Master Index of Archived Threads


Offensive

Centerfield Apr 20 2017 02:13 PM

Kinda lost in the Jay Bruce heroics is the fact that no one else on the team did dick last night. Say what you want about the bullpen, a big part of the problem is that they have no margin for error night after night. A look at some of the numbers: http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/team/_/st ... asontype/2 Overall, it's not bad. 12th in runs scored in MLB. Seems like they score in bunches though, and mostly against Philadelphia. A few lopsided games skew this total, but I'm guessing you can say that about a lot of teams. They are 2nd in HR's only to Milwaukee, and that's only because that guy Eric Thames has hit 100 by himself. You figure if the Mets stay healthy they stay near the top there. But that's about all they do well. They are 21st in OBP, and 25th in Batting Average. And I know BA isn't what we once thought it was, but it's still definitely something. They don't run at all. Only 2 steals so far, which is good for last (tied with Toronto). All stuff we already knew, and all stuff we kinda expected coming into this season. Going forward, I'm guessing things will get better. Bruce will slow down, but Granderson will eventually hit some, Reyes will get better or benched, and Walker will pick it up at some point. Gotta get Conforto consistent AB's. Maybe we could call up Dilson Herrera.

seawolf17 Apr 20 2017 02:20 PM Re: Offensive

Centerfield wrote: They don't run at all. Only 2 steals so far, which is good for last (tied with Toronto). Interestingly, BOTH on Opening Day. I thought we were supposed to believe in OBP, no? Get on it, Sandy.

Ceetar Apr 20 2017 02:26 PM Re: Offensive

Mets BABIP is way low, fwiw. (and Nationals lead the league) these things will level out. Although maybe not as fast if Duda's out for any length of time. Walker and Granderson seem to be the big culprits of the bad luck, I've definitely seen them drive the ball some, and it be right at people. Reyes too, but his low BABIP is likely a result of garbage soft contact and not bad luck, but he'll break out of that too, though he's not an OBP guy he won't be this bad. Again, big drop off if d'Arnaud is out for any length of time unless Plawecki has started to figure it out. Hey, Wright's about to start throwing! That could help.

Centerfield Apr 20 2017 02:45 PM Re: Offensive

I feel like we have been waiting four years for Granderson's BABIP to level out. I continue to believe that it will not level out if: 1. They continue to put all fielders on one side of the field 2. Granderson continues to hit it to that side I wonder if this can be said up and down the lineup. The entire lineup is guys who don't hit for average, but hit for power. Which makes their spray charts predictable, which makes them vulnerable to shifts, which brings down the BABIP. Can you imagine if they tried to shift against Tony Gwynn or Ichiro? Those guys would have hit .800.

Edgy MD Apr 20 2017 02:48 PM Re: Offensive

seawolf17 wrote: Centerfield wrote: They don't run at all. Only 2 steals so far, which is good for last (tied with Toronto). Interestingly, BOTH on Opening Day. I thought we were supposed to believe in OBP, no? Get on it, Sandy. It's what they preach, but it's sure not what they've been practicing. Dilson has been responding to his failure to make the Reds by stinking it up so far in Louisville. I mean, he's been outhitting Reyes, but still. As for the shift, I'll take a backseat to NO ONE in decrying how they just give in to that shit. It's just bad screenwriting to ignore that gaping hole in the villain's defenses that seven-year-old filmgoers can see from the back row, but the hero ignores.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 20 2017 02:48 PM Re: Offensive

My areas of concern for the O are Walker and Reyes right now, but we owe both a fair shake before we blow anything up. To the extent Grandyman can be the on-base guy he can be, we need him too as long as he's getting reps in CF, because he's sure not helping us on both sides of the field. Last night was not a great night offensively but boy we needed a win and got it, and for that I'm very grateful. Oh, and Jay Bruce: Pretty pretty good.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 20 2017 02:52 PM Re: Offensive

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Oh, and Jay Bruce: Pretty pretty good. What's that old line about how the best moves are the ones you don't make?

