soupcan

="TransMonk":3c5wns3r]="Benjamin Grimm":3c5wns3r] I voted for A, because it's less horrendous than B.[/quote:3c5wns3r] Yup.[/quote:3c5wns3r] Me too. Ashie62 May 18 2009 02:28 PM I saw these at Abercrombie & Fitch marked down

The whole Yankee broadcast team - Sterling, Waldman, Kay, O'Neill, etc. are just one of the many reasons I'm glad I'm not a Yankee fan.

B more than A but the drop-shadow has got to go. I understand the aversion to the creamy goodness of B and had I not been at a game against the Reds some years back where both teams wore throwback unis, I might agree. The Mets wore the cream-colored home pinstripes and man did they look wonderful. You have to see them in person to fully appreciate them. The only issue I recall with the uniforms I saw them in that day was that they seemed to be quite fragile. Ventura slid into a base and ripped the entire back of a pant leg clean off. I wondered if that was a result of the uniforms being flannel-like material rather than the poly-propelene banlon blend that they make the regular stuff with.

="metirish"] Is bunting early doors with no outs aggressive play or desperate play? No idea what this means.

Vote early and often! Ditch the black!

What did I miss? Why are we talking about replacement shortstops? Jose's injury more serious than first thought? I haven't read or seen that anywhere. Cora's finger broke or something? Edgy just worrying too much?

