roger_that

The crime against humanity has been corrected. I just got official notice that my suggestion has been acted upon and the pronunciation, according to everyone who's ever lived (except for one person) is now AY-gee, and ay-GEE has been banished from BBREF.com. Hallelujah!

hard to quantify, I know, but there's usually five pitchers designated, sometimes late in spring training but typically earlier, as your regular rotation and during the year, sometimes even from day one, there are setbacks, injuries, demotions, trades, that promote at least one starter into the top five in "number of games started." Yesterday I thought we were all set and today there's talk of trading Carrasco. Last year it took until what, July? to get our top five starters all working at the same time. But you'd have to include deGrom among our 2022 starters. Anyway, that's all beyond obvious--I'm just trying to figure if we can even discuss this subject without defining what constitutes a starting rotation for a particular year or if we need to keep chasing each other around the mulberry bish.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. if teams, not just the Mets, opt to offer shorter, more lucrative contracts, they're going to have to have a system of one-, two-, and three-year deals rotating so they don't need to fill five SP spots per year, just two or three. I think the deGrom-style contract is going to fade out, especially if Jake pulls up short in Year One or Year two of this deal. This is all fueled by logic, and the penalty of a luxury tax--you really can't afford to be burdened by multiple megamillion-dollar deals for players who are no longer producing, or even active. If Texas winds up shelling out 100+ million in 2028 for players no longer on their active roster, it will be a huge hit for them.

Are we moving (we = baseball, not Mets or CPF) in the direction of teams having higher turnover of starting pitchers, so that every team will experience 70 or 80% turnover every year or two? When we will be literally able to ID team/years by who the starting pitchers were? In other words, am I overreacting to the Mets' sudden high turnover rate? Am I glorifying the stability of my youth, when the Mets' starters of Craig/Jackson/Willey/Fisher/Cisco seemed to last forever, but in reality had the same turnover rate of later Mets/ teams? Is this reality or just a fantasy?

I think the article claims no homies in the regular starting rotation, not in the emergency starter role.

Edgy MD wrote: a little curtly. One of https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=lee---001curhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=lee---001cur my favorites.

This guy sez so, and I can't call him a liar.[TWEET]https://twitter.com/OmarMinayaFan/status/1602032877411405825/photo/1https://twitter.com/OmarMinayaFan/status/1602032877411405825/photo/1[/TWEET] When was the Mets' last non-homie starting rotation?

I got a response from their "Customer Success Coordinator" telling me "Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I too have only ever heard it pronounced AY-gee," and going on to say that he will pass my revelation on to TPTB and they can change it. Keep refreshing Agee's BBREF page and let me know when you spot the change. Kudos to Edgy for showing me how to restore stability to the galaxy.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: How soon do you reissue #48? I'd offer it to Senga, since he can't get #41.

Edgy MD wrote: I would disagree with that. Which part? You'd almost have to agree that there is a point where your caught stealings are costing the team more runs than your stolen bases are creating. I think the conventional wisdom was that the breakeven point was about 67%, and I believe that figure has only risen in recent years. But let's say it's 67%--it certainly isn't far from that figure. So someone who steals at a 75% rate, 30/40, is breaking even with 30 attempts (where he steals 20 bases) and netting you 10 bases on his other 10 attempts. How many runs is 10 bases? You know it's not 10 runs, not even close to that. Is it 5 runs? Doubt that very much. 3? 2? Something like that. So how many wins is your 30/40 stealer getting for you, if his stealing attempts add up to 3 runs or fewer? If you'd like to disagree with my speculations here, could you start by identifying the single largest flaw in my reasoning? Do you think the breakeven point is much lower than 67%? Do you think 10 bases over the course of 162 games are much more productive than I'm making them out to be?

We tend to think of him as a fifth outfielder, which he was, but he actually began the year as their regular RFer, starting the Mets' 10 games in right field, and batting .286 in the first seven, giving us (me?) an aggrandized idea of what he could contribute. I don't remember if he got to show off his arm in those early games, but he definitely had the best throwing arm of the team's OFers that year, much stronger than Shamsky and Swoboda who played most of the RF in 1969.

