roger_that

You and Edgy are right. I'm wrong.

Well, I'm thinking of a circumstance where there's no rookie having a particularly strong year, and say a pitcher comes up for the first time late in the year and goes 5-0 and pitches two no-hitters. He might squeek into a ROTY award. McCovey won a ROTY in 1959 while having a great two months or so and no one else having even a decent rookie season. He probably exceeded the current definition of a rookie now, though I don't think they had a sharp definition at the time.

I'd think "Of course he has to be a rookie all season." Move your example to Oct. 1, for example, and you'll see that if it's not set up like that, someone could win two straight ROTYs.

This is what happens with poorly designed voting systems and poorly defined terms, such as "rookie." It's why, for example, Joe Dimaggio didn't get into the HoF first time around, or so it seems--they allowed people to cast ballots for players who weren't eligible for induction yet. An easy fix would have been to circulate a list of eligible candidates, and then ask voters to choose off that list. What it seems the lazy slobs who designed the voting, in fact, did was to ask voters to rank whoever they felt was a candidate, a recipe for disasters like this one.

I worry about the Mets. They have a troubling tendency to collapse with almost no advance notice.

=G-Fafif post_id=92806 time=1652985471 user_id=55] Fun article, but not new.

New article just out running down SEINFELD and baseball, mostly the Mets. https://www.complex.com/sports/2016/10/oral-history-of-baseball-on-seinfeldhttps://www.complex.com/sports/2016/10/oral-history-of-baseball-on-seinfeld Roger McDowell watches every time "his" episode airs.

Wait. I thought Nimmo's taking a day off was supposed to put McNeil in LF.

We refer to that as a British sense of humor. Here's yesterday's loss in 7:44. https://www.mlb.com/video/cg-stl-nym-5-17-22-game-2?t=condensed-gameshttps://www.mlb.com/video/cg-stl-nym-5-17-22-game-2?t=condensed-games not a bad way to catch up on a game you missed, especially for those of us sick of three and four and five hour long games.

Couple of days ago, in such a situation, I came upon a 10-minute "day after" stream that rather neatly summarized the previous day's game, but I didn't make note of what it was. Anyone have any idea?

Wot? I'm talking about online. Via the internet. On a computer. Using the world wide web. Through the internets.

If you've got a computer, but no (connected to Mets broadcast) TV or radio, what's the best way to keep up with the action as it happens? Also, while I'm at it, I sometimes catch (on my laptop) a good 10-minute recap of the previous game's action but I get this more or less at random, when I happen upon it. Does anyone have a favorite way to do either of these?

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Why don't you get on that list? I'm just spitballing on the most obvious moveable asset we've got and didn't think I'd need to specify I wasn't advocating moving him just to move em I'm not that knowledgeable about other teams' pitching prospects. On principle, though, I'm very leery about trading good position players to get pitching. I'd rather give a start or three to our best AAA pitchers and see if we can't catch lightning in a bottle than lose a hitter as good as Dom can be. To swap a hitter for a pitcher, I'd have to feel very sure I was getting a good one. The other way around, I'd be willing to gamble.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: What I'm driving at is considering trading Smith for pitching. There's a couple of trying-to-contend teams, like Minnesota or Boston, that could use more production from first base and if they could be convinced Smith's issue is not getting enough reps, you'd think they'd be interested. No idea offhand whether they have pitching prospects or depth to burn Maybe going at it ass-backwards? Instead of looking at teams that need a 1B man/DH, look for prospects that you want badly, and then see if that org. needs Dom Smith? Your way, you're talking yourself into making the move because you want to make the move.

Kinda wish Buck would figure out if McNeil belongs at the top of the lineup, or Marte does, and stick with it. I don't get the rationale for all this constant flipflopping.

