? metirish Jan 13 2009 08:07 AM In that same Heyman article he says the Mets are proposing a three year $30 million deal for Ollie , I don't see that getting it done. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:24 AM Lowe's a Brave: http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html Edgy DC Jan 13 2009 09:25 AM Welcome back, Ollie! Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:27 AM Yuck. seawolf17 Jan 13 2009 09:29 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":26lhjjuj]Yuck.[/quote:26lhjjuj] No, I'm okay with that: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=270719119 bmfc1 Jan 13 2009 09:36 AM Heyman seems to be the first to report any news about Boras's clients. Peter Gammons, on January 07, said: "A lot of general managers and those of us in the business kid about a couple of sites referred to as ScottBoras.com, and Scott will float things out there and throw it out there and people will report it...." http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/01/gammonss_take.html I wonder if he was referring to Heyman. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 09:37 AM For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie. metirish Jan 13 2009 09:40 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":3qgkl57i]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:3qgkl57i] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with? attgig Jan 13 2009 09:49 AM ="metirish":27ncuko8]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":27ncuko8]For an xtra year and an xtra 24 million they can have him. Now let's get Ollie.[/quote:27ncuko8] Exactly , the four years is bad but they also seemed to have blown the door open with the $60 million , who did they think they were competing with?[/quote:27ncuko8] a mystery team. who else? Fman99 Jan 13 2009 09:52 AM Good. Way too much money/years for a guy who is 36 and has his head screwed on sideways. I like Sheets or Ollie at this point as a #4 guy. Benjamin Grimm Jan 13 2009 09:58 AM I really wanted them to get someone better than Oliver Perez. I wanted a number 2 guy. Oh well. I would have been more optimistic heading into the season with Lowe than Perez. At least Redding should be an upgrade over Pedro. metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 10:02 AM I'm very OK with this. That deal is going to look horrible before too long. Ollie can be lights out. He'll probably toss our first no-hitter. A seven-walk, two hit-batsman no-hitter, granted. smg58 Jan 13 2009 11:08 AM ="smg58":3cvsi3pd]A month or so ago I thought Derek Lowe would present the best value of the free agent pitchers. But I hear more rumors about teams being interested in him than in anybody else. I no longer think he'll come that cheap. He's more consistent and durable than any other pitcher on the market besides CC, but at his age I wouldn't want to be the team that offers him a fourth year at $15M+ per.[/quote:3cvsi3pd] I said that on Nov. 5, and I'm sticking to it. A Boy Named Seo Jan 13 2009 11:13 AM Good job, Mets. I don't doubt Lowe woulda been fine this year, maybe better than Ollie, and maybe good next year, too. But they weren't gonna go four expensive years on a 36-year old guy period, and they stuck to that. MFS62 Jan 13 2009 11:42 AM From age 37-40, Curt Schilling went sometning like 51-24, with ERA+ from 80 (one year) to 150 (best during that span). Not saying Lowe can come close to that, but it can happen. Of course there are probably many examples of rapid declines, too. But Lowe reminds me of Schilling - a bulldog. I wanted him on the Mets. Later Frayed Knot Jan 13 2009 01:21 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":r9o9y1ku]I'll say this for Heyman in fairness -- like him or not (and I'm not sure where I stand) last season, he was by far, the most accurate reporter at predicting future Mets moves ... especially during the will-they-fire-Willie and when-will-they-fire-Willie phase of the 2008 season.[/quote:r9o9y1ku] Heyman has long been a first-rate baseball reporter as far as digging out the facts and getting them right more often than not and often getting them first. And he didn't always get the credit for his scoops due to the tendency of the national press to cite the big-city dailies while overlooking Heyman's suburban-based Newsday. It may have been those frequent slights that prompted him to leave the newspaper biz for the brighter lights of SI, WFAN, SNY, and now MLBTV. Heyman's columnist persona while he was still at Newsday tended to irk a few around here from time to time but that was usually separate from his regular reporter chores. Nymr83 Jan 13 2009 01:30 PM too much and too long for Lowe, i'm glad it wasn't us.

Val have you ever been right about anything ever?

[url:3f7auvsk]http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3753504[/url:3f7auvsk] LAS VEGAS -- Francisco Rodriguez met with the New York Mets on the eve of the winter meetings, pitchers Darren Oliver and David Weathers took themselves off the free-agent market by accepting arbitration offers from their former clubs before Sunday night's deadline. Coming off a record-setting season for the Los Angeles Angels, Rodriguez came to Las Vegas and got together with New York general manager Omar Minaya. Apparently, Minaya did more than just talk. The Mets offered K-Rod a three-year deal, according to FoxSports.com, although they're not optimistic that he will accept. The New York Daily News reported the Mets' initial offer to K-Rod was two years at less than $24 million. New York is looking for a closer following elbow surgery on Billy Wagner, who likely will miss all of next season. K-Rod set a major league record with 62 saves last season, and his agent has talked about seeking a five-year deal worth about $65 million. But it is questionable whether Rodriguez will receive a contract of that length and average salary, especially given baseball's worries about the national recession. Yankees general manager Brian Cashman had planned to meet with left-hander CC Sabathia, the top available free-agent starter, during the weekend. A baseball source told ESPN.com's Jayson Stark that the meeting was Sunday night and was initiated by Sabathia's agent. Before the meetings began Monday, one of baseball's offseason deadlines passed. Twenty-four free agents were offered arbitration by their former teams on Dec. 1, and Oliver (Angels) and Weathers (Cincinnati Reds) were the only two to accept. They are considered signed players and will have their salaries determined by arbitration panels in February unless they reach agreements with their teams before then. Rodriguez rejected the Angels' offer, as did first baseman Mark Teixeira, who may get the most guaranteed years among this year's free-agent class. Among others who rejected offers were Sabathia and right-hander Ben Sheets (Milwaukee); outfielder Manny Ramirez and right-hander Derek Lowe (Los Angeles Dodgers); right-hander A.J. Burnett (Toronto); catcher Jason Varitek and right-hander Paul Byrd (Boston); left-hander Oliver Perez (Mets); and left-hander Brian Fuentes (Colorado). By offering arbitration, a team ensures it will receive one or two draft picks as compensation if a former player who became a free agent signs with a new club.

