Master Index of Archived Threads


Progress and Regress

Edgy DC May 19 2010 07:24 AM

Looking at current problem areas and whether they are improving. 5/18 Game Progress: [list][*]Santana is back to throwing strikes, and making outs doing it.[/*:m] [*]Jeff Francoeur found his power stroke, for one night at least.[/*:m][/list:u] =#FF8000]Regress: [list][*]David Wright had simply an awful game, fanning thrice and committing a walkoff error.[/*:m] [*]Jerry bunted in the ninth with the number three slot for the third time in a week, only to have it blow up in his face for the third time in a week.[/*:m] [*]Jerry pinch-hit a lesser batter for a better batter only to call for a bunt. That's bad baseball and it plays into archetype-thinking that only guys who play the middle of the diamond know how to get a bunt down.[/*:m] [*]Jerry kept his top bullpenner out of a tie game on the road, again. (Amazingly, Fernando Nieve missed a series.) This has backfired again and again.[/*:m][/list:u] Neutral: [list][*]Jose Reyes, while he went 0-4, didn't pop up.[/*:m][/list:u]

metirish May 19 2010 07:31 AM Re: Prgress and Regress

Jerry , Jerry and again Jerry. To continually call for the same plays with the same results is unforgivable.

MFS62 May 19 2010 07:34 AM Re: Prgress and Regress

Wright is rapidly falling into the vortex of suck. Last night, Steve Sommers said that Wright seems to have lost his game. And nobody seems to know how to reverse the process. Later

metsguyinmichigan May 19 2010 07:48 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Jerry as quoted on Metsblog: "He did not consider letting Gary Matthews Jr. swing, instead of bunting, ‘because he hasn’t been swinging the bat very well.’" What, exactly, is GMJ's role on the team? Designated bunter? Granted, he could get a lot of ABs with Jerry around if that is his skill. But it's getting harder and harder to justify this guy on the roster.

HahnSolo May 19 2010 07:50 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Edgy DC wrote: [*]Jerry pinch-hit a lesser batter for a better batter only to call for a bunt. That's bad baseball and it plays into archetypes that only guys who play the middle fo the diamond know how to get a bunt down. And he compounded it by keeping the bunt on even after Castillo went to second on the wild pitch. And compounded it further by keeping the bunt on with a 3-1 count, this with Matthews up, a guy who we keep hearing has to "get it going". Infuriating.

Edgy DC May 19 2010 07:54 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Jerry as quoted on Metsblog: "He did not consider letting Gary Matthews Jr. swing, instead of bunting, ‘because he hasn’t been swinging the bat very well.’" Edgy as quoted in Edgy's head: "Well, he wasn't up there in a key spot by accident, Jerry."

bmfc1 May 19 2010 07:55 AM Re: Progress and Regress

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Jerry as quoted on Metsblog: "He did not consider letting Gary Matthews Jr. swing, instead of bunting, ‘because he hasn’t been swinging the bat very well.’" What, exactly, is GMJ's role on the team? Designated bunter? Granted, he could get a lot of ABs with Jerry around if that is his skill. But it's getting harder and harder to justify this guy on the roster. Then why did he start on Sunday and Monday? And he had two hits on Sunday so maybe he was "swinging the bat" better. Jerry was trying to justify his over-managing.

Frayed Knot May 19 2010 07:56 AM Re: Progress and Regress

... it plays into archetype-thinking that only guys who play the middle of the diamond know how to get a bunt down. The corollary to that line of thinking is that everyone who plays in the middle of the diamond automatically knows how to get down a bunt, something which Jerry - along with a number of others - clearly buys into.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 19 2010 08:33 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Frayed Knot wrote: The corollary to that line of thinking is that everyone who plays in the middle of the diamond automatically knows how to get down a bunt, something which Jerry - along with a number of others - clearly buys into. I've made my piece with Manuel, I think. I mean, he is exactly what he is*. There's almost no point in getting upset with it**-- if he continues to make these sorts of mistakes, and a weird string of freakish luck doesn't grant the Mets more victories than they're due, he's gone. The thought that keeps me up is that in looking for his potential replacement, Mets upper-level management probably isn't looking for someone who doesn't buy into this crap; they're merely looking for someone who probably seems a contrast, personality-wise, and will "make (this crap) work" (i.e., get lucky, get wins). *I hate this locution, and its overuse to the point of distorting whatever meaning it originally had... but it's wholly appropriate here. **I reserve the right to make bitchy IGT comments when I'm having a strong adult beverage at home while watching/otherwise taking in the game.

