roger_that

Maybe I didn't catch enough innings of him playing center field, though I see quite a few, but it seemed to me he had decent range and good hands. Pretty strong arm, too. I was pleasantly surprised by how well he performed in the field. Mainly, I can't remember seeing him misplay a ball, or misjudge one . I never said to myself " A REAL center fielder woulda had that." Small sample? Or was he an adequate center fielder? I'm sure Mullins is better, and Taylor is for sure, but I didn't see. McNeil as a problem in center. Obviously someone did.

=Centerfield post_id=199957 time=1754094081 user_id=65] Pete needs a day off. Maybe a week off.

First thing I thought of.

Where do we need Better offense? 1B no 2B Better than Baty's potential? Not really. SS no 3B Better than Mauricio/Vientos' upside? No c Better than Alvarez? Is any such young catcher available? No. RF No CF Better than McNeil? No LF no DH Sure, but who doesn't? So other than making a utility player/DH out of Baty, McNeil, or Mauricio, I don't see it.

Yes, using the commonly accepted definition that a “rental” means a player acquired via trade with no team control beyond the current season. If they sign him to a long-term deal before he enters free-agency, though, a la Lindor, he's not a rental. You wouldn't call Lindor a "rental," would you? Though when they acquired him, there was no deal in place.

It's not. I'm just trying to point out that he's not necessarily a rental, and that not being a rental could be either good or bad.

What Gary said (I've got the game recorded, so I could look up his exact words and when he said them, but this is an accurate paraphrase) was "he won't be MLB ready for a season or two" or "he's still a year or two from playing in the major leagues." Also, is Rogers necessarily a rental? And if he is, is that a bad thing? The Mets could sign him to a long-term deal, a la Lindor, and might even have that in the works already. But he's 34, so the question is do they want him in his late 30s? Maybe not. This could be a case of Uncle Stevie's deep pockets working for us. If they sign him to a five-year deal before he hits FAgency, and he starts to suck, we just deal him off and eat the contract. Or make him into a middle reliever and sign another younger reliever to take his place.

I thought I heard Gary say that Gilbert won't make a MLB roster for a couple of years, which kind of wrecks his "prospect" status, don't it? I mean, if he's 25 now, and won't break in until he's 27, that's more than a late start. I can't remember the last guy who broke in at 27 and had a significant MLB career. Are my numbers right? Does anyone think this deal points to the Mets' determination to pick up a major CFer in the near future?

I kinda liked the one-inning-for-Taylor move. Tell yuz why: Mendy hoped that Taylor would get an AB or two in situations that he'd do ok in (needing a runner advanced on a groundball or bunt, or leading off an inning, or up with no one on and two outs), and thought that he could pinchhit Marte for him if he really needed a clutch double or the like, but it blew up in his face after an inning, so he decided to pull the trigger and PH Marte anyway (and take the heat for his "dumb" move.) I also liked using Acuna in CF in the ninth. Did Squirrel move back to RF? I didn't notice. His line looked like this if so: CF-RF-CF-RF.

Edgy MD wrote: So who sits? Who, who, who? At first, I was bitching (to myself, not here) about Mendoza's seemingly haphazard jumbling-up of batting orders and defensive positionings, reasoning that it would tend to create uncertainty among his players, never knowing where they would play each day, where they would bat, or even if they would play or sit on the bench each day. It reminded me of Casey Stengel's frenetic lineup cards, more so with the 1950s Yanks than the 1960s Mets, but with both teams he deliberately seemed to encourage uncertainty, and he viewed a certain amount of playerly anxiety as a virtue (with exceptions like Mantle or Berra, both of whom still moved up or down in the lineup more than other managers would have moved them). I thought it a somewhat sadistic tendency, and a counter-productive one. But I've changed my mind. Now I think it's Mendy's way of communicating this thought to his team: "Everybody plays. Everyone (wth obvious exceptions) starts now and then, everyone gets rested occasionally, and no matter where you find yourself penciled in, I want you to feel comfortable. If I lead Nimmo off, that's because I think he's a great OBP guy, and if I bat him sixth, that's because I have a lot of respect for his ability to drive in runs. Don't worry about your playing time--I'll find some for you, and if you suddenly get thrust into an unfamiliar role by injuries or circumstances, I want you to tell yourself 'I've played this position before, I've batted in this slot before, I've done this job before.'"