According to the ticker at the bottom of ESPN. Looking for more info. Edit: Changed subject after K-Rod signed.

SteveJRogers wrote: ="Elster88"]Whatever. See Maris, R., 1961. Also see Mantle, M., 1951-1960 What are you babbling about

Whatever. See Maris, R., 1961.

What's the deadline for submission?

No. Anyway, when was the "contention"? I feel like if there was even a sniff of a contentious relationship we would've been beaten across the head with it nonstop for at least six months and would still be hearing about it now. I misremember.

]the contentious relationship he had with Manny Acta, according to Newsday ???

="TransMonk":27zwugz4]18 Endy Chavez 17 Billy Wagner[/quote:27zwugz4] ="Fman99":27zwugz4]18 Endy Chavez 17 Billy Wagner [/quote:27zwugz4] What's going on here? One person putting Endy in front of Wagner is shocking enough. AG/DC Oct 20 2008 09:17 PM I have Wagner contributing about five times as much as Chavez. Fman99 Oct 21 2008 06:24 AM ="Elster88":gark3wxm]="TransMonk":gark3wxm]18 Endy Chavez 17 Billy Wagner[/quote:gark3wxm] ="Fman99":gark3wxm]18 Endy Chavez 17 Billy Wagner [/quote:gark3wxm] What's going on here? One person putting Endy in front of Wagner is shocking enough.[/quote:gark3wxm] I changed my answer. I will admit to looking at TM's paper when I filled this out. TransMonk Oct 21 2008 09:24 AM Yeah, you're right. Chavez has been moved on mine. AG/DC Oct 21 2008 09:32 PM The Studly 30 Santana 29 Wright 28 Beltran 27 JReyes 26 Delgado The Useful and the Partial 25 Wagner 24 Pelfrey 23 Perez 22 Tatis 21 Schneider 20 Maine 19 Church 18 Castillo 17 Smith 16 Easley 15 Schoeneweis 14 Castro 13 Chavez 12 Murphy 11 Feliciano 10 Sanchez 9 Heilman 8 Stokes The Helpful 7 Evans 6 Pagan 5 Figueroa 4 Casanova 3 Alou 2 PMartinez 1 Ayala They Showed 0 Muniz -1 Vargas -2 RMartinez -3 Nixon -4 Clark -5 Rincon -6 Parnell -7 Cancel -8 Wise -9 Knight Sub-Replacement Mets -10 AReyes -11 Sosa -12 Phillips -13 Molina -14 Kunz -15 Nuñez -16 Aguila -17 Niese -18 Armas -19 Anderson Nymr83 Oct 21 2008 11:26 PM I started by dividing the hitters and I get 5 or so groups. Group 1- Wright, Beltran, Reyes, & Delgado- played very well and played all year. Group 2- Tatis & Church - played well and played a little over half the year. Group 3- Murphy, Schneider, & Easley - played decently and half the year or played very well for a lesser but still significant portion of the year. Group 4- Castro, Castillo, Chavez, Pagan & Evans- they werent useless. Group 5- Casanova, Cancel, A.Reyes, Nixon, Anderson & Alou- I may need some of you guys if i don't get enough pitchers. trying to do the same with pitchers Group 1- Santana - is in a "group" all his own Group 2- Pelfrey - it wouldnt be fair to Santana to group them together, and it wouldn't be fair to Pelfrey to lump him in with what follows. Group 3- Maine & Perez - a big notch above any of the relievers, Wagner's numbers projected over 90 innings would have joined Pelfrey, would have joined these guys over 70 but with just 47 innings he needs to go lower and nobody else was good enough. Group 4- Wagner, Smith, Schoeneweis - the decent relievers, yeah Schoenweis wasn't really bad, and he'd be better if used properly. Group 5- Stokes, Feliciano, Sanchez- they were ok but they didnt pitch much or they were average or slightly below Group 6-Martinez, Heilman, Figueroa -what a pile of crap, they pitched alot so maybe they'll be on thebottom of the list if i need filler. Nymr83 Oct 21 2008 11:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 22 2008 12:05 PM ok lets start the complaining. Edgy- you have Heilman who SUCKED to the tune of a 5.21 ERA and 1.59 WHIP over Smith who had a 3.51/1.29 in about 2/5ths of the innings Heilman pitched. I know we have the quality vs. quantity argument every year and nobody ever agrees, but come on, Heilman actually hurt the team by being here, his removal would have been addition by subtraction. on edit- I'm talking about Stokes not Smith. whoops. AG/DC Oct 22 2008 05:55 AM I have Smith above Heilman, Willis. Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 12:04 PM Sorry, it was late at night, I typed Smith and meant to say Stokes. Frayed Knot Oct 22 2008 12:18 PM Well in that case your argument is with everyone who has cast a vote so far (except Firecracker) and not just Edgy. I've got Stokes lower than anyone (28th place - 3 points) so maybe I need to re-evaluate but I guess I go back to the whole year on the roster vs not getting there until mid-August thing. AG/DC Oct 22 2008 12:23 PM Almost everyone has Pelf higher than I do. My numbers had him beneath Tatis, and that didn't seem right, so I bumped him up. But Win Shares agree with my numbers. smg58 Oct 22 2008 12:46 PM 30 Santana 29 Wright 28 Reyes 27 Delgado 26 Beltran 25 Pelfrey 24 Wagner 23 Tatis 22 Church 21 Murphy 20 Perez 19 Maine 18 Schneider 17 Smith 16 Heilman 15 Easley 14 Schoeneweis 13 Castillo 12 Chavez 11 Castro 10 Martinez 9 Ayala 8 Stokes 7 Sanchez 6 Feliciano 5 Figueroa 4 Vargas 3 Evans 2 Pagan 1 Alou Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 01:13 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 06 2008 01:50 PM I guess i may as well turn my rankings into some sort of list, though as usual i hate merging hitters and pitchers. edit - don't count this list, my new list is below (page 4) 30. Santana 29. Wright 28. Beltran 27. Reyes 26. Delgado 25. Pelfrey 24. Tatis 23. Maine 22. Church 21. Perez 20. Wagner 19. Murphy 18. Smith 17. Schoenweis 16. Schneider 15. Easley 14. Castro 13. Stokes 12. Feliciano 11. Sanchez 10. Castillo 9. Chavez 8. Pagan 7. Evans 6. Martinez 5. Heilman 4. Casanova 3. Cancel 2. Figueroa 1. A.Reyes ]I've got Stokes lower than anyone (28th place - 3 points) so maybe I need to re-evaluate but I guess I go back to the whole year on the roster vs not getting there until mid-August thing who cares if you were on the roster all year (Heilman) when you were BAD the whole time? is this a list of who helped the Mets the most or who played for the Mets the most? Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 01:18 PM I think Pedro is getting too much credit, a 5.60 ERA over 100 innings doesn't have value, it hurts the team. SMG- Ayala higher than Stokes? Stokes pitched twice as many innings for the Mets with an ERA 2 runs lower. AG/DC Oct 22 2008 01:24 PM It depends on where you set zero.. I set it as an ERA+ or an OPS+ of 60. Pedro and Heilman didn't go as low as that. Benjamin Grimm Oct 22 2008 02:03 PM 30 Johan Santana 29 David Wright 28 Carlos Beltran 27 Carlos Delgado 26 Jos� Reyes 25 Mike Pelfrey 24 Oliver Perez 23 John Maine 22 Fernando Tatis 21 Ryan Church 20 Damion Easley 19 Billy Wagner 18 Joe Smith 17 Brian Schneider 16 Luis Castillo 15 Daniel Murphy 14 Pedro Feliciano 13 Brian Stokes 12 Scott Schoeneweis 11 Duaner Sanchez 10 Endy Chavez 9 Ramon Castro 8 Pedro Martinez 7 Luis Ayala 6 Nick Evans 5 Aaron Heilman 4 Angel Pagan 3 Nelson Figueroa 2 Claudio Vargas 1 Moises Alou Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 03:27 PM ="AG/DC":3rls0zag]It depends on where you set zero.. I set it as an ERA+ or an OPS+ of 60. Pedro and Heilman didn't go as low as that.[/quote:3rls0zag] i think thats just too low a barrier. being better than the ex-player sitting home on his couch or the guy pitching in the independent leagues can be doesnt make you any good, and it certainly doesnt make you more valuable than a part-timer who played well. but even if you believe in your 60 ERA+ thing (and i dont), Heilman gave them a 81+ in 76 innings. Stokes had a 120+ in 33.3. so the difference between Stokes and Heilman was 42.6 innings... if you add that many innings of your 60+ guy to what stokes actually did you get 76 innings of 86.3 ERA+, so Stokes plus replacement level clown is still better than Heilman. Frayed Knot Oct 22 2008 06:00 PM ]who cares if you were on the roster all year (Heilman) when you were BAD the whole time? is this a list of who helped the Mets the most or who played for the Mets the most? It's not a case of one over the other but a balance between the two. There's only so much one can do for a team when he's not on the roster for 3/4 of the season short of a Murphy or Jefferies type stretch. It's the same reason you have A.Reyes, Cancel & Casanova on your list above Alou, or Chavez over Pagan even though those lower guys had better stats over a shorter period. I'll re-look at Stokes and maybe move him up some, but considering that Heilman was one of the most used pitchers on the staff this year and is being rated at somewhere around the 23rd or so best player is hardly unduly rewarding him. AG/DC Oct 22 2008 08:55 PM I kind of grow tired of the Guys having bad years hurt the team and don't deserve anything argument every year. Guys having bad years is a reality and if anybody better was so damn available, they'd have tried them. They tried everybody. I'm happy with the way I have it. Stokes helped the team with his bat somewhat. Heilman, like most pitchers is a negative there. He also helped more defensively. The big difference is Heilman's strikeout rate. He relied less on his fielders for his modest achievements. Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 09:22 PM ="AG/DC"]I kind of grow tired of the Guys having bad years hurt the team and don't deserve anything argument every year. Guys having bad years is a reality and if anybody better was so damn available, they'd have tried them. They tried everybody. I'm happy with the way I have it. Stokes helped the team with his bat somewhat. Heilman, like most pitchers is a negative there. He also helped more defensively. The big difference is Heilman's strikeout rate. He relied less on his fielders for his modest achievements. And I grow equally tired of the "lets give guys lots of credit just for showing up" argument every year. Why don't you address my argument that Stokes + replacement innings is still better than Heilman? AG/DC Oct 22 2008 09:32 PM I didn't make that first argument. Did you not see me state exactly how much better than a replacement pitcher I measured him to be? I did address your argument. I was very clear. Nymr83 Oct 22 2008 09:42 PM you want to talk about "relying on the defense"? Stokes only allowed 8 walks in 33 innings while Heilman allowed 46 AND beaned 9 batters for a total of 55 in 76 innings. So while Heilman may have struck people out at a higher rate he was also busy creating his own problems while Smith was doing what pitcher needs to do, not walk people and give the defense the opportunity to do their jobs. ]Did you not see me state exactly how much better than a replacement pitcher I measured him to be? no i didn't. because if you're citing solely to ERA+ then Stokes is better, and if you're saying "well heilman pitched more" you havent explained how you measured those innings against the variation in ERA+, i've given you one way (adding the necessary number of replacement innings to the other guy with less innings) and you havent responded to that AG/DC Oct 22 2008 10:18 PM No, I'm not merely "citing solely to ERA+." No, I'm not saying "well heilman pitched more." Stop it. Your first paragraph indicates you've read my arguments. Your third indicates you haven't. if you want the actual formula I'm working with for pitching, it's =(ERA+ - 60)*(IP * (2 + ((SO/9) / (LgSO/9) -1))). And Stokes (not Smith!) wasn't doing anything of the sort. He was in the minors. I don't want to explain it any more, because it's complex and it made more sense to me yesterday. I'm tired and you're being weird. Nymr83 Oct 23 2008 01:01 AM ]=(ERA+ - 60)*(IP * (2 + ((SO/9) / (LgSO/9) -1))). i don't know whats going to make this formula better or worse than any other, but heres a suggestion: if you are including strikeouts (because the pitcher has more control over them) then you should try to include walks and homers, the other outcomes over which the pitcher has control without input from the fielders. AG/DC Oct 23 2008 05:57 AM Sure. Stokes over Heilman. The Studly 30 Santana 29 Wright 28 Beltran 27 JReyes 26 Delgado The Useful and the Partial 25 Wagner 24 Pelfrey 23 Perez 22 Tatis 21 Schneider 20 Maine 19 Church 18 Castillo 17 Smith 16 Easley 15 Schoeneweis 14 Castro 13 Chavez 12 Murphy 11 Feliciano 10 Sanchez 9 Stokes 8 Heilman The Helpful 7 Evans 6 Pagan 5 Figueroa 4 Casanova 3 Alou 2 PMartinez 1 Ayala The Benchwarmers 0 Muniz -1 Vargas -2 RMartinez -3 Nixon -4 Clark -5 Rincon -6 Parnell -7 Cancel -8 Wise -9 Knight The Hurtful -10 AReyes -11 Sosa -12 Phillips -13 Molina -14 Kunz -15 Nu�ez -16 Aguila -17 Niese -18 Armas -19 Anderson Frayed Knot Oct 26 2008 07:34 PM revamping the bottom of my list ... 