A Boy Named Seo May 19 2010 08:53 AM Re: Prgress and Regress

MFS62 wrote: Wright is rapidly falling into the vortex of suck. Last night, Steve Sommers said that Wright seems to have lost his game. And nobody seems to know how to reverse the process. Later If you slowed down Wright's swing and put a big laser tracer on it, it would end up looking like a Nike swoosh he'd probably whore himself out for nowadays. The curve of the swoosh starting when he now automatically drops his back elbow, while at the same time opening his front, and the tail arching skyward with his uppercut swing. He needs to do old skool wood chopping, downward plane exercises.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2010 09:00 AM Re: Progress and Regress Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 19 2010 09:05 AM

The corollary to that line of thinking is that everyone who plays in the middle of the diamond automatically knows how to get down a bunt, something which Jerry - along with a number of others - clearly buys into. I've made my piece with Manuel, I think. I mean, he is exactly what he is*. There's almost no point in getting upset with it**-- if he continues to make these sorts of mistakes, and a weird string of freakish luck doesn't grant the Mets more victories than they're due, he's gone. The thought that keeps me up is that in looking for his potential replacement, Mets upper-level management probably isn't looking for someone who doesn't buy into this crap; they're merely looking for someone who probably seems a contrast, personality-wise, and will "make (this crap) work" (i.e., get lucky, get wins). *I hate this locution, and its overuse to the point of distorting whatever meaning it originally had... but it's wholly appropriate here. **I reserve the right to make bitchy IGT comments when I'm having a strong adult beverage at home while watching/otherwise taking in the game. I get the stereotype about middle of the diamond guys supposedly being better bunters, but I"m not sure how it applies to yesterday's top of the ninth: GMJ is an outfielder. I would've preferred that GMJ didn't sac bunt with Castillo on second. In Jerry's defense though, sac bunting a runner over to third base from second base with no outs is the only instance where the team at bat increases its chances of scoring one run by making an out. I don't like that play with the team's best hitters due up, but playing for one run with one inning left and K-Rod in the pen has its merits. By the way, Matthews sac bunted on a pitch that was high and outside and ball four by a wide margin. Unless Castillo was running on that pitch, I don't see why GMJ couldn't improvise on Jerry's call in order to work out the walk. With a 3-1 count, GMJ should have anticipated the possibility that the next pitch might miss the plate by far. OE: What I'm sayin' is that GMJ's at bat was worse than Jerry Randolph's call. Billy Wagner has 22 K's in 14 innings and would be the Mets best reliever if he was only a Met.

Frayed Knot May 19 2010 09:01 AM Re: Prgress and Regress

MFS62 wrote: Wright is rapidly falling into the vortex of suck. The strike-outs are alarming but so is over-reacting to just that one stat. Wright is NOT making outs at a greater rate than his lifetime norms and is slugging at above lg avgs. It's not a great year but it's also not a "vortex of suck" Last night, Steve Sommers said that Wright seems to have lost his game. Somers may be entertaining (to some) but he is *THE LAST PERSON ON EARTH* to look to for advice ... on anything! And nobody seems to know how to reverse the process. It doesn't need to be "reversed"

Benjamin Grimm May 19 2010 09:06 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Last week, I got an e-mail from a guy who knows how to help David Wright, and he desperately wanted me to get word to Bobby Ojeda.