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=114550 time=1670799419 user_id=119] Good point about the scouting reports. One thing I found interesting is the booth said one night that while Nimmo has decent speed, he doesn't steal many bases. The thought is that he worries about getting hurt.

Edgy MD wrote: There's a "Questions or Comments" link at the top of the page. They've responded when I've used that to point something out. Thanks --never noticed that.

=Ceetar post_id=114471 time=1670680861 user_id=102] he saw the exact same percentage (61.9) of first pitch strikes at 2021. He swung at 1.4% more (30.9) first pitches than 2021, and 1.3% more overall, so pretty much didn't change his first pitch approach at all. It's like maybe a pitch more a month.

One thing I'll be following closely is whether the trend continues or reverts. I don't remember the exact stats, but from watching him, it seemed that he swung at first pitches more last year than in previous years. His HRs and triples jumped in 2022, but oddly enough his overall SLG declined slightly (because fewer singles) so he seemed to be trying to take advantage of early strikes thrown in the "knowledge" that he'd be taking, a strategy (if I'm correct) that can be used only for so long before the opposing pitchers wise up. if I had to bet, I'd say that 23 triples and HRs (7 + 16) will be his career peak as he sees fewer fat first pitches in 2023 and beyond. WHOOPS! I looked it up and he actually peaked earlier with 25 triples and HRs (8 and 17).

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The pronunciation of his last name is wrong. They're saying that the accent should be on the second syllable. Got it in one. No one, ever, has stressed the second syllable in Agee.

Anyone know how to contact Baseball-reference.com about a ridiculous misstatement of fact in their Tommie Agee entry? https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/ageeto01.shtml%5Bu%5D%5B/u%5Dhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/ageeto01.shtml Just for fun, I won't reveal the error immediately, allowing you to guess at it, but I will give some hints: 1) it isn't numerical 2) It is of a binary nature. That is, it is an error in something that can only be done in two distinct ways and the way BBREF has done it is the incorrect one. 3) It is obvious to anyone who has ever spoken of Tommie Agee or heard him spoken of.

If anyone has an intelligent answer to my question, I'd be interested in hearing it.

If you're Buck, do you strategize with him on getting his walks total back to where it was? Or leave him be? In other words, is Nimmo's decline in walks a problem or a one-year blip?

Frayed Knot wrote: =metirish post_id=114418 time=1670606648 user_id=72] It's a raven , represents St. Benedict of Nursia ( often fed ravens ) Williams is catholic . And now he'll pitch for us nevermore.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Glad they kept Nimmo, but 8 years, sheesh. He's the kind of guy who can lose .050 points off his OBA and still help you, lose range in the OF and some arm strength and still play a decent LF, lose some speed and run the bases ok. And I don't expect that process to start for a little while. I read something interesting about these long-range-contracts today--that it's better to pay 200 million over 10 years, even though those last few years are $$$ flushed down the donnicker, than it is to pay 150 mil over five because the luxury tax will kill you. Not saying it's true but it makes some sense.

Great move!

Excellent move, and excellent timing.

Edgy MD wrote: your potential trading partners would figure out your pattern quickly and the market for your pitchers would grow thinner. Well, "quickly" is funny. This policy will backfire sometimes, which will keep some "potential trading partners" thinking that they can take advantage of your willingness to deal hot young pitchers, and of course those potential trading partners will also change GMs frequently, resupplying the number of people who haven't yet caught on. By the time a clear pattern has emerged, there's probably close to 100% turnover on who's making trading decisions on a particular team. Oddly enough, this entire principle depends on having a good supply of MLB-ready pitching in your own organization at all times. Without that, the whole thing collapses. Also no one's yet pointed out the idiocy of comparing 2022 pitchers to those of the young Seaver or young Ryan era, when you could hang onto your star pitching at dirt-cheap rates indefinitely, but since no one who isn't an idiot has made such remarks, perhaps it's better if we all continue to ignore such remarks.

=metsmarathon post_id=113892 time=1670245054 user_id=83] if you always trade your good pitchers, you better damned well have great hitters, or you'll lose a fuck-ton of games.