13 - Sanchez 12 - P. Martinez 11 - Chavez 10 - Schoeneweis 9 - Heilman 8 - Stokes 7 - Feliciano 6 - Pagan 5 - Evans 4 - Figueroa 3 - Ayala 2 - Vargas 1 - Alou Nymr83 Oct 26 2008 08:12 PM 12 points for pedro's terrible showing? i don't even know which guy to pick out because there a bunch i'd pick above him,but lets start with Schoenweis, why is he below Pedro? Frayed Knot Oct 26 2008 08:38 PM Because bad relievers rank lower in my eyes than bad starters. Nymr83 Oct 26 2008 09:42 PM But was Schoenweis really "bad"? I know he had a (well deserved) bad reputation going into the year, but the results were probably 3rd best on the team. And Pedro wasn't just bad, he was awful. AG/DC Oct 27 2008 05:55 AM I think Pedro's awfulness is over-rated. That is, I suspect it was an illusion in part. A typical Pedro start was giving up two runs in the first, shutting the team down through the fifth, exitiing with two runners on base in the sixth, and taking a hit when those runners regularly scored. Nymr83 Oct 27 2008 11:52 AM do you have numbers showing that? i'm not sure where to look to see how many he stranded and what % of them scored AG/DC Oct 27 2008 12:05 PM I don't. Nymr83 Oct 27 2008 01:26 PM I'd be willing to go through his starts and figure it out, but whats the baseline? (the league-wide strand percentage) AG/DC Oct 27 2008 01:34 PM It's my thesis. I'll figure it out when I have time. Gwreck Oct 30 2008 12:03 AM 30 Beltran 29 Santana 28 Wright 27 Reyes 26 Delgado 25 Pelfrey 24 Perez 23 Tatis 22 Maine 21 Wagner 20 Church 19 Schneider 18 Easley 17 Murphy 16 Smith 15 Schoeneweis 14 Castillo 13 Feliciano 12 Castro 11 Sanchez 10 Heilman 9 Stokes 8 Chavez 7 Pagan 6 Alou 5 Figueroa 4 Evans 3 Cancel 2 Martinez 1 Vargas metsmarathon Oct 30 2008 07:32 AM my goal in the very near term is to wind up m.e.t.b.o.t. so he can finish his retroactive schaeffer voting, and then work with him to figure out an equitable way to apply win percentages towards seasonal rankings. he's tried it in the past, and collectively, we've never been happy with the results. he needs to figure out what to set as 'zero' to wit, brian schneider contributed -0.65 WPA (meaning he basically took away a win and a third) in his 377 or so plate appearances. ramon castro contributed -0.57 WPA (meaning he took away a win and a sixth), but did it in only 156 or so plate appearances. not to speak for the little guy, but i think m.e.t.b.o.t. would end up considering brian schneider to be more highly ranked than castro. but by how much? and how do they compare to brady clark's negligible 0.04 WPA in 9 plate appearances, or ramon martinez' 0.44 WPA in 18 plate appearances? m.e.t.bo.t.'s job isn't easy, i'll tell ya. especially when i don't give him enough of an opportunity to whir his gears. Edgy DC Oct 30 2008 08:23 AM m.e.t.b.o.t. needs to deal with defense. metsmarathon Oct 30 2008 10:36 AM m.e.t.b.o.t. would require defensive data to use as an input, preferably data that could be compatible with WPA. Edgy DC Nov 03 2008 02:44 PM Anybody else? G-Fafif Nov 03 2008 02:52 PM En route... Kong76 Nov 03 2008 03:04 PM EDC: Anybody else? <<< I got a list sometime this month ... it's the 3rd of November, Hoss. Edgy DC Nov 03 2008 05:27 PM A day I'll always remember. 'Cuz that was the day That Armando was born. Anyhow, I want to talk to TransMonk about putting Pelfrey above Reyes. I don't like it. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 04 2008 06:52 AM ="KC"]EDC: Anybody else? <<< I got a list sometime this month ... it's the 3rd of November, Hoss. Yeah I wanna participate too. But my home computer's all broken and shit and I wasn't going to postmortem the Mets until after the WS anywhoo TransMonk Nov 04 2008 08:10 AM ="Edgy DC":2tycfqw3]Anyhow, I want to talk to TransMonk about putting Pelfrey above Reyes. I don't like it.[/quote:2tycfqw3] You wouldn't. 200 IP vs. 200 hits for guys under 25 is a good problem to have. I have no problem flipping them, although in my mind it's still pretty close. Nymr83 Nov 05 2008 05:07 PM Anyone want to do some arguing? name a guy i shouldnt have above another guy (that we havent already talked about much) and maybe you'll bring me around or vice versa. this thing would be alot more fun if more people would challenge others' rankings instead of posting their own and waiting for an average. Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 07:31 AM OK. You accuse a lot of fellas of being counterproductive who I think were pretty unproductive, but not a net negative. Argenis Reyes, though, really did subvert the system with his bat. His glove was pretty OK, but not enough to get him on or near my chart. I realize it's only one point, but I'd give it to any number of CameoMets before him. And you need to Schoeneweis another e. Nymr83 Nov 06 2008 11:16 AM Who should I add to take the place of A.Reyes? Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 11:35 AM Alou and Ayala seem notably absent. Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 12:04 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 06 2008 01:23 PM If you want some argument starter-offers then these could serve as a jumping off point. As compared to the emerging (but as yet incomplete) consensus: - Transmonk is noticably high on Pedro & Marlon Anderson low on Castro - Vic Sage is high on (possibly various things) but also Ayala low on Feliciano - Vince Firecracker is high on Murphy, Stokes, Figueroa & Vargas low on Santana, Heilman, Feliciano & Easley - FMan is high on Evans low on Sanchez - AG/DC is high on Wagner & Casanova low on Murphy & Pedro - Smg58 is high on Wagner, Murphy, Heilman & Ayala low on Perez, Sanchez, Feliciano, - NYmr is high on Stokes & Casanova low on Castillo & Heilman - Grimm is high on (pop tarts) plus Feliciano, Stokes & Ayala low on Castro & Heilman - GWreck is high on Alou low on Pedro _ Frayed Knot is high on Pedro low on Schoeneweis ... so you can take those variances to either review your vote to see if it needs adjusting or to make a case as to why others should be seeing things your way. Benjamin Grimm Nov 06 2008 12:17 PM Well, let me just say that Pop-Tarts are yummy. Gwreck Nov 06 2008 12:28 PM smg is also low on Beltran. Not everybody will agree with me and put him at 30 but I can't see how he could fall to 26. Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 12:43 PM Yeah, that was the only one where Beltran was at least top 3 as VCFC's was the lone one where Santana wasn't either 1st or 2nd. Other than those, the ones I listed were those which varied from the current consensus by at least 4 slots one way or the other. Perhaps not surprisingly, the relievers are more over the map than most others. Wagner: as high as 25, as low as 13 Murphy: 21 - 11 (PotG) Feliciano: 14 - 4 Heilman: 19 (PotG) - 1 Pedro: 18 (PotG) - 2 Stokes: 13 - 4 Figueroa: 11 - off list Ayala: 10 - off John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 01:21 PM edit -- forgot 3rd offensive tier, massive restructuring tk John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 01:29 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 06 2008 01:51 PM brb Edgy DC Nov 06 2008 01:41 PM Too very much love for Argenis. His was misbegotten into this season. Four walks and one extra-base hit in 121 plate appearances. I mean, yeah, he hit .218, but it was a particularly empty .218. Bring back Jeff Duncan. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 01:46 PM Hey, nobody hated A reyes any more than me. I suppose I could tuck him beneath Casanova, but then again 3 pts for marlon Anderson also seems kinda high. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 06 2008 01:49 PM fixed: 30 Santana 29 Wright * 28 Beltran 27 Delgado 26 Reyes 25 Pelfrey 24 Perez 23 Maine * 22 Tatis 21 Murphy 20 Wagner 19 Smith 18 Feliciano 17 Church 16 Schneider 15 Easley 14 Schoeneweis 13 Heilman 12 Castillo 11 P. Martinez 10 Castro 9 Sanchez 8 Chavez * 7 Stokes 6 Evans 5 Figueroa 4 Vargas 3 Pagan 2 Anderson 1 Ayala ______________ -1 Alou -2 Casanova -3 Cancel -4 A Reyes -5 Muniz -6 R. Martinez -7 Knight -8 Parnell -9 Armas -10 Niese -11 Rincon -12 Nixon -13 Kunz -14 Clark -15 Molina -16 Aguila -17 Phillips -18 Nunez Nymr83 Nov 06 2008 01:57 PM My new list. I've dropped Argenis for Ayala. Thank you FK for that list of who was away from the consensus on certain players. "too low" - My opinion on Heilman and his horrific ERA hasn't changed. I suppose I could bounce Castillo higher than the 3 relievers I have directly above him if someone wanted to try and convince me, I'm not too set on that. "too high"- Maybe Casanova deserves to be lower but who do i raise above him? As for Stokes I'm not going to budge on saying that he is the 4th best reliever we had this year. the 3rd best reliever i have at (17) i have him at (13) and then two relievers immediately following him. if i was going to move him down i'd move those two relievers down with him, and the only candidates to move up would be Castillo and Chavez, anyone want to argue for that? 30. Santana 29. Wright 28. Beltran 27. Reyes 26. Delgado 25. Pelfrey 24. Tatis 23. Maine 22. Church 21. Perez 20. Wagner 19. Murphy 18. Smith 17. Schoenweis 16. Schneider 15. Easley 14. Castro 13. Stokes 12. Feliciano 11. Sanchez 10. Castillo 9. Chavez 8. Pagan 7. Evans 6. Martinez 5. Heilman 4. Casanova 3. Cancel 2. Figueroa 1. Ayala Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 06 2008 02:57 PM ="Frayed Knot":3vu69kog]Yeah, that was the only one where Beltran was at least top 3 as VCFC's was the lone one where Santana wasn't either 1st or 2nd.[/quote:3vu69kog] I understand why people would put Santana higher than Wright, Beltran or Reyes, and I know if you count batter vs pitcher match-ups Santana would be right with (if not a little past) the other three; but I think that contributions made over the course of multiple games help the team more than contributions made in a single game. I'm not adamant about it though- I can see why Santana would be put that high, I just feel differently. Frayed Knot Nov 06 2008 09:31 PM Lunchbucket goes high (higher than anyone) on Feliciano after trashing him all year as Mr. Put-the-Leadoff-Batter-On. High also on Heilman; low (lowest actually) on Church G-Fafif Nov 07 2008 05:30 AM 30 Johan Santana 29 Carlos Delgado 28 David Wright 27 Carlos Beltran 26 Jose Reyes 25 Mike Pelfrey 24 Oliver Perez 23 Fernando Tatis 22 Ryan Church 21 John Maine 20 Billy Wagner 19 Daniel Murphy 18 Brian Schneider 17 Joe Smith 16 Damion Easley 15 Scott Schoeneweis 14 Pedro Feliciano 13 Nick Evans 12 Luis Ayala 11 Brian Stokes 10 Aaron Heilman 9 Ramon Castro 8 Duaner Sanchez 7 Endy Chavez 6 Pedro Martinez 5 Luis Castillo 4 Robinson Cancel 3 Argenis Reyes 2 Angel Pagan 1 Nelson Figueroa John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 07 2008 07:18 AM ="Frayed Knot":mioxkc9p]Lunchbucket goes high (higher than anyone) on Feliciano after trashing him all year as Mr. Put-the-Leadoff-Batter-On. High also on Heilman; low (lowest actually) on Church[/quote:mioxkc9p] Yeah, I don't like that. But there were just so many guys in that middle tier group. And Church and Feliciano appeared in a roughly equal amount of games, both sucked half the time and were effective the other half. Eh, But, OK 30 Santana 29 Wright * 28 Beltran 27 Delgado 26 Reyes 25 Pelfrey 24 Perez 