Frayed Knot May 19 2010 09:07 AM Re: Progress and Regress

I get the stereotype about middle of the diamond guys supposedly being better bunters, but I"m not sure how it applies to yesterday's top of the ninth: GMJ is an outfielder. Well, he's still a middle outfielder therefore he was born with the speedy/slappy/gritty gene meaning that bunting in innate with his kind. By the way, Matthews sac bunted on a pitch that was high and outside and ball four by a wide margin. Unless Castillo was running on that pitch, I don't see why GMJ couldn't improvise on Jerry's call in order to work out the walk. With a 3-1 count, GMJ should have anticipated the possibility that the next pitch might miss the plate by far. This was my biggest problem. Once the count got to 2-0 is there anything wrong w/Jerry REMOVING the bunt now that his batter has a supposed edge? Geez, zone on an outside pitch and try to take one to RF. It'll still get the runner over and maybe you'll get a hit by accident. And that's the larger problem, not just that he chooses the "wrong" strategy but that he won't deviate from it even if circumstances change.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2010 09:10 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Frayed Knot wrote: I get the stereotype about middle of the diamond guys supposedly being better bunters, but I"m not sure how it applies to yesterday's top of the ninth: GMJ is an outfielder. Well, he's still a middle outfielder therefore he was born with the speedy/slappy/gritty gene meaning that bunting in innate with his kind. By the way, Matthews sac bunted on a pitch that was high and outside and ball four by a wide margin. Unless Castillo was running on that pitch, I don't see why GMJ couldn't improvise on Jerry's call in order to work out the walk. With a 3-1 count, GMJ should have anticipated the possibility that the next pitch might miss the plate by far. This was my biggest problem. Once the count got to 2-0 is there anything wrong w/Jerry REMOVING the bunt now that his batter has a supposed edge? Geez, zone on an outside pitch and try to take one to RF. It'll still get the runner over and maybe you'll get a hit by accident. And that's the larger problem, not just that he chooses the "wrong" strategy but that he won't deviate from it even if circumstances change. I edited my post, apparently while you were writing your response. I blame GMJ more than Jerry. Unless Castillo was running on the 3-1 count, GMJ's allowed to take a ball, even with the sac bunt on. He already drew three balls before he bunted.

Ceetar May 19 2010 09:13 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Maybe there are statistics that bear it out, but I'd still rather take my chances to let Carter, Wright, and Ike have a chance to get a hit and score the run than take 1 chance at a sac-fly with David striking out so much and Wagner being a strikeout guy + 1 chance for a left-handed rookie who has never faced him before to get a hit. It just seems that Manuel needs to sit back, and let his players win or lose the game. Maybe their is something to the idea that if you spend so much of your time asking your players to make intentional outs (sac flies, bunts), then they tend to make outs. That's really completely silly, but I just don't like the intentional out, and I think even with the runner on third with less than 2 outs (as has been a problem for years) the Mets should really ignore trying to do anything than get a hit. Stop trying to do something specific with the ball and just hit it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 19 2010 09:18 AM Re: Prgress and Regress

Frayed Knot wrote: MFS62 wrote: Wright is rapidly falling into the vortex of suck. The strike-outs are alarming but so is over-reacting to just that one stat. Wright is NOT making outs at a greater rate than his lifetime norms and is slugging at above lg avgs. It's not a great year but it's also not a "vortex of suck" Last night, Steve Sommers said that Wright seems to have lost his game. Somers may be entertaining (to some) but he is *THE LAST PERSON ON EARTH* to look to for advice ... on anything! And nobody seems to know how to reverse the process. It doesn't need to be "reversed" Mostly agreed, FK. As frustrating as Ks are to watch, Wright's actually being pretty damn productive this year. Even including the last few terrible games, he's walking a lot more (which makes sense, since he's only seeing 43.4% of pitches in the strike zone-- a career low), and putting up a .390ish OBP while slugging pretty decently as well (.509). Except, until recently, Wright's BABIP was as absurdly high as last year (pushing .400), and he's hitting a lot fewer line drives, so that and the skyrocketing K rates (which are no illusion-- he's swinging at more stuff outside the zone, and missing a lot more stuff inside it than he ever has before) suggests he may be due for a drop to AdamDunnLand, average-wise.

