Master Index of Archived Threads


It's not just Ike

Frayed Knot Apr 24 2012 07:54 AM

Mets have started this season a whopping 0-fer-14 with the bases loaded - and even though it seems like Ike was up for all of those it's actually only 4 And while I know this could certainly be planted in the 'Fun with Small Sample Sizes' thread, this situational ineptness seems to be a trend with this team despite changes in personnel. Ordinarily most players, and therefore most teams, hit better with the bases loaded for several rather obvious reasons. But even ignoring the long GS-less streak, which can more easily be written off as a kind of fluke, this brings to mind recent seasons such as: * the 2009 team which hit .270/.335/.394 overall but then melted to a .220/.250/.348 rate in 160 sacks-loaded ABs * in 2010 where a team that hit .249/.314/.383 turned into one hitting .244/.270/.321 Just subbing in some normalcy in those 14 ABs would probably mean a minimum of six extra runs on the year and could reasonably be twice that many without even getting greedy.

Edgy MD Apr 24 2012 07:58 AM Re: It's not just Ike

And probably two more wins and two fewer losses.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 24 2012 08:55 AM Re: It's not just Ike

Edgy DC wrote: And probably two more wins and two fewer losses. Only one other NL team - the Cubs - has a worse run differential than the Mets. According to Bill James' Pythagorean theorem, the Mets won-loss record should be 6-10 instead of 8-8.

Edgy MD Apr 24 2012 08:58 AM Re: It's not just Ike

So we really could be robbing the devil.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 24 2012 09:03 AM Re: It's not just Ike

Edgy DC wrote: So we really could be robbing the devil. Could've been. Small sample size and all and the past doesn't necessarily predict the future yada yada.. I mean, Lucas Duda has raked like a star at every level. But he's also a notoriously slow starter. He should start hitting like a beast. Right? Ike, on the other hand -- he's shown flashes of superstardom. But he's coming off of an injury that cost him the last 2/3 of 2011 and now he's got the Fever. The Valley Fever. So maybe there's more to Ike's slump than rustiness or randomness. TBD.

Frayed Knot Apr 24 2012 11:24 AM Re: It's not just Ike

Of course nothing is more susceptible to small sample sizes than Pythagorean win projections and the fact remains that a normal expectation of outcomes in bases-loaded situations - say 3 to 6 hits out of the 16 PAs so far rather than a fat goose egg - would most likely have resulted somewhere in the 5 to 10 runs added range which, depending on when they showed up, could easily have turned a loss or three into wins. Instead, we're sitting on 2 RBIs (both via Sac Flies) to show for 16 sacks-drunk PAs. Hell, I'd settle for a couple of walks or HBPs at this point. On the plus side our hurlers have only given up 1 hit in 13 BL ABs. The flip side of that is that the hit was a bases-clearing 2B and we've also walked 3 plus served up a SF in 17 PAs So in all we're down 9 runs to 2

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 24 2012 07:24 PM Re: It's not just Ike

Not just Ike .... but not Josh.

Frayed Knot Apr 24 2012 08:20 PM Re: It's not just Ike

Now 0-fer-15 plus a walk & 2 SFs in 18 PAs w/bases loaded. I'm think I'm going to keep tracking this at least until we get an actual hit.