roger_that

Well, we know what Taylor is. Very recently there were calls for his head here on this website. He has his moments offensively, but his MLB track record says he's a glove but no bat. Mullins has a good year on his MLB resume but that year is pretty far in the past and we may never see its like again. Acuna has not shown that he can't become a good MLB hitter but now he seems to be permanently relegated to a pinch running role. I'm not arguing he should be the Mets regular CFer. He just seems forgotten in Mendoza 's plans.

No, he isn’t. And he certainly hasn’t been this year, as the numbers show. We're talking about replacing a #9 hitter with another #9 hitter, right? Acuna has potential to improve. Taylor not so much, and Mullins has shown no signs of improvement in his Mets tenure. It just seems a bit odd that he's dropped out of the discussion entirely.

I think Yoenis and Curtis have 2016 CF covered, thanks.

I thought McNeil didn't get high marks for his ability to play CF. Personally, he's looked fine to me, but I think someone posted here recently that he was -5 runs in CF, which (if I remember right) is terrible considering how little McNeil has played in CF. Acuna, OTOH, certainly doesn't lack for foot speed, and I thought he was a decent outfielder--at least I haven't heard anyone running him down. I'm not campaigning for him to be the Mets' CFer or anything. It's just puzzling that he doesn't appear to be in the mix considering that Taylor and Mullins haven't earned "everyday CFer" status to say the least. Maybe I just haven't been listening.

With all the controversy raging over the Mets' best option, of several mediocre to poor options, in CF at this point and going forward, I haven't heard that much lately about playing Acuna in CF, not since early in the season. Why is that? Did he display ineptness fielding the position? If so, I missed that. It can't be his offensive game, since compared to the other options, he's at least as good a hitter as Taylor or Mullins, and one heck of a lot better than the departed Siri. With some room to grow. And he's certainly the fastest baserunner on the team. So why is he out of the discussion, do you suppose?

Baty out and Mauricio in ? Why?

And this is the one factor most easily changed by a pitching coach's philosophy. To be an MLB pitcher, control (and command) is your most basic skill. It's 100% (well, 99%) within each pitcher's skill set to choose whether to throw a ball or a strike. The problem is, of course, that the more you commit to throwing a strike, the more hittable your pitch becomes. But there's no question but that a pitcher should be able to throw strikes all day long at will. I believe the Mets pitchers were encouraged to nibble, even in circumstances where nibbling was crazy. I was driven insane to find some reliever, in the game protecting a late 6-run lead, who time and again threw ball after ball, walking multiple batters and letting the other team accumulate base runners and score multiple runs. Mets coaches and manager tolerated this to a degree I cannot countenance. If your **** is so weak that you're afraid to challenge hitters with a gigantic lead, then your **** is too weak to pitch in MLB.

I know it's easy to say in retrospect, but did anyone else see that McLean suddenly was throwing pitches nowhere near the strike zone just before that double and then the HR? He seemed to be losing it very quickly.

Looks a lot like this Baty kid can hit. On the MLB level. This season. Right now.

I’ve been unimpressed with Siri overall, but it’s only been 36 plate appearances, and he’s shown elite speed and plays good defense. Seems hasty to determine that he needs to go. The word is "strunz", pronounced schtroonz in Sicil' dialect.

MLB enters the early 20th century. Way overdue. The obnoxious bullies who've been calling strikes balls and vice versa for the past 150 years are finally being restricted in making terrible wrong calls.

Frayed Knot wrote: Not that Tong has been good or anything ... but could just ONE of those grounders have been at a fielder? Same thing as the game he got bombed in the first inning. Not pitching terrific or anything, but a lot of hits that found a hole.