Edgy DC May 19 2010 09:19 AM Re: Progress and Regress

I would've preferred that GMJ didn't sac bunt with Castillo on second. In Jerry's defense though, sac bunting a runner over to third base from second base with no outs is the only instance where the team at bat increases its chances of scoring one run by making an out. I don't like that play with the team's best hitters due up, but playing for one run with one inning left and K-Rod in the pen has its merits. That's assuming it works, which it continually hasn't. Big problems with the defense of the bunting strategy are that it's proponents [list=1][*] take it's success as a given, [/*:m] [*]take the notion that the guy behind him will be able to make contact with a long out as a given, (especially when David Wright has been failing to make contact as much as anybody in the league)[/*:m] [*]don't weight the value of intentionally advancing a runner with an out against the tendency of a batter (particuarly a lefthanded batter with a runner on second) to advance the runner accidentally while trying to do even better and get a hit.[/*:m][/list:o] By the way, Matthews sac bunted on a pitch that was high and outside and ball four by a wide margin. Unless Castillo was running on that pitch, I don't see why GMJ couldn't improvise on Jerry's call in order to work out the walk. With a 3-1 count, GMJ should have anticipated the possibility that the next pitch might miss the plate by far. OE: What I'm sayin' is that GMJ's at bat was worse than Jerry Randolph's call. I'm almost sure Manuel prefers the successful sacrifice to the walk there. Billy Wagner has 22 K's in 14 innings and would be the Mets best reliever if he was only a Met. Maybe, but it's a trap to allow ourselves to think more relievers and better relievers are the answer. The answer is a team that asks less of their pen, with an offense that gives pitchers room to fail and a manager who goes to them responsibly. Really, getting a guy to first and having him steal, bunting him to third, and scoring him with a sacrifice fly is maybe an acceptable approach to rallying in the Joe Torre Mets era. It's been a suicidal model for Jerry all year.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2010 09:32 AM Re: Progress and Regress

EdgyDC wrote: By the way, Matthews sac bunted on a pitch that was high and outside and ball four by a wide margin. Unless Castillo was running on that pitch, I don't see why GMJ couldn't improvise on Jerry's call in order to work out the walk. With a 3-1 count, GMJ should have anticipated the possibility that the next pitch might miss the plate by far. OE: What I'm sayin' is that GMJ's at bat was worse than Jerry Randolph's call. I'm almost sure Manuel prefers the successful sacrifice to the walk there. I doubt it. Why don't you invite Jerry to the forum so that he could set the record straight? EdgyDC wrote: Billy Wagner has 22 K's in 14 innings and would be the Mets best reliever if he was only a Met. Maybe, but it's a trap to allow ourselves to think more relievers and better relievers are the answer. I don't see any trap. I'd rather have better relievers than worser relievers.

Edgy DC May 19 2010 09:42 AM Re: Progress and Regress

They have good releivers now --- pretty much top to bottom (at least before swapping Takahashi for Perez) --- but I think the Mets (Randolph, Manuel, Minaya) have wasted a tremendous amount of energy trying to play themselves into situations where the bullpen, including a Wagner-led bullpen, can lock up the game for them. There's only so much water any bullpen can carry.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 19 2010 09:44 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Ceetar wrote: Maybe there are statistics that bear it out, but I'd still rather take my chances to let Carter, Wright, and Ike have a chance to get a hit and score the run than take 1 chance at a sac-fly with David striking out so much and Wagner being a strikeout guy + 1 chance for a left-handed rookie who has never faced him before to get a hit. It just seems that Manuel needs to sit back, and let his players win or lose the game. Maybe their is something to the idea that if you spend so much of your time asking your players to make intentional outs (sac flies, bunts), then they tend to make outs. That's really completely silly, but I just don't like the intentional out, and I think even with the runner on third with less than 2 outs (as has been a problem for years) the Mets should really ignore trying to do anything than get a hit. Stop trying to do something specific with the ball and just hit it. Every run-expectancy matrix* I've ever seen shows higher expected-runs numbers (and therefore, higher run-expectancy, if you're looking forward) to a no outs/man-on-second (1.17-1.20) situation than a one-out/man-on-third one (.97-.98). I mean, the odds are pretty damn good either way, but all else being equal, not giving up the out is usually the smart way to go. *Compiled backward from actual results, per year. So, this juice is made from actual-- not theoretical-- fruit.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 19 2010 09:47 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Edgy DC wrote: They have good releivers now --- pretty much top to bottom (at least before swapping Takahashi for Perez) --- but I think the Mets (Randolph, Manuel, Minaya) have wasted a tremendous amount of energy trying to play themselves into situations where the bullpen, including a Wagner-led bullpen, can lock up the game for them. There's only so much water any bullpen can carry. Agree strongly. It's like JM's managing the game to get to the bullpen (which he equates with the win), rather than to actually win. He does roughly the same thing with offense, too, on a more microcosmic scale-- put the team in position to score a run, rather than working to actually plate runs (bunt to advance the runner, not to score the runner, e.g.).