Edgy MD wrote: Francisco Lindor and Pete Alonso have played in every game this season so far. I mean, yeah, that includes DH'ing, so it's totally cheating, but it's something to consider as you play Guess Tomorrow's Lineup! Among the considerations, of course, are that Pete Alonso played 161 games in 2019 and 152 in 2021, so it's only injury that will get him out of the lineup, but a more puzzling consideration is his L/R splits, which suggest he's that strange right-handed duck who hits righty pitching better than lefty. He's played enough to suggest that this isn't a small-sample-size anomaly, but not enough to state that as a proven fact, so when to rest him if you think he needs a day off? Hard to say. Better not to rest him at all, I'd say. One thing's for sure: until shown otherwise you NEVER want to cheat him out of an at-bat against the Nats. He's completely crushed their pitching over his career: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=alonspe01&year=Career&t=bhttps://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=alonspe01&year=Career&t=b

didn't quote roger_what properly. roger_what is someone else. So is roger_who, roger_which, roger_how, and go_roger_yourself. I'm roger_that. This question keeps getting more interesting. The dilemma of pitch-counts vs. no-hitters seems to affect us in different ways. To those reactionaries denying the validity of pitch-counts in the face of a potential no-hitter, how far do want to take it? If your pitcher has thrown 130 pitches going into the ninth, I get it, you want him in the game, but do you back off at 140? 180? How about if he's thumping his chest and screaming "I'm a man!" at you? How about if he's never thrown 120 pitches before in his life? (As some young pitchers, I imagine, never have.) How about if he confesses "My arm is killing me, but please Skip I want this no-hitter!"?

"If something GOOD happening to your supposedly favorite team " That's the question. Recent managerial practices suggest it's something VERY BAD happening to your pitcher. No-hitters are by definition complete games, Some are complete games with very high pitch counts. In the past years, we've taken to removing pitchers with very high pitch counts no matter what, and getting more so every day. Do you think Santana would be left in to pitch the ninth today? Or even the eighth? I doubt it, myself. The question is whether this development is a good thing or a bad thing.

Diagnosis: institutional insecurity and impatience. I mean, no one could state that the Mets hadn't had perhaps the greatest run of pitching in any organization's history, year for year, so why did we even care we hadn't had a no-hitter so far? And "so far" wasn't very far--since there was no rational explanation, we got impatient and started attributing our bad luck to irrational causes.

Edgy MD wrote: never lift a pitcher who is getting the job done. This is one of several principles that have come into dispute over the past few decades, and which are unproven so far. Pitch counts--do they make sense? Do they prevent injury? Are they set in the right place? In even approximately the right place? Is there a range in which maximum pitch counts make equal sense? (That is, does it make a tiny difference if you pull your starter at 110 pitches or 115?) If high pitch counts are ruinous, then does it make sense to extend them in the post-season? That is, doesn't it risk ruining a pitcher's arm whether he's going to get four days' rest or 140 days' rest? Have we studied how much pitch-counts within an inning matter, as opposed to within a game? Are all pitchers equally susceptible to arm injuries? There's a lot of exploitable questions in this area. The first team to arrive at answers will gain a huge advantage over its opponents. We're nowhere close to knowing these things now, but they're all knowable.

=kcmets post_id=91724 time=1652105712 user_id=53] What sort of risk of blowing out his arm does any pitcher take any time he takes the mound? Could happen on any pitch.

Santana has never evinced an iota of regret. Unless he does, I won't. Do you really expect him to say, "Ya know, thinkin' it over, I wrecked my arm and aborted my career, and lost my shot at the Hall of Fame, all for the sake of a stupid, ego-driven error that doesn't add up to a hill of beans. I was a world-class jerk, throwing more pitches than my poor arm could take, and I'm ashamed of my machismo self"? Even if that's how he really feels?

This guy is always fun: 452K views · 8K reactions | Mets comeback from down six runs in the... WWW.FACEBOOK.COM Mets comeback from down six runs in the ninth to win, a breakdown Shea Station 452K views · 8K reactions | Mets comeback from down six runs in the... WWW.FACEBOOK.COM Mets comeback from down six runs in the ninth to win, a breakdown Shea Station

...of the first/only no-hitter in Mets history, perhaps it's time, in light of recent practices, to reconsider whether leaving Johan Santana in to pitch a complete game wrecked his arm and his career. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/johan-santana-comeback-new-york-mets-no-hitter-134-pitches-terry-collins-mlbhttps://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/johan-santana-comeback-new-york-mets-no-hitter-134-pitches-terry-collins-mlb Have you changed your mind in the past ten years on this issue? What sort of risk of blowing out his arm does any pitcher take any time he takes the mound? What is your standard for taking a pitcher out of a no-hitter in progress? Has that changed? Do you admire Santana as much as you once may have for telling Jerry Manuel "I'm a Man" (yes, I am, and I can't help but love you so) when he came out to the mound to remove Santana from a game? Are you okay with never seeing another no-hitter for the remainder of your lifetime?

Over-confidence is a killer.