Centerfield Apr 20 2017 02:53 PM Re: Offensive

Edgy MD wrote: As for the shift, I'll take a backseat to NO ONE in decrying how they just give in to that shit. It's just bad screenwriting to ignore that gaping hole in the villain's defenses that seven-year-old filmgoers can see from the back row, but the hero ignores. It's maddening. Did you see how Yo took that ball up the middle yesterday? It was a thing of beauty. The SS was basically playing in the 3B dugout.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 20 2017 03:00 PM Re: Offensive

Centerfield wrote: Edgy MD wrote: As for the shift, I'll take a backseat to NO ONE in decrying how they just give in to that shit. It's just bad screenwriting to ignore that gaping hole in the villain's defenses that seven-year-old filmgoers can see from the back row, but the hero ignores. It's maddening. Did you see how Yo took that ball up the middle yesterday? It was a thing of beauty. The SS was basically playing in the 3B dugout. I'm going to disagree to an extent. I think "beating the shift" is often the very goal of the defense. I'd venture if Jay Bruce bunted every time he was shifted against, he would probably bat .200, strike out just as much as he does now, and slug >.250. If you're bunting for a hit the one thing you cannot to is smash one off the scoreboard, which is the one thing Jay Bruce does well and essentially the only reason he's on the team.

Edgy MD Apr 20 2017 03:12 PM Re: Offensive

I'm going to want to want to see that played out. But it's not just Bruce, who is hitting well, but Bruce and Duda and Granderson and Granderson and Granderson and to some extent Conforto and Walker too. So let's look past Bruce here for a minute. If Granderson, currently leading off—a batting order position that has been historically ineffective for the Mets—were to bunt something like every time he sees the shift, I'd bet he hit closer to .800 than .200. But let's be pessimistic and say .350. After a few days, defenses would start abandoning the shift with increasing regularity. No more groundouts to right that should be clean singles through the hole. No more liners to right center that nestle comfortably in the shortstop's glove. You can't give in. You can't let them take half the field away from you. It's in the hero's code. And Granderson and Walker have no homers between the two of the, so what are you really losing there?

Ashie62 Apr 20 2017 03:14 PM Re: Offensive

You are never as good or bad as you look. I'm going glass half full for now.

Edgy MD Apr 20 2017 03:16 PM Re: Offensive

Oh, I don't think they're bad at all. I just think their approach is ill-informed and their heads are not particularly in the game.

Centerfield Apr 20 2017 03:21 PM Re: Offensive

You don't even have to bunt. You can just, like, try to take one the other way with 2 strikes. Which is kinda good hitting anyway no?

metirish Apr 20 2017 03:30 PM Re: Offensive

What is this the booth mentioning several times about an MLB wide trend to hit the ball in the air now?

seawolf17 Apr 20 2017 03:35 PM Re: Offensive

metirish wrote: What is this the booth mentioning several times about an MLB wide trend to hit the ball in the air now? Saw it in an article yesterday about Bryce Harper's hot start; apparently, that's what Daniel Murphy did last season that caused his stock to skyrocket.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 20 2017 03:38 PM Re: Offensive

Edgy MD wrote: I'm going to want to want to see that played out. But it's not just Bruce, who is hitting well, but Bruce and Duda and Granderson and Granderson and Granderson and to some extent Conforto and Walker too. So let's look past Bruce here for a minute. If Granderson, currently leading off—a batting order position that has been historically ineffective for the Mets—were to bunt something like every time he sees the shift, I'd bet he hit closer to .800 than .200. But let's be pessimistic and say .350. After a few days, defenses would start abandoning the shift with increasing regularity. No more groundouts to right that should be clean singles through the hole. No more liners to right center that nestle comfortably in the shortstop's glove. You can't give in. You can't let them take half the field away from you. It's in the hero's code. And Granderson and Walker have no homers between the two of the, so what are you really losing there? Walker can shift bunt all day for all I care. I don't believe he's really a home run hitter. As to the other guys, we can also play it out the other way. If Grandy bunts for a single, do Bruce and Duda subsequently load the bases with bunts too? I'm worried that if a guy gets a home run once every let's say 15 turns at bat and if that 15th at-bat goes instead as a bunt, or if he fouls off the one home run pitch he gets bunting, we've pissed a potential HR away and suddenly a guy who hits 30 HRs winds up with 15. I think that's an underappreciated aspect of the strategic rationale for shifting in the first place. You are daring a guy to surrender the best possible outcome of his turn at bat on the chance he winds up with a lesser one. The defense has to be willing to make that trade.

soupcan Apr 20 2017 03:39 PM Re: Offensive

Ashie62 wrote: You are never as good or bad as you look. I'm going glass half full for now. You are what you record says you are. 8-7.

