roger_that

This season, Boston leads the league in BA after 0-2 with .192. The Mets are .178. (and that's 4th) McNeil is at .186. Minimum 20 PA, J.P Crawford is at .407, then Andrew Vaughn at .308, Steven Kwan at .306, Wilmer Flores, Luis Arraez and Jarren Duran at .300. These are like, 20-60PA samples, with pretty high BABIP for the most part. unsustainable. I'm sure if you broke it down you'd find a lot of lucky flares or squibs that found holes for these guys.. It's why the Dodgers were right to let ..was it Betts? take first on the 0-2 appeal a few weeks ago. Oh, you know what? I misread ".180 when 0-2" for "180 with 2 strikes." My bad. .180 when 0-2 seems about right.

.180? Really? I'd like to see some documentation there. Seems low to me. When I think of a good 2-strike hitter, I usually think well north of the Mendoza line. In any event, I really don't see why you'd bunt with two strikes when they're giving you the whole left side of the infield. If you can't hit a groundball towards 3B, how much better is a bunt going to be?

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Lots of $$ in the website "surrounding" feature, vs. 1 ad that sirs there sirs?

As Lloyd Bridges' character might have said in AIRPLANE, "Guess I picked the wrong week to have a baby," but McNeil is indeed going to be AWOL in the paternity ward while the team is fighting for first place with Hot 'Lanta. My question about him, though, concerns one at-bat which I saw hastily at the end of the Miami series: my memory (which could be mistaken) is that in his final at-bat in that series, he tried to bunt his way on base with two strikes, bunted foul, and slammed his bat into the ground as he walked back to the dugout in disgust. First question is: do I have that right? If I do, my second question is: Why did he try to bunt with two strikes at all? It's not a bad idea, bunting down the 3B line when the shift is on, but why not try it with 0 strikes or with 1? As I recall (could be mistaken) they put the same shift on him the whole AB--three fielders on on side of the diamond, and the fourth one basically playing SS. A quick runner/decent bunter like McNeil should be able to beat out most fair bunts that get past the pitcher, no? And the 2-strikes question aside, why bunt at all? With no one manning 3B, wouldn't it be smarter (and easier) just to try to hit a ball on the ground in the general direction of 3B? You could do that even with 2 strikes on you, because by hitting away, you avoid getting struck out if it goes foul. I didn't understand what McNeil was thinking there at all. Maybe I misunderstood something about that bunt attempt completely?

It won't be humorous if he has three good games left in him but they're his next three games. Imagine paying a guy millions to take you out of first place for the first time all year.

One of the revolting developments that are driving my interest in MLB away.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Braves win so 1.5 up. Looking shaky going into Atlanta. So if they avoid getting swept, they have the lead going into the Cubs series?

Solace in getting shut out is you're never going to win on days you don't score. It's hard to get upset when the other team manages to push a run across in extras.

Can we chip in and buy Dom a pair of shades?

Status of the mighty McCann and the magnificent Marte?

The burden of proof is on the one who asserts the existence of something, not on the one who questions its existence.

Edgy MD wrote: Garrett Cooper, who has to better firstbaseman simply by virtue of having played Lou Gehrig in the movies? And who, according to Ralph Kiner, caught for the 1986 Mets.

I think it's time Marte's primary position was changed from CF to RF.

There's plenty of evidence, just no definitive proof. Which is probably impossible to find--it's proving a negative which can't be done. There are of course plenty of instances of clutch hitting, as there are instances of just-plain hitting. But show me the proof that there are certain hitters who have the ability to hit in the clutch, year after year, and certain ones who lack that ability.

Edgy MD wrote: Does anybody else think that analogy works? I would need to understand it to answer that question. James has certainly backed off "Clutch hitting doesn't exist" but it's mostly a jiu-jitsu move. Now it's more like "Certain hitters MAY be marginally more skilled in the clutch situations than others, but far more significant is the small size of samples we have available to measure it, and as that size grows larger, everyone reverts to the norm." In other words, if one guy bats .280 in clutch situations and a very similar batter hits .260, you might be able to claim the first guy is a better clutch hitter but if we had a few more decades (somehow) of their at-bats, they would meet at .270 and the streams might even cross. But since we don't have 15-decade careers to look at, no one can say you're definitely wrong to scream "CLUTCH HITTER!" at the first guy and "BOOOOO!" at the second one, so knock yourself out. But it still adds up to "Clutch hitting doesn't exist." We just can't prove it doesn't.

They seem to like Donnie Baseball just fine in Miami. The announcing team today compared him continually to Keith. Continually and favorably.

Good one, Vinny. I missed the final inning--I recorded only the show after the scheduled run time for the game, I need to record two shows at least after the game. I assume it was a good game?

Squirl up. Can't say this hasnt been an exciting game/

Good eye as usual for Nimmo. Full count.

Are the "17" patches for today or for the season?

Looey starts it with a hustle double

And the lead is promptly erased/

And the runner is promptly erased.

I think Cooper uttered the magic word, and then Donnie tried to explain that Cooper was 100 feet from the ump, who could have chosen to ignore it.

Edgy MD wrote: wonder how well we're learning. That's the point, I think. Some will think it's worth it to make decisions that give a teeny tiny edge consistently, and some won't. But those teeny tiny edges add up over the course of a season.