rchurch314

who we pulling for? Japan maybe?

It's been a while since I felt like the Mets had a "plan" sturdy enough to last a bump or two. Vibes has seemingly driven most of the decision making, in-season and out, for a bit now. I think they're doing the classic, not exclusive to Sandy Alderson but certainly he's a proponent, move of just evaluating each position or player individually and just shrugging if someone else wants them more. As Andrew Friedman said "If you're always rational about every free agent, you will finish third on every free agent". We also can't dismiss just gross incompetence either. If the Mets ARE targeting say 85-88 but are only able to be 90% effective at it, they're back at .500 and missing it. Just like 2025, where they failed to deal with any of the adversity.

Mets (as an organization) mostly have no idea what they're doing with pitchers. Hefner was well liked, which doesn't mean good, and had one good trick with guys like Peterson that worked out, which might not have even been Hefner's doing. He's probably got a point, in the "where there's smoke, there's fire" way, but mostly this is just whiny ****.

stupid and garbage and rob manfred hates baseball

I don't think they're spending for a top SP. they don't seem to like to do that. It's hurt them, but are they introspective enough to realize it? I'd be shocked if they're not mostly planning on the young guys. Hopefully they don't try the Scherzer/Verlander "old veteran guy" thing again, or at least, try it with healthier guys. That'd be better than the "We see something in Frankie Montas, trust us" method though. trade for deGrom?

I kinda want Naylor anyway, he seems like a fun player. But his defense isn't particularly great either, and while he's pretty good offensively, his ceiling is probably Alonso's average. Mets are leaking that they want more lefties though, can they move him to ..third? LF? Alonso as the DH and Naylor as the 1B probably works, but I doubt you convince Alonso of that, though if you paid him the same maybe. Doubt the Mets do that though.

A BIG part of this is going to be Murakami-sama. His contract is even more uncertain, but I think most teams would rather have Murakami. There's some machinations here for a shrewd POBO though, and probably for Boras too, as maybe they play Alonso off him. Blustering aside, I think Boras knows 7 years is unlikely, but maybe he can position Alonso as the 'safe' choice and land something bigger for teams that think they're not going to have a chance at Murakami and want to grab Alonso before other teams are looking for plan B. More likely it goes the usual way where everyone goes after Murakami and Alonso waits and plays all the teams that missed out against each other., but there's certainly an argument to be made for the Mets just offering him something big enough to get him to sign early. They could still go after Murakami after that anyway, given their 3B and DH situations, though I doubt the Mets are going to spend $50/mill on two CI/DH guys this offseason, though they do seem allergic to paying pitchers..

related (also to Eric Chavez is a moron) : https://sny.tv/articles/eric-chavez-tried-to-change-juan-soto-approach-mets leaders in # of barrels on 0-0 swings: https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/statcast_search?hfPT=&hfAB=&hfGT=R%7C&hfPR=foul%7Cfoul%5C.%5C.bunt%7Cbunt%5C.%5C.foul%5C.%5C.tip%7Cfoul%5C.%5C.pitchout%7Chit%5C.%5C.into%5C.%5C.play%7Cmissed%5C.%5C.bunt%7Cfoul%5C.%5C.tip%7Cswinging%5C.%5C.pitchout%7Cswinging%5C.%5C.strike%7Cswinging%5C.%5C.strike%5C.%5C.blocked%7C&hfZ=&hfStadium=&hfBBL=&hfNewZones=&hfPull=&hfC=00%7C&hfSea=2025%7C&hfSit=&player_type=batter&hfOuts=&hfOpponent=&pitcher_throws=&batter_stands=&hfSA=&game_date_gt=&game_date_lt=&hfMo=&hfTeam=&home_road=&hfRO=&position=&hfInfield=&hfOutfield=&hfInn=&hfBBT=&hfFlag=&metric_1=&group_by=name&min_pitches=0&min_results=0&min_pas=50&sort_col=pitches&player_event_sort=api_p_release_speed&sort_order=desc&chk_stats_woba=on&chk_stats_barrels_total=on&chk_count=on#results

The Mets need him so bad. This should've been, roughly, what you expected from him, but I suspect if other teams believed that they would've maybe found a better offer for him than the Mets. Now they saw it and recency bias will make him more attractive. He's not going to get a huge deal, and now a lot of teams will figure he'll still be a good bopper for a few years. His defense and baserunning have always been terrible. 1B defense is underrated though, so that probably doesn't turn anyone off, especially depending on DH openings. The Mets though, the Mets need him. The same way they needed him last year. You can't replace that thump with one player and they need that. You can't trust anybody in-house to be good enough to stick at first right now. Unless you want to teach Soto that, which is outside the box thinking that might be worth exploring. There's the assumption that Soto will spend most of his 30s at DH though, but which is actually far enough off that Alonso probably bridge that. The one benefit of retaining Mendoza is having the foreknowledge/plan on that sort of roster deployment. How much does he want to put Alvarez at DH? Vientos? These questions aren't new--The Mets have had a disjointed overlap of positions for a few years. They've got a lot of decisions to make, bets to place, on some of the younger guys. All the more reason to keep someone like Alonso.

Soto has a .091 OPS with no outs and a runner on second, but with 2 outs and a runner on second that jumps to .930. So obviously if the 8th batter hits a lead-off double, the 9th hitter and Lindor should both just intentionally strike out.

clutch remains not a thing. They've got a few black holes, Torrens, Taylor, but really the problem in June has been pitching.

=Centerfield post_id=193938 time=1748463411 user_id=65] Their past performance is not predictive. Their unlucky results that have already happened are not indicative of any result we'll see in the future. Their overall OPS is predictive. The Mets will likely perform in future situations just as they perform overall.

=Centerfield post_id=193904 time=1748455660 user_id=65] Let's say you get $1 for every time the coin comes up tails. You get nothing if it comes up heads. Flip it six times in a row, you get heads every time. You've made no money. Flip it six more times, odds are you'll make $3. Because the odds suggest you'll do better than 0%. If the past was a statistical oddity, chances are you'll do better going forward. I never said there would be six tails in a row. Again, you're arguing points no one is making.

OPS with RISP is not a "junk stat". Whatever that means. It's a measure of real results that have taken place. No one ever said it's predictive of future results, but it is absolutely a record of what has taken place so far. And it matters because performance with RISP obviously affects results. Getting one hit each inning is going to result in less runs than getting nine hits in a row. OPS with RISP is useful. It's unquestionable that the Mets, in 2025, have been dreadful in "clutch" situations. But I think you and I both agree, that there's no reason to think that this will continue. This bodes well for the Mets. As their OPS with RISP eventually trends toward their overall OPS, they should score more runs. It's HIGHLY subjective. Even for actual results. Is it real? Are the Mets actually failing in "clutch" situations? Maybe. Certainly some subset of them, at times. They were 1-6 with RISP yesterday. They scored 6 runs. It's a subset, you can use it as a small part of a bigger story you want to tell, but particularly in this instance, I'm not so sure what story it's telling. Mostly just that the Mets maybe have had some bad luck/sequencing of some of their hits at times. Also of note you infer that you understand it's not predictive but then suggest that it is predictive by saying they should score more going forward.