metirish May 19 2010 09:54 AM Re: Progress and Regress

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Edgy DC wrote: They have good releivers now --- pretty much top to bottom (at least before swapping Takahashi for Perez) --- but I think the Mets (Randolph, Manuel, Minaya) have wasted a tremendous amount of energy trying to play themselves into situations where the bullpen, including a Wagner-led bullpen, can lock up the game for them. There's only so much water any bullpen can carry. Agree strongly. It's like JM's managing the game to get to the bullpen (which he equates with the win), rather than to actually win. He does roughly the same thing with offense, too, on a more microcosmic scale-- put the team in position to score a run, rather than working to actually plate runs (bunt to advance the runner, not to score the runner, e.g.). Agree with the Minaya led Mets bullpen building....but when he needed to get it help after Wagner went down in August '08 he didn't. So much importance was placed on the bullpen but they didn't or couldn't get the help that year.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2010 09:56 AM Re: Progress and Regress Edited 2 time(s), most recently on May 19 2010 10:00 AM

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Maybe there are statistics that bear it out, but I'd still rather take my chances to let Carter, Wright, and Ike have a chance to get a hit and score the run than take 1 chance at a sac-fly with David striking out so much and Wagner being a strikeout guy + 1 chance for a left-handed rookie who has never faced him before to get a hit. It just seems that Manuel needs to sit back, and let his players win or lose the game. Maybe their is something to the idea that if you spend so much of your time asking your players to make intentional outs (sac flies, bunts), then they tend to make outs. That's really completely silly, but I just don't like the intentional out, and I think even with the runner on third with less than 2 outs (as has been a problem for years) the Mets should really ignore trying to do anything than get a hit. Stop trying to do something specific with the ball and just hit it. Every run-expectancy matrix* I've ever seen shows higher expected-runs numbers (and therefore, higher run-expectancy, if you're looking forward) to a no outs/man-on-second (1.17-1.20) situation than a one-out/man-on-third one (.97-.98). I mean, the odds are pretty damn good either way, but all else being equal, not giving up the out is usually the smart way to go. *Compiled backward from actual results, per year. So, this juice is made from actual-- not theoretical-- fruit. You're probably looking at run-expectancy matrixes that indicate the average total number of runs scored in an inning, given the base-out situation. I was referring to run-expectancy matrixes that give odds for scoring a specific number of runs (e.g., one run, two runs, etc.) in the inning. The different matrixes (and results) can probably be reconciled as follows: By successfully bunting a running to third base with the first out of the inning, the team increases its chances of scoring precisely one run in that inning. However, by sacrificing, it also dramatically reduces its chances of scoring any additional runs in that inning. I guess it's a variation on the old a bird in the hand theme. Even though the bird isn't yet in the hand.

Ceetar May 19 2010 09:57 AM Re: Progress and Regress

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Every run-expectancy matrix* I've ever seen shows higher expected-runs numbers (and therefore, higher run-expectancy, if you're looking forward) to a no outs/man-on-second (1.17-1.20) situation than a one-out/man-on-third one (.97-.98). I mean, the odds are pretty damn good either way, but all else being equal, not giving up the out is usually the smart way to go. *Compiled backward from actual results, per year. So, this juice is made from actual-- not theoretical-- fruit. True, but those matrix don't usually take into account who's hitting next. Probably a strong positive for bunting if you've a guy like Barajas coming up, but if it's Wright, maybe not so much. Even so (As batmagadanleadoff apparently just clarified) wouldn't not-bunting always tend to give you more total runs? because it's not a safe bet to always assume 1 is enough, which is what the goal was there.