="smg58":9h0j2e51]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:9h0j2e51] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 17 2009 10:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 17 2009 12:51 PM ="soupcan":2k7waus1]="smg58":2k7waus1]The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2k7waus1] But would they have even gotten to September those years without using the 'pen as much as they did? And don't they have to worry about getting to September this year so they can have the opportunity to collapse (or, hopefully, not)?[/quote:2k7waus1] Yes, but does it follow that one must overwork the pen--largely, by overusing the alphas-- to get there? [That's like saying, "We'll need plenty of electric light to do this job," and always using the same 2 fixtures, without changing the bulbs.] smg58 May 17 2009 11:11 AM Soupcan's point is a fair one; you could certainly argue that the ultimate source of the problem in 2007 was that the starters couldn't get deep enough into the games. And reserving a roster spot all season for Aaron Sele (53 innings of 5.37 ERA work) didn't help. Ideally, I wouldn't ask for more than 70 innings from any of our relievers, and not much more than 60 from Feliciano. Right now, most of the pen is on pace for close to 70 innings, Rodriguez is on pace for 80 (he's gone over 70 once since 2004), and Putz is on pace for 92. Putz absolutely needs a reduced load; he won't last the season otherwise. Frankie can probably handle it, but I wouldn't push it if I didn't have to. They need more innings from the last spot in the pen, whether it's Takahashi or somebody else. Stokes has worked as a starter, so he might be the best bet to take on more innings. (That has to be within reason, though -- in 2007 Jorge Sosa pitched 20 innings his first month in the pen, but he fell apart in September and hasn't recovered yet.) Mendoza Line May 17 2009 01:17 PM Manuel's use of pitchers so far: PitcherInnings to DateProjection for SeasonCareer HighExpectationMaine40.33181.49191190Pelfrey35157.5201190Santana53238.5234230Hernandez38.67174.02255150Perez21.6797.5219690Figueroa6279350Redding0017625Rodriguez18.6784.028680Putz2194.57865Parnell17.3377.99 - 85Feliciano15.6770.526470Green15.3368.997950Stokes16726270Takahashi731.5 - 80Others17.6779.52 - 30Total323.331455 - 1455 The projection for the season is simply the innings pitched multiplied by 9/2, as we're 2/9 through the season as of now. I didn't do anything to account for injuries/missed starts. The expectation is my expectation of how many innings we could reasonably expect to get out of each pitcher this season. The 1455 inning projection is roughly in line with the number of innings the Mets have played per season over the past few seasons. This is going to be tight. I really don't want to see another 35 innings of Sean Green, and 48 more innings of an effective Takahashi is optimistic. And I'm counting on no major injuries to any key pitchers (except for Livan, who figures to miss a few starts). It looks like Manuel is doing a decent job of managing the starters - Pelfrey's innings are low because he was injured at the start of the season. But, yeah, Putz is getting a little too much work right now if you believe this table. I wouldn't mind seeing Manuel throw a few more eighth-inning appearances Takahashi's way, just to see how he'd perform. John Cougar Lunchbucket May 17 2009 01:49 PM What would be telling is a breakdown of games in which Putz has already appeared, and how many of them were in games the Mets were losing and/or comfortably ahead. Strike those, do the projection over, and I'd bet he'd be in normal range. Edgy DC May 17 2009 01:51 PM No, I don't know that the Mets would have made it as far as they did hadn't they rode the bullpen as hard as they did. I know that they didn't make it to the playoffs either year and, and the end of them, several of their relievers were among the league leaders in appearances, even as their late-season breakdowns left them with statitistics that wouldn't suggest they should be pitched every day. Regarding those projections, they're a little deceptive. Johan Santana may have never thrown over 234 innings, but I'd wager he's never gotten half through May with a 1.36 ERA before, suggesting he's pitching to significantly fewer batters per inning. In short, usage isn't best measured in innings, but in pitches. For relievers, appearances is also a key measure. smg58 Jun 02 2009 07:37 AM ="smg58":2w5w8d0z]Putz has 20 innings in 33 games. That's a ridiculous workload to give a reliever coming off an injury. You have to protect your relievers sometimes too. The 2007 collapse happened in part because the pen crumbled from overwork.[/quote:2w5w8d0z] Even with recording no outs yesterday, Putz is on a 90-inning pace. Putz never broke 80 in his years with Seattle. And it couldn't be more obvious his arm is not 100% back. We have guys (Stokes for sure, probably Parnell and Takahashi too) who can take on more work. Manuel is not doing Putz or the team any favors sending him out this often. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:14 AM I kept going over last night in my head. For what it's worth, J.J. didn't walk his way into trouble, but got Baltimore chopped to death. (Keith, you really don't know what that means? Grab a book.) Four seasons hop into my head --- the last two, 1985, and 1973. In the first three of these, the manager had a struggling righthanded reliever (last year, there were two), who was a big part of the team's plans going into the season. The manager in each case would find himself torn between the game at hand and the season at large. In order to win the game, you don't want to put it in the hands of a struggling pitcher. But in order to save the season, you want to redeem that struggling pitcher. So, rather than bury the guy, they downgrade him for one or two appearances before returning him to high-leverage situations. But I think that can be stubborn adherence to The Plan. And you can miss that a new --- perhaps better --- plan is emerging right before you. Davey Johnson in 1985 bounced Doug Sisk below Roger McDowell, but as the season wore on, McDowell was wearing down, and Sisk was still needed (and failing) in big situations. According to Bats, Frank Cashen had a deal on the table to move some prospects (it's never said which ones) to re-acquire Tom Seaver, which would have allowed him to move Rick Aguilera to the pen, where he had flourished in his few appearances and where he would eventually star. What's most bothersome to this day was that Johnson didn't want to move Aguilera because he didn't want to break with the plan, not only for 1985, but 1986, to which he was already looking ahead. The presence of Seaver would force him to rework his rotation, as if somebody (most likely Seaver) wouldn't get hurt and give Aguilera another chance at starting. In 2007, Willie Randolph always trying to redeem Guillermo Mota. He'd downgrade him for a few games and then return him to the mix. Granted, there were no obvious alternatives, but it took a while to even give Joe Smith more trust. Last year, the redemption of Heilman and Sanchez was continually stillborn while other alternatives fell by the wayside. The Mets have real alternatives here in Stokes and Parnell. I like working for redemption. The redemption of Tug McGraw (effected, it seems, by giving him two starts after all else had failed) was the story of 1973. But how about not returning Green and Putz to big moments until they show success after 10 appearances in the back of the pen, rather than two? And if some Eddie Kunz looks like he can move in there, give him a real crack at it. Adapt, baby! John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 02 2009 08:28 AM It's plainly obvious they are leaning way too heavily on Putz and I am convinced it is in the service of creating an illusion of a "lock-down pen" as overcompensation for 2008's failures. I'd give him Takahashi's role for a few weeks, slide Parnell and Stokes up a notch and score more fucking runs. Edgy DC Jun 02 2009 08:35 AM Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night. OlerudOwned Jun 02 2009 01:26 PM We could certainly benefit a lot from Sean Green turning things around. He's walking too many batters, his GB% is down 8 notches from last year, his FB% is up 10, and a nutty 16.7% of those fly balls are homers. Doesn't look like any physical problems, so hopefully he can work through it. Give him some innings at home, maybe. The flyballs can turn into outs instead of homers, and hopefully confidence would beget a return to form. Anything to lessen the load on Putz, because his arm is clearly not all there. Fman99 Jun 02 2009 01:41 PM ="Edgy DC":6cnbj2zu]Seems obvious, doesn't it? Thing is, they did downgrade him. They just won't keep him down. Even that save he got was only because of an emergency shortage for that night.[/quote:6cnbj2zu] Not only that, that save was the one punctuated by two tremendous plays on defense, on balls that were hit hard and turned into outs by Castillo/Wright and Ramon Martinez. Benjamin Grimm Jun 02 2009 01:49 PM Yeah. I took the Schaefer point I'd normally give for a one-inning save and divided it among Wright, Castillo, and Martinez.

Lucky bastard.