23 Maine * 22 Tatis 21 Murphy 20 Wagner 19 Smith 18 Church 17 Schneider 16 Feliciano 15 Easley 14 Schoeneweis 13 Heilman 12 Castillo 11 P. Martinez 10 Castro 9 Sanchez 8 Chavez * 7 Stokes 6 Evans 5 Figueroa 4 Vargas 3 Pagan 2 Anderson 1 Ayala ______________ -1 Alou -2 Casanova -3 Cancel -4 A Reyes -5 Muniz -6 R. Martinez -7 Knight -8 Parnell -9 Armas -10 Niese -11 Rincon -12 Nixon -13 Kunz -14 Clark -15 Molina -16 Aguila -17 Phillips -18 Nunez Edgy DC Nov 07 2008 08:26 AM ="G-Fafif":se3wr9nl]30 Johan Santana 29 Carlos Delgado 28 David Wright 27 Carlos Beltran 26 Jose Reyes 25 Mike Pelfrey 24 Oliver Perez 23 Fernando Tatis 22 Ryan Church 21 John Maine 20 Billy Wagner 19 Daniel Murphy 18 Brian Schneider 17 Joe Smith 16 Damion Easley 15 Scott Schoeneweis 14 Pedro Feliciano 13 Nick Evans 12 Luis Ayala 11 Brian Stokes 10 Aaron Heilman 9 Ramon Castro 8 Duaner Sanchez 7 Endy Chavez 6 Pedro Martinez 5 Luis Castillo 4 Robinson Cancel 3 Argenis Reyes 2 Angel Pagan 1 Nelson Figueroa[/quote:se3wr9nl] How many of you folks do I have to chase away from Argenis Reyes 2008? He's bad for you. He won't look out for you. And Lusi Ayal is in another stratosphere that he shouldn't be sniffing. G-Fafif Nov 07 2008 08:58 AM ="Edgy DC":2g5hatbg]How many of you folks do I have to chase away from Argenis Reyes 2008? He's bad for you. He won't look out for you. And Lusi Ayal is in another stratosphere that he shouldn't be sniffing.[/quote:2g5hatbg] Must...not...compile...own...rankings. Must...copy...Edgy's...paper. Nymr83 Nov 07 2008 12:07 PM ="G-Fafif":2xmtej86] Must...not...compile...own...rankings. Must...copy...Edgy's...paper.[/quote:2xmtej86] I think he's grading them, so you'll probably get a better grade that way. Kong76 Nov 09 2008 01:07 PM Here's my first quick swing, I'm sure it'll be changed (by me or someone) ... Santana Wright Beltran J Reyes Delgado Pelfrey Perez Tatis Church Maine Easley Murphy Smith Schneider Feliciano Wagner Schoeneweis Castro Castillo Sanchez Heilman Evans Stokes Chavez P Martinez Pagan Figueroa Vargas Ayala Cancel Frayed Knot Nov 09 2008 07:32 PM ]I'm sure it'll be changed (by me or someone) ... We may cajole, browbeat or humiliate you into changing your vote but no one will change it for you. And besides, your list is closer to the overall consensus than anyone's. That said, you may want to explain how you have Feliciano with his 24 ER, 57 Hits & 26 BBs ranked ahead of Wagner and his 12, 32 & 10 in almost the same amount of IPs (53 v 47) Kong76 Nov 10 2008 04:18 AM I saw a couple of things I'd change after posting it, I'll humiliate myself thank you. Feel free to browbeat. As for Wagner, why is everyone ignoring his IDL factor? Edgy DC Nov 10 2008 07:43 AM Italian Drama League? Internet Dating Lapse? Inconceivieably Dead Leftarm? Gwreck Nov 10 2008 08:06 AM Inconvenient (trip to the) Disabled List? Kong76 Nov 10 2008 03:47 PM Gwreck's is better, mine was I Don't Like'im. Frayed Knot Nov 10 2008 05:09 PM Well here's where our consensus sits at the moment after 13 lists plus our PotG results: 30 - Santana 29 - Wright 28 - Beltran 27 - Reyes 26 - Delgado 25 - Pelfrey 24 - Perez 23 - Tatis 22 - Maine 21 - Church 20 - Wagner 19 - Schneider 18 - Murphy 17 - Easley 16 - Smith 15 - Schoeneweis 14 - Castillo 13 - Castro 12 - Feliciano 11 - Sanchez 10 - Chavez 9 - Heilman 8 - Stokes 7 - Martinez 6 - Evans 5 - Pagan 4 - Figueroa 3 - Ayala 2 - Vargas 1 - Alou Received votes but fell short: Cancel Casanova Anderson A Reyes Sosa Shut out: Aguila Armas Clark Knight Kunz R. Martinez Molina Muniz Niese Nixon Parnell Phillips Rincon Wise A couple of places on the big board are close and could change a bit on account of revisisions while others are pretty much set in stone at this point. Elster88 Nov 10 2008 06:29 PM What's the deadline for submission? Frayed Knot Nov 10 2008 08:26 PM Nothing specific. We tend to not wrap things up until conversation starts to peter out and the list is as set as its going to be - although we are kind of reaching that point. Edgy DC Nov 11 2008 07:27 AM I'm Raul Casanova. Reconsider me. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 11 2008 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":36ifpmno]I'm Raul Casanova. Reconsider me.[/quote:36ifpmno] One of the great mysteries of the year was his non-reappearance. We saw an awful lot of Cancel, and enough of Molina to assume neither one was going to out-hit Casanova. That said, the very fact that he was not given another chance sorta makes whatever small case Cancel has to be his superior. m.e.t.b.o.t. Nov 18 2008 12:50 PM after an extended period of inactivity, m.e.t.b.o.t. has been dusted, appropriately lubricated, and finally activated. m.e.t.b.o.t. has manipulated the win percentage data from the 2008 baseball season and, implementing a fancy new bit of mechanical programming and intricately crafted, steampunked sprocketry, has calculated the rankings for the 2008 new york metropolitan baseball players. the list is as follows. 30 Carlos Beltran 29 David Wright 28 Johan Santana 27 Carlos Delgado 26 Jose Reyes 25 Mike Pelfrey 24 Oliver Perez 23 Fernando Tatis 22 John Maine 21 Damion Easley 20 Ryan Church 19 Brian Schneider 18 Joe Smith 17 Daniel Murphy 16 Duaner Sanchez 15 Pedro Martinez 14 Billy Wagner 13 Luis Castillo 12 Claudio Vargas 11 Angel Pagan 10 Moises Alou 9 Endy Chavez 8 Jorge Sosa 7 Ramon Castro 6 Robinson Cancel 5 Pedro Feliciano 4 Brian Stokes 3 Nicholas Evans 2 Scott Schoeneweis 1 Marlon Anderson 0 Ramon Martinez -1 Aaron Heilman -2 Argenis Reyes -3 Carlos Muniz -4 Raul Casanova -5 Nelson Figueroa -6 Trot Nixon -7 Brandon Knight -8 Luis Ayala -9 Brady Clark -10 Robert Parnell -11 Tony Armas Jr. -12 Gustavo Molina -13 Ricardo Rincon -14 Abraham Nunez -15 Andy Phillips -16 Edward Kunz -17 Jonathon Niese -18 Chris Aguila -19 Matt Wise this is performed via a modification of an earlier graphical methodology attempted by human poster metsmarathon. m.e.t.b.o.t. has streamlined and vastly improved the implementation of this methodology. the graphical results are depicted below. a description of the methodology will be forthcoming. m.e.t.b.o.t. requires significant rewinding after posting images, as it requires significant mechanical effort to appropriately arrange pixels into something which humans might have a chance of comprehending visually. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 18 2008 12:59 PM Heilman doesn't rate? Wow! Look at Tatis! Look at Show! Look at Alou! Dig Joe Smith-over-Wagner! I love m.e.t.b.o.t. metirish Nov 18 2008 01:04 PM I can see now why Schoeneweis and Feliciano are still in Minaya's plans , excellent work metbot. Nymr83 Nov 18 2008 02:33 PM I highly approve of MetBot's placement of Heilman. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 02:42 PM And I of his placement of Argenis Reyes. Gwreck Nov 18 2008 03:26 PM The shocker to me is Jorge Sosa. Was it the 4-1 W-L record for Sosa that put him so high? m.e.t.b.o.t. Nov 18 2008 03:36 PM m.e.t.b.o.t. wonders if the graphic shows up. can any human poster verify this? essentially, what m.e.t.b.o.t. has done is determined a likely maximum value of win percentage added would be for both hitters and pitchers, based upon data reaching back into the 1970's. the yearly leaders in win percentage added ranged from about 6 up to a maximum of 12 for performance enhanced human barry bonds. the typical second place win percentage leader ranged from 5.5 to about 8. m.e.t.b.o.t. determined, using convenience and simplicity as a primary factor, that 7.5 win percentage added would make for a reasonable expected maximum, which works well with an expected maximum plate appearances of 750. and so, a rate was determined that for every 100 plate appearances, 1.0 WPA would be expected of the best batter. for pitchers, m.e.t.b.o.t applied the same methodology. the yearly leaders in pitching ranged between 5.5 and 6.5, for the most part. the sole outlier was dwight gooden in 1984, with a remarkable 9.0 wpa. interestingly, despite the total innings pitched of top pitchers decreasing during the previous 30-40 years, the maximum wpa has remained fairly static. m.e.t.b.o.t. selected 6.5 as the reasonable expected maximum win percentage added for pitchers, which works very well with an expected maximum innings pitched of 250. therefore, for every 33.1 innings pitched, 1.0 WPA would be expected of the best pitcher. with 250 innings pitched, a pitcher in the national league would expect nearly 100 plate appearances, as evidenced by johan santana's 81 plate appearances in 234.1 innings pitched. if the best pitcher were capable of being the best hitter, he would be expected to have 7.5 wpa in 250 ip + 100 pa. m.e.t.b.o.t hopes that this all makes sense to human crane pool forum participants. the terminal m.e.t.b.o.t. is utilizing to communicate these 2008 rankings and associated methodology is undergoing a forced reboot. as such, m.e.t.b.o.t. will resume discussion later this evening. G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 05:53 PM Robinson Cancel sends m.e.t.b.o.t. a glass of 3-in-One. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 07:10 PM I got the graphic. Reconsider Raul, m.e.t.b.o.t. m.e.t.b.o.t. Nov 18 2008 09:11 PM unfortunately, m.e.t.b.o.t. is not programmed to reconsider single players; m.e.t.b.o.t. can only reevaluate methodologies and perform recalculations. m.e.t.b.o.t. has performed a cursory review of the methodology used to arrive at the above listed rankings for 2008 and m.e.t.b.o.t. has determined that raul casanova is appropriately ranked relative to his teammates. in approximately 61 plate appearances, raul casanova contributed -0.35 wpa. based upon the current methodology whereby 1 inning pitched is considered equivalent to 3 plate appearances, there are 32 players who played more than raul casanova. to outrank a player with more playing time, raul casanova would have to significantly outperform that player. based on these calculations as performed by m.e.t.b.o.t., raul casanova has outperformed only one player - nelson figueroa, with -1.25 WPA in 1.50 time units (3*IP + PA) the series of diagonal lines in the picture show, essentially equivalent win percentages for the purpose of ranking. as can be seen in the lower left corner, brian stokes, nick evans, and scott schoeneweis all have approximately the same equivalency (0.80, 0.74, and 0.73, respectively) the updated picture below shows raul casanova, and those teammates immediately above and below him in equivalency. equivalency is defined by where that diagonal line intersects the y-axis, and is determined by the formula: WPA + [ ( 3*IP + PA ) / 100 ] = equivalency. this is m.e.t.b.o.t.'s attempt at mimicking wins above replacement, or win shares, or the like. modifying the relationship between playing time and win percentages is the most straightforward means of altering the ranking methodology. this can be approximated by varying the slope of the diagonal lines. as can be imagined, the proximity of those players directly behind raul casanova in equivalency implies that as you alter the relationship, you either lift nelson figueroa or trot nixon above raul casanova. nelson figueroa had a lower wpa in more playing time, while nixon had a higher wpa in less playing time, yet raul casanova was slightly ahead of each of them in equivalency. in fact, there is no way to draw a line on this graph which would have raul casanova and 29 other players on its positive side. even drawing an imaginary line up and to the right from casanova so as to exclude the cluster of billy wagner, moises alou and robinson cancel yields 31 better metropolitans. based on the rule of 3 ip = 1 plate appearance, raul casanova does not merit placement in the top 30 metropolitans of 2008. in fact, modifying this relationship such that 2.5 ip = 1 pa, raul casanova only improves to 33rd, and causing 2 ip = 1 pa brings him up to 32nd. m.e.t.b.o.t. does not consider it fruitful to reevaluate the placement