roger_that
-
Posts
1,736 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
New York Mets News, Rumors & Analysis
New York Mets Videos
2026 New York Mets Top Prospect Rankings
New York Mets Trade & Free Agent Rumors
New York Mets Fan Guides & Resources
2026 New York Mets Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by roger_that
-
=roger_that post_id=103406 time=1660234919 user_id=128] If they can win 10 of 20, I'll take it. Even splitting with the Braves will be a victory of sorts.
-
Frayed Knot wrote: Naquin, Canha, and Marte have all played ML CF before so that's maybe the best covered position on the field. You'd have to think that 1B is the best covered position. Any infielder could play it, and almost any outfielder too. In fact, I wouldn't totally panic if Buck were to play a pitcher there for a few batters in an emergency. All you really need to play 1B is the ability to field a grounder and a popup, and to catch a thrown ball, which is in every player's skill set.
-
My question about the Mets' emergency catcher the other day sparked a series of similar questions. In an in-game emergency situation (where no recourse to Syracuse or Brooklyn is a possibility) who do you suppose fills in at various positions? At shortstop, for example, in some logistical or injury-related disaster that renders the Mets without the services of Lindor and Guillorme, who plays short? Escobar? Who's next on that depth chart? McNeil? And after McNeil, who? Likewise, what's the Mets' depth chart in CF? 1) Nimmo, obviously 2) Canha, apparently 3) Marte, seemingly 4) McNeil, by default? 5) Naquin, I guess 6) Ruf?? Escobar? Alonso? 7) Vogelbach, making you wonder who's in RF and LF--see option #6 Hard to imagine the level of disaster that would put Vogelbach in CF, but I'm sure Buck has gamed all this stuff out. Give me your peek into Buck's secret contingency planning at various positions.
-
If they can win 10 of 20, I'll take it. Even splitting with the Braves will be a victory of sorts.
-
Tonight's win over the Reds now projects the Mets to win 106 games.
-
it's hard to tie a manager of the year down to a few stats. Hard, but far from impossible, in terms of using those stats that have done it for past managers. I'd start by juggling some numbers for no-doubt-about-it MOTYs, guys who've won it running away, and seeing what factors they have in common, and then fine-tuning it as the choices got dicier and dicier. I'd guess that "surprise" teams, out of nowhere teams, have had an outsized representation here. Hodges, for example, would have been colossally obvious. Then I'd look into how the fuck Joe Girardi won it with an under-.500 team.
-
You could probably invent a formula for Mgr of the Year that would be pretty close to accurate, a certain number of points for wins over the previous year's total, bonuses for finishing in first place and for overcoming major injuries, smaller bonuses for wild card teams. What other factors would you use in this formula?
-
A pleasure to watch.
-
Edgy MD wrote: Oh, I get jangly. His weapons are amazing, but a tight game and a new pitcher and youneverknow! Not Franco-jangly, though. Not Benitez-jangly. Not even Wagner-jangly.
-
He certainly does a lot to assuage our ingrained nervousness about our closer. I haven't read anyone complaining about how jangly their nerves get when Diaz comes into the game
-
Is Lindor at 3 or at 4?
-
Say Nido starts, but there's a crucial two-out AB in the 7th inning, do or die spot, and Buck PHs for him. McCann comes in to play D, but is injured or ejected almost immediately. Who catches?
-
How is Guillorme's primary position "shortstop"?
-
Almost at 105 now. Today's projection is 104.49.
-
I was agin hiring him, but he's gotten results, can't argue with that, and I don't appreciate the way the does some aspects of his job, but he's doing a damned good job managing this team overall. Is he the best manager in the league this year, though? Who's his competition going down the stretch? Will his churlish take with the press hurt him or help him? Is the Manager of the Year award dependent on post-season success? Do YOU think he's Manager of the Year?
-
Benjamin Grimm wrote: Winning 100 games would be 30 and 23 the rest of the way. [headslap] Teach me to do subtraction in my head. So .566 from here on in. Some reason I got in my head that yesterday's win was their 79th, not their 70th. I just read on Twitter, btw, that Jake's game was the second-highest viewership in SNY's history.
-
I think they end with an even hundy. Which is great, but why exactly do you think they'll do less well WITH deGrom (and Vogelbach and Ruf) than they were able to do without them? We're at .622, we're healthier than we've been all year, we seem to have shored up our troublesome DH spot, but we're going to play UNDER .622 down the stretch? .622, hell. You've got them playing under .500, 21-23 from this point forward. Logic and fanship dictate, it seems to me, that we'd be overwhelmingly going for "They'll blast through 108 wins easily" but instead we're saying (so far) "Nah they ain't that good, they've been playing over their heads so far." Which may just be warding off the jinx, ingrained years of Wilpon-induced pessimism, skepticism about de Grom's health, or who know what.
-
We seem evenly divided so far between what I'll label as the "Having deGrom and Scherzer healthy for the final third of the season can only help" group and the "Yeah, deGrom's healthy for 10 innings so far--I wouldn't count on him to be healthy for 11" group. No, it's divided on whether they'll reach 104. You didn't mention players, no voters have mentioned players and after five votes (now six) so you read into all that with 'labeling' the voting? I don't get it. I'm extrapolating. Maybe I'm misreading the polling results.
-
We seem evenly divided so far between what I'll label as the "Having deGrom and Scherzer healthy for the final third of the season can only help" group and the "Yeah, deGrom's healthy for 10 innings so far--I wouldn't count on him to be healthy for 11" group.
-
Anyone have a subscription to BaseballAmerica? They list their top 100 prospects going back years, and I'd like to see that list, but don't want to pay if I don't have to.
-
Frayed Knot wrote: One problem with numerical rankings is that it only tells you how relevant a prospect is relative to others in that organization at that moment. But a #1 guy in a weak system may not be all that good while a 5th or 6th guy in a different year might be much more promising. Which is why I want to look at a lot of prospect lists from a lot of years and a lot of organizations. Seems to me that once you accumulate 1000 or so prospect/years, you can draw some general conclusions as to the actual value of your #1 prospect, your # 20 prospect and so on, and I'd be astonished if MLB teams didn't use such yardsticks in their considerations when faced with trading prospects for major leaguers and vice versa. I don't know, for example, if the average #1 prospect becomes a MLB star 10% of the time or 60% of the time. I don't know if your #10 prospect becomes a MLB regular 40% of the time or 75%. But such things are knowable. Not foolproof, of course. Not guaranteed. But knowable.
-
Roughly. That's the Mets' current W-L pct. times a full season's games, to yield the number of victories they are on pace to win.
-
2 Ks per IP for Jake--seems about right.
-
Ruf AB.
-
Now they have to make this a non-typical deGrom outing--that is, get him to the fifth inning (ideally the seventh) with a lead that the bullpen doesn't blow.