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2010 10:17 AM Re: Progress and Regress

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Agree strongly. It's like JM's managing the game to get to the bullpen (which he equates with the win), rather than to actually win. He does roughly the same thing with offense, too, on a more microcosmic scale-- put the team in position to score a run, rather than working to actually plate runs (bunt to advance the runner, not to score the runner, e.g.). I agree. I dislike managers that are compelled to manufacture runs by calling for some play or tactic. I prefer a manager who can organize his nine starters into a reasonably efficient batting order, and then sit back and do nothing more than watch the batters do the rest. I don't remember a thread here on the hit and run but I detest that play as much as the sac bunt. I could also care less about the stolen base, though I won't complain when the steal is successful. I think that these plays are relics from a style of baseball that is now somewhat antiquated. Along these lines, one of the game's best managers is Manuel. The one down in Philly.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 19 2010 10:23 AM Re: Progress and Regress

You're probably looking at run-expectancy matrixes that indicate the average total number of runs scored in an inning, given the base-out situation. I was referring to run-expectancy matrixes that give odds for scoring a specific number of runs (e.g., one run, two runs, etc.) in the inning. The different matrixes (and results) can probably be reconciled as follows: By successfully bunting a running to third base with the first out of the inning, the team increases its chances of scoring precisely one run in that inning. However, by sacrificing, it also dramatically reduces its chances of scoring any additional runs in that inning. I guess it's a variation on the old a bird in the hand theme. Even though the bird isn't yet in the hand. Yep, you're right. (Tables 4 and 5 being especially pertinent.) But hey-- if, like MerkinChin, you're playing that game, why not get the bird in hand? If you're playing for just one run, and you've got a guy up who's been having trouble making contact all game/all season (so far), then why don't you squeeze the run in?

batmagadanleadoff May 19 2010 10:31 AM Re: Progress and Regress

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Yep, you're right. (Tables 4 and 5 being especially pertinent.) But hey-- if, like MerkinChin, you're playing that game, why not get the bird in hand? If you're playing for just one run, and you've got a guy up who's been having trouble making contact all game/all season (so far), then why don't you squeeze the run in? Because GMJ's having trouble making contact!

Frayed Knot May 19 2010 11:10 AM Re: Progress and Regress

Mostly agreed, FK. As frustrating as Ks are to watch, Wright's actually being pretty damn productive this year. Even including the last few terrible games, he's walking a lot more (which makes sense, since he's only seeing 43.4% of pitches in the strike zone-- a career low), and putting up a .390ish OBP while slugging pretty decently as well (.509). Except, until recently, Wright's BABIP was as absurdly high as last year (pushing .400), and he's hitting a lot fewer line drives, so that and the skyrocketing K rates (which are no illusion-- he's swinging at more stuff outside the zone, and missing a lot more stuff inside it than he ever has before) suggests he may be due for a drop to AdamDunnLand, average-wise. And if and when Wright does find himself in DunnLand BA-wise (and with less power and fewer walks) THEN he'll be staring into a vortex of suck. In the meantime, if Somers or anyone else in the NY press wants to find someone who actually is making a lot more outs than normal - what with his OBA down nearly 100 points from last year or 72 points off his career norm - they'll have to look to the guy playing SS in the Bronx.

Ashie62 May 19 2010 06:23 PM Re: Progress and Regress

Frayed Knot wrote: Mostly agreed, FK. As frustrating as Ks are to watch, Wright's actually being pretty damn productive this year. Even including the last few terrible games, he's walking a lot more (which makes sense, since he's only seeing 43.4% of pitches in the strike zone-- a career low), and putting up a .390ish OBP while slugging pretty decently as well (.509). Except, until recently, Wright's BABIP was as absurdly high as last year (pushing .400), and he's hitting a lot fewer line drives, so that and the skyrocketing K rates (which are no illusion-- he's swinging at more stuff outside the zone, and missing a lot more stuff inside it than he ever has before) suggests he may be due for a drop to AdamDunnLand, average-wise. And if and when Wright does find himself in DunnLand BA-wise (and with less power and fewer walks) THEN he'll be staring into a vortex of suck. In the meantime, if Somers or anyone else in the NY press wants to find someone who actually is making a lot more outs than normal - what with his OBA down nearly 100 points from last year or 72 points off his career norm - they'll have to look to the guy playing SS in the Bronx. Jeter is a decade older and has the rings. I can't see the media going after him

Nymr83 May 19 2010 06:30 PM Re: Progress and Regress

if Jeter still sucks in August Somers will go after it, he loves baiting Yankee fans, but its a bit early and 25-14 teams dont have the media looking for scapegoats anyway.