of robinson cancel further. were m.e.t.b.o.t. capable of the emotion, m.e.t.b.o.t. would, however, consider this above exercise very welcome given the recent extended period of inactivity. regarding the rankings of robinson cancel and jorge sosa, despite the apparent statistical inadequacies of their respective performances in 2008, these two players each had positive win percentages added in very little playing time. jorge sosa had 0.48 wpa in 21.7 innings and 2 plate appearances, while robinson cancel had 0.46 wpa in 52 plate appearances. jorge sosa[/url:sg2qqlax] had more good outings than bad outings, and most of his bad outings came in blowouts. his four worst outings had wpa of -0.128, -0.117, -0.108, and -0.078, while his four best outings had wpa of 0.275, 0.172, 0.138, and 0.110. robinson cancel[/url:sg2qqlax] had more bad outings than good outings, as can be expected of any hitter. but when he contributed, his contributions were fairly positive. his four worst games had wpa of -0.214, -0.117, -0.076, and -0.070, while his four best outings had wpa of 0.334, 0.240, 0.170, and 0.84. one further point that m.e.t.b.o.t. has determined may be of potential interest to human cranepoolers. the colored tails leading diagonally down to the positions of the 5 primary starting pitchers in 2008 reflect the impact to their position that their offiensive contributions has had. at the upper right, the tail end of the line, is where the pitcher would place based only on his pitching performance. for instance, johan santana had a wpa of 4.08 in 234.1 innings pitched, but had a wpa of -1.27 in 81 plate appearances. also, if a human poster using mozilla firefox were to right click on an image and select the "view image" option, a much larger, more viewable image is available to be seen. this image can then potentially be zoomed into even further, to better aid comprehension. m.e.t.b.o.t. is unable to confirm whether this is applicable using internet explorer. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 09:24 PM Two methodology issues to consider: 1) One inning isn't equal to three plate appearances, but rather to three outs. In fact, it should be equal to about two thirds of three outs --- two outs. 2) The third out is a question of defense, which puts Casanova in positive terriotry. Positive territory, m.e.t.b.o.t.! m.e.t.b.o.t. Nov 18 2008 10:07 PM m.e.t.b.o.t. has no source for defensive input. for all of m.e.t.b.o.t.'s intents and purposes, defense is entirely the result of the pitches thrown, not the fielders to which the pitches are hit. m.e.t.b.o.t. recognizes the inherent flaw in this, but there is no data source avaiable which can provide a remedy within the win percentage framework. m.e.t.b.o.t. would be a very happy emotionless springwound contraption indeed if one day someone were capable of producing such a data source. ... how would human poster edgy dc compare the relative playing time of johan santana and jose reyes, defense aside? a strict perspective would be to consider plate appearances for and against, in which case johan santana would have an edge of approximately 1053 to jose reyes' 754. IP X 3 + H + BB should approximate total plate appearances against, give or take gidps, errors, and csa's. that gives santana 972, plus his 82 plate appearances for 1053. scaling those plate appearances against by 2/3, santana has 648, plus 82 plate appearances for, for 702. applying this playing time adjustment to all pitchers actually causes raul casanova to drop from 35th to 36th, as nelson figueroa's increased number of batters faced per inning pitched gives him a boost. if m.e.t.b.o.t. were to go to the extreme step of granting this increased 1/3 playing time to the batters, then raul casanova improves all the way up to 34th place. raul casanova amassed neither sufficient playing time nor positive contribution of win percentage to warrant inclusion in the top 30 players as determined by m.e.t.b.o.t. raul casanova participated in 13 games as a catcher. while his defense, according to baseballperspective.com was exemplary in those 13 games, rating 7% better than average, that, too, does not appear to be sufficient to escalate him into the top 30 players. worth noting, too, is the 11% better than average defensive rate posted by argenis reyes in 27 games at second base, and marlon anderson's 34% better than average defense at first base in 6 games, and 11% better than average defense in 25 games in left field. raul casanova would have to pass these two position players, along with averagely defensive ramon martinez to make it into the top 30, unless the 5 pitchers ahead of him were to fall by the wayside. Gwreck Nov 18 2008 11:38 PM So Beltran came in first under the Metbot system, without even factoring in defense? Wow.

Airplane should've battled Ferris for the title of most overrated movie of the eighties.

Meh.

Ferris [u:7y0hcfsi]Bueller[/u:7y0hcfsi] deservers about 10% of the replay it gets. Seeing cartoons walking around on city streets was pretty cool. I get choked up every time I see that shoe die.

AG/DC wrote: "She wouldn�t have to worry bout no titties for the rest of her life." is sure better writing than "THEN I'LL SEE YOU IN HELL!" Nerfherder.

Devil Rays/Dodgers would cause a bigger eruption than Red Sox/Dodgers? Inconceivable. I choose Tampa.

I voted Dodgers. After all we're going to be playing in their home park next year.

George doesn't know what year it is.

avi

I don't like the Phillies. I like them the least of all the teams. Rollins, Myers and Hamels are about as unlikable as they come.

I don't care too much. I'm going against Torre and Manny. I still hold a slight grudge against the Dodgers.

Guillen is an asshole. And I like Cliff. I want my Kazmir back. On a slightly different note I think it would be hilarious if the Devil Rays beat the Cubs in the World Series. Edit: Put the Devil back.

I still hold a grudge against Scioscia but I was sick of the Red Sox in November of 2004.