I saw it yesterday and liked it (3.5 stars), but I'm really a casual fan. Although I am familiar with the Shatner, Nimoy series I prefer TNG over than the original. Why was Kirk eating an apple during that scene significant?

How the hell are you able to pull off a mid afternoon nap on a weekend with two little kids in the house?

You know, if they want a black hat why don't they just wear these...? Seriously, why not? The Nationals wear the same cap the Senators did. And they could also wear jersies that looked similar to these... At least the black and orange don't look half-bad together without the blue in there making everybody nauseous.

Nymr83 wrote: Went to bed with a 4-2 lead in the 6th... That was my story too, except I woke up thinking for some reason that the Mets had lost 9-4. Tonight I'm having an espresso at about 9:30 pm.

They could easily have been swept in this series. Be happy that they weren't, that they went 6-2 on the homestand and go on the road alone in first place. 10 days ago we'd have all been incredibly happy with that.

I'll go with 'not such a great aptitude for the sport and over confident'.

6-5 Mets. Niese is out of the game and shufflin' off to Buffalo. Stokes coming in and they are getting a locker ready for Tim Redding.

6-4 white hats.

Escobar, Chipper, Anderson and Diaz combine for 2 more runs. 4-2 bad guys.

BTW - 2-2 top 3rd.

Larry scores ahead of Anderson's ribby single. 2-0 bad guys.

BAM! Larry doubles Escobar home. 1-0 Bravos.