This was a bad loss. Some positives to take away from this streak snapper: . 1) we didn't burn Diaz 2) big confidence builder for Mauricio 3) and Vientos 4) hard to win when you're getting jobbed by umps. They owe Soto big time now. 5) Pads got lucky, foul pole Homer, miracle catches by Tatis, can't do much with that shit 6) Baty coulda, shoulda caught that "double," and it's a different ball game 7) Rico Garcia (who?) looked impressive 8) I'm out of desperation takeaways

Well they got him to throw about 30 pitches, but he wiggled out of a bases loaded jam

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Lindor had the worst game I've seen from him in a long time. Called the Baty shot. Actually, he's come up with a great all-purpose response to any reporter's question after a terrible game. "Edwin, tell us what was happening with the nine straight balls you threw and walking in the tying and winning runs..." "That wasn't up to my standards and the standards of the Mets organization." Brilliant, in its way. Called the Baty career.

Frayed Knot wrote: Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Lindor had the worst game I've seen from him in a long time. K'd on 3 pitches, 4 pitches, 3 pitches (all swinging) then finished with a GO. And that whole 9th inning error thing, so yeah. It was not a game up to his standards or to the standards of the Mets. No shit?

Yeah, basically a kitchen-sink methodology. But sometimes there's an interesting mess in the kitchen sink. In 1981, a strike-shortened season, the Mets used three of the greatest throwing arms (according to Burch) in Right Field, Youngblood, Valentine, and Bailor.

Apparently, you need to scroll down a bit before coming across Burch's extensive article. It's worth the effort. He discusses quite a few Mets in addition to Youngblood and Valentine. Ashburn, Dykstra, and Brian McRae are all mentioned (as having exceptionally poor throwing arms) and on the plus side he cites (and sometimes analyzes, or tries to) Staub's, Duke Snider's, Alex Ochoa's, Carlos Gomez', Marte's, Jeff Francoeur's, Bonilla's, Bob Bailor's, and probably a Met or two I've overlooked. The most interesting part of this article, to me, is the absence of any systematic way of looking at outfielders' throwing arms. How do you measure sheer strength, distance, consistency, accuracy, quick release, and then balance all these factors once you've found accurate ways to evaluate all of them? This is one area that doesn't seem to yield to statistical analysis. Yet. A lot of it is, in other words, anecdotal.

And for those pathetic out of market specimens like me, this one is on mlbtv tonight.

And that, my friends, is what is known as a squeaker.

Bob Alpacadaca wrote: Baty seems to have turned a corner. Either that, or he was this good all along and needed a little playing time to show his ability.

And another good game by Senga shot to hell. Garrett walks in the tying run.

Baty singles to lead off the fifth. Let's get something fucking GOING here!

Peterson currently ranks 30th in the NL as far as IP goes, so no Met is going to be among the league leaders, though they're all healthy and pitching very well. Zack Wheeler leads the league with 58 IP. I wonder if eventually there will be few enough pitchers who qualify that the rule about 162 IP will need to be changed to reflect current practices. Or maybe it will be just 5 or 8 qualifying pitchers who will compete for the E.R.A. title.

It's recently come to my attention that the Mets' starters qualifying for the league E.R.A. title (basically an inning pitched per team game) can be tracked simply by seeing if each of them is currently qualified, making my noting (in the "On Track" thread) who is and who isn't on track redundant. My point, however, is a bit more subtle than that simplistic misreading—it's to illustrate how unlikely any Mets' starter is to qualify, as they've all been healthy so far, haven't missed a single start (after tonight's game, all five starters will have gotten exactly 8 starts, with a few going to bullpenners) yet they're all barely qualified (and Megill just dipped below qualifying, 40.2 IP in the first 42 games, and Canning qualifies by the skin of his teeth with exactly 42 IP in 42 games.) It's unlikely they're going to increase their IP/G ratio markedly, and there are two good reasons they'll fall further off the pace: 1) the Mets may go to a 6-man rotation, at least for a while, when Manaea (Blackburn, Montas) is back, and 2) any injury at all, even a skipped start, will pull a starter back, probably permanently. Another consideration is the season-ending injuries to lefthanders in the bullpen may derail Peterson (currently the team leader with 44.2 IP) if he's sent to the bullpen when we get some extra starters. I think his future is as a starter, but the need for an effective left-hander in long relief, a role Peterson has filled in the past, may be too tempting for Mendoza. At this point, though all five starters have very recently pitched more than an inning per scheduled game, I would doubt that any of them finishes the year with 162 IP.

=ashie62 post_id=192573 time=1747173808 user_id=90] Acuna is in the lineup most nights and that makes me happy

I hold no strong opinion either way--saw them both a time or two, probably saw them make a throw or two, but I wasn't keeping track of such things, and never had much of a method for making invidious comparisons. A guy named Michael Burch just posted on Quora an extensive article that mentions, in passing, the two of them, and compares 100 or so other outfielders with some observations and quotes that I haven't read before. https://www.quora.com/Who-had-the-best-outfield-arm-of-all-timehttps://www.quora.com/Who-had-the-best-outfield-arm-of-all-time Pretty well written, pretty thorough. Worth reading.