The part I find fault with is if Hefner (or any pitching coach on any team) gives pitchers permission to nibble with a lead. As far as I was instructed, throwing balls (or even borderline strikes) with a six-run lead is dumb baseball, certainly timid baseball. And we've seen that philosophy time and time this year, usually to disastrous results, getting behind hitters, walking them, going to 3-ball counts on all of them, stressing your bullpen, driving up your pitch count--and for what? You've got fielders behind you, you've got stuff that can get batters out--and you're choosing to walk them and get back in the game? Why? Why? Why? Etc. This is one I'd lay squarely on the pitching coach for giving permission to something antithetical to sound baseball. A guy goes into a game with a six-run lead, and I would instruct him, "Zero walks. Throw strikes. If you even go to 3 balls on several batters, you're out of the game. Got it? Good."

This seems more like a Stevie Cohen problem than a Jeremy Hefner one, and since Cohen is unfireable, a David Stearns problem. All Hefner can do is use the guys Stearns gives Mendoza. Do you really think Hefner's the driving force in deciding which pitchers to sign and which ones not?

Can you be more specific? I have my own thoughts about the Hefner philosophy. But curious to hear yours. This is a vote for distinguishing Hefner policies, from Mendoza ones, from Stearns' ones, from Cohen ones. All are interconnected, of course, but when we're talking about the need to fire one of them, and not others, I think it's useful to know precisely why you think he thinks in a certain way that others don't. Is there a part of Hefner's thinking, for example, that you believe Mendoza's going along with unenthusiastically?

Yes, "statistical fluke" = run of horrendous luck. The good news is that you don't fix it. It fixes itself. After you've fired the wrong scapegoats, of course.

As stated elsewhere, I want to focus on fixing pressing problems, preferably with a big positive solution. CF is obviously a giant gaping hole. Pick up the best CFer available in the of season. Preferably by free agency. But if you can package some players who are underperforming and land a good CFer so be it. Otherwise, though, I wouldn't number Vientos among the Mets problem areas. If Pete leaves, Vientos could be among the more attractive options they have on the roster for 1B. He is capable of being an above average full time DH if Pete comes back. Priorities for me in the off season is signing three or four good pitchers and one good CFer, not losing anyone now the on the roster. They mostly performed well. The team didn't win as much as they should have, but that's not on the majority of the offensive players.

Agreed the most visible point is CF, a must-replace if there ever was one. And the pitching staff, mainly the bullpen. Not sure about the rotation. If the kids are going to take up two spots, let's day, McLean and Tong, and we've got a few contracts for 2026 with some veterans, then we need only to sign one or two more starting pitchers in the off-season. The other 8 positions are pretty solid. Lf and RF had terrific years, we've got too many good young infielders, I'm not giving up Alvy yet, I'm thinking they'll probably re-sign Pete ( though I don't think they should) so why replace something you're ok with ? No. It's CF and the pitching staff that need prioritizing. Big time.

Edgy MD wrote: No dice and now no Alonso. McNeil looks like he is about to be the firstbaseman. That's funny. I look as of I'm about to be ill

Edgy MD wrote: If managers were more committed to using their top relievers in tie games, rather than defined save situations; and if managers were more committed to using such guys for multi-inning stints, if perhaps less frequently; it would be a far more effective deployment. Couldn't agree more. It began, I think, with the formula that "Saves" = "Salary" for relievers so if a manager wasted his closer in a non-save situation, he was effectively costing him money, and showing him disrespect besides. Then came the complete psychological BS, in my opinion, saying that relief pitchers, unlike every other type of athlete in the history of athletics, needed to know exactly when they would be used in the game, and psychological hell would be unleashed if an athlete who was accustomed to pitching the 7th inning were to be put into the game in the 8th or the 6th--torment, self-doubt, and gopher balls would be the inevitable outcome. I don't think it's too old school for a manager to tell his relief staff, "You'll go into the game at any crazy moment I want you in there, and if you fuck it up, I'll send yuz back to AAA faster than you can say 'Hoyt Wilhelm'."

Any word on Alvarez's arm?

Does Alvarez stand on top of home plate? How many times can one guy hurt his arm?

=roger_that post_id=204615 time=1758065064 user_id=128] What's the record for most consecutive singles to begin a game?

What do you think? Is this a big early lead they're going to blow, or a month's worth of runs followed by a long series of games where they can't buy a hit?

This Baty guy, I think we did well, bringing him up from AAA.