="metirish":27xpjsbn]No Runs and Bad Defence[/quote:27xpjsbn] ="metirish":27xpjsbn]....defensibly that is.[/quote:27xpjsbn] Pick a freakin' spelling already would ya? Benjamin Grimm May 13 2009 11:22 AM Playing first isn't as easy as people probably think, especially at the level that Keith played. But it's a lot easier than left field, I'd think. Fman99 May 13 2009 12:56 PM You know, if it's muffy, there are products they make that can get rid of that, make it smell real nice and all. Oh, wait, what? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 04 2009 01:34 PM We can't live with a 700 OPS at first base for much longer. How much more time do you give him? Edgy DC Jun 04 2009 01:39 PM Until you can convince Sheffield to give it another try? Fman99 Jun 04 2009 01:39 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":38qbegz5]We can't live with a 700 OPS at first base for much longer. How much more time do you give him?[/quote:38qbegz5] It's not like the Mets have an alternative right now who's lighting it up. Plus Reed looked fairly green at 1B when he was in there. Name OPS Reed 762 Tatis 731 Murphy 707 LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 04 2009 01:41 PM Until we trade every arm we have that's less than 25 years old for Nick Johnson? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 04 2009 02:41 PM ="Fman99":351lldhy]="John Cougar Lunchbucket":351lldhy]We can't live with a 700 OPS at first base for much longer. How much more time do you give him?[/quote:351lldhy] It's not like the Mets have an alternative right now who's lighting it up. Plus Reed looked fairly green at 1B when he was in there. Name OPS Reed 762 Tatis 731 Murphy 707[/quote:351lldhy] Yeah, I know the alternatives are few. The question I am asking is when do they reach a point at which they have to create more alternatives. Do you give Muffy this next series to show he can hit, or two series, or trade for Nick Johnson/DeRosa/LaRoche now? Nymr83 Jun 04 2009 02:55 PM If DeRosa can be had at a reasonable price i think you do that whether you like Murphy or not because he can backup every infield position, thuogh its worth noting that he's played 1B the least of any position Edgy DC Jun 04 2009 02:59 PM That don't confront me none. cooby Jun 04 2009 07:06 PM Harry Muff smg58 Jun 04 2009 08:29 PM Murphy's strikeout rate is so low (14 in 145 AB's) that I can't see his batting average staying this low indefinitely. I think a bit more patience is in order. Frayed Knot Jun 04 2009 08:49 PM ="Nymr83":w3ud1pbq]If DeRosa can be had at a reasonable price i think you do that whether you like Murphy or not because he can backup every infield position, thuogh its worth noting that he's played 1B the least of any position[/quote:w3ud1pbq] The reason DeRosa has played 1B less than other positions is that he doesn't hit well enough to play there which is where we are with Murphy at this point. DeRosa career = .278/.347/.423 - and he's 34 Murphy career (such as it is) = .279/.360/.426 He'd be a nice player to have as an all-around fill-in but I wouldn't look to him to bridge the Delgado gap. At this point we've got enough other problems where I think we have to leave Muffy alone and hope he perks up. Elster88 Jun 04 2009 08:51 PM Can DeRosa catch? smg58 Jun 05 2009 11:17 AM Ryan Garko can catch, which is why he intrigues me more than DeRosa. But I'd be talking to the Indians about Cliff Lee first, and a righthanded bat second. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 05 2009 11:34 AM ="Frayed Knot"]="Nymr83"]If DeRosa can be had at a reasonable price i think you do that whether you like Murphy or not because he can backup every infield position, thuogh its worth noting that he's played 1B the least of any position The reason DeRosa has played 1B less than other positions is that he doesn't hit well enough to play there which is where we are with Murphy at this point. DeRosa career = .278/.347/.423 - and he's 34 Murphy career (such as it is) = .279/.360/.426 To be fair, though, his career numbers may not be exactly reflective of the hitter he is now. This may seem like a sample cherry-pick, but his power has really grown by leaps and bounds as he entered his thirties-- the last four years he's really been a different hitter (wOBA at about .360, slugging at a .450-.460 rate, compared to the .310/.400 he put up in his early career) than he was while scuffling about for the first half of the decade simply as a many-gloved utility freak. Mind you, it's still not more than league-average (or slightly below) 1B numbers he's putting up, but still... it's more respectable. (To counter my own point, Murphy-- presumably-- may not yet be exactly what he is going to be, either.) mario25 Jun 05 2009 08:27 PM Murphy 0-4 tonight, he is battting .240. He is not hitting up to support a mediocre glove.... He needs some time in Buffalo. Frayed Knot Jun 05 2009 08:29 PM ="mario25":3rg4hxky]Murphy 0-4 tonight, he is battting .240. He is not hitting up to support a mediocre glove.... He needs some time in Buffalo.[/quote:3rg4hxky] Fine, but that brings up the old Abbott and Costello question: Who's On First? Kong76 Jun 05 2009 08:32 PM FK: Who's On First? <<< That don't matter in roto. Edgy DC Jun 07 2009 12:26 PM Stop giving up on Murphy. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 30 2009 09:16 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":2ymvmoks]We can't live with a 700 OPS at first base for much longer. How much more time do you give him?[/quote:2ymvmoks] bump. OPS = 680 Benjamin Grimm Jun 30 2009 09:19 AM Well, at least it's not 700. Geez, the Mets have so much going wrong it's hard to know how to prioritize what to do. It would be nice if they had an exceptionally smart GM. smg58 Jun 30 2009 09:31 AM I don't understand how somebody with his K/AB ratio could have such a low average, unless he's either getting really unlucky or getting nothing on his swings. But if the latter were true, how come he has more home runs than Wright? DocTee Jun 30 2009 09:53 AM DeRosa could've played first...and his 12 homers would lead the team. just sayin' Frayed Knot Jun 30 2009 10:45 AM ="smg58":3bysbapl]I don't understand how somebody with his K/AB ratio could have such a low average, unless he's either getting really unlucky or getting nothing on his swings. But if the latter were true, how come he has more home runs than Wright?[/quote:3bysbapl] Lotsa pop-ups/short-flys LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 30 2009 11:51 AM ="smg58":2qn8pr2p]I don't understand how somebody with his K/AB ratio could have such a low average, unless he's either getting really unlucky or getting nothing on his swings. But if the latter were true, how come he has more home runs than Wright?[/quote:2qn8pr2p] How about "unlucky/more lift on his swings"? YEAR BABIP LD% FB% GB/FB 2008-- .386 33.3 25.5 1.62 2009-- .258 17.5 40.7 1.03 Getting the ball in the air more usually has a depressive effect on BA and other rate stats, unless you unless you've got more power than Muff does (see: Justin Upton's numbers this year). DM's actually hitting HRs at about the same rate as last year, in terms of HR/FB (7.7 to 6.5)... it's just that he's hitting more flyballs, hence the lower average and slightly-higher homer numbers. Barring something funky happening, the BABIP should come up a bit in the second half. [Wright, on the other hand, is getting a ridiculous amount of the stuff he makes contact with to drop (.455 BABIP... and that's come DOWN in recent weeks). Also, his HR/FB has dropped a LOT (5.1, as compared with a career rate of 14.3).] Edgy DC Jun 30 2009 11:57 AM I think this week (at least) has been a grand tour of the number of ways Daniel Murphy can hit the ball hard and make an out. Triple Dee Jun 30 2009 12:09 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":cdlg41sl] It would be nice if they had an exceptionally smart GM.[/quote:cdlg41sl] Well, it's a good thing they have a GM who has a reputation for making aggressive trades. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 30 2009 12:30 PM ="Edgy DC"]I think this week (at least) has been a grand tour of the number of ways Daniel Murphy can hit the ball hard and make an out involving superhuman defensive play from Melky Cabrera and/or a Yankee substitute. /Fixed

That's too funny.

Swan Swan H wrote: I also don't mind the Mets shoving a blown save up Gonzalez' bunghole. They did that? I must have turned off the post-game too early, damn.