Ceetar Apr 20 2017 03:42 PM Re: Offensive

Centerfield wrote: You don't even have to bunt. You can just, like, try to take one the other way with 2 strikes. Which is kinda good hitting anyway no? turns out hitting ain't easy. What you're asking is that they adjust their approach every so slightly on a per pitch basis and wait a fractional second longer to swing. Oops, you waited TWO fractions of a second and now struck out.

Ceetar Apr 20 2017 03:44 PM Re: Offensive

seawolf17 wrote: metirish wrote: What is this the booth mentioning several times about an MLB wide trend to hit the ball in the air now? Saw it in an article yesterday about Bryce Harper's hot start; apparently, that's what Daniel Murphy did last season that caused his stock to skyrocket. [url]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9e0764ee7d254437b8a7179e4843fd6e/baseballs-new-trend-saying-no-ground-balls Basically, the best way to beat the shift is to hit it over it.

Edgy MD Apr 20 2017 03:47 PM Re: Offensive

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: You are daring a guy to surrender the best possible outcome of his turn at bat on the chance he winds up with a lesser one. The defense has to be willing to make that trade. Aren't you wiling to give up some home runs and the many outs it takes for to get them for improved on-base percentage? I mean, at some point? Don't you give up 100 points of slugging for 200 points of on-basing? I sure do. The question is, where the trade-off line is drawn and somebody (Walker!) wiling to test how many points bunting against the shift really adds. 'Til then, I'm living in theory. As for adjusting and swinging later, it's more a case of choking up and swinging less violently and with more control.

Ceetar Apr 20 2017 03:58 PM Re: Offensive

You could try just fouling everything off until they walk you too [youtube:paud9xeo]http://tv.pacificleague.jp/vod/pc/topics/sns/11006[/youtube:paud9xeo]

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 20 2017 04:00 PM Re: Offensive

I give up Walker's SLG for OBP, most times, which is another reason I scratch my head when he's slotted to bat 5th. Guys like Grandy and Duda I believe can be as effective reaching base via the base on balls, which is in part a byproduct of the fact they are Ultimate Shift Beaters (i.e.: 30 HR guys) to begin with and not bunty little insects. I'm not saying never and you're not saying always. But I worry that the bunt gives the D exactly what it hoped for: No home runs. Also, slow fat guys on first base and not second or getting high fives in the dugout. On purpose!

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 20 2017 04:33 PM Re: Offensive

Hey, bud. I'm not fat; I'm "fleshy." Or "country strong." You know whom that bunting/putting the pressure on the defense thing would work best against? A team with iffy range/shaky infield gloves... like the Mets. I think I'm a reform-Shiftbuntite, myself-- 30-50 percent of the time they shift you, playing around with the whens. A little more than a show-me exercise, a bit less than All The Damn Time.

Frayed Knot Apr 20 2017 04:46 PM Re: Offensive

You bunt against shifts when the score/inning/lineup situation makes it advantageous for you to do so. Bruce pulled it off last week at an exact perfect time but I certainly wouldn't want him to do so in every AB and his two HRs last night beats the shit out of about 14 bunts. But do it just enough that it makes the defense think twice about shifting automatically and you'll find a more open field for your regular swing. Sluggers Schwarber & Rizzo both pulled it off in a Cubs game the other day. On Schwarber's the 3rd baseman, stationed somewhere near 2nd, had zero chance to field the ball so he let it roll hoping it would go foul which it was justabout to do before it nicked the very outside corner of the base. A thing of beauty I'm telling you.

Edgy MD Apr 20 2017 05:13 PM Re: Offensive

Well, when you're getting one or two hits with no walks through five innings, I'm saying that the situation is very frequently advantageous.

Frayed Knot Apr 20 2017 05:46 PM Re: Offensive

Yeah, but I don't want a power hitter bunting with 2 outs and nobody on. Bruce chose the right time to do it in a game last week and, yes, there are going to be others where it would help too. The other thing, of course, is that they have to be decent at bunting which I believe a NYM last was sometime during the Ford administration. Attempting those so-called 'gift' bunts only to fail at them is going to do nothing more than put struggling hitters into a hole with the count.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 20 2017 06:38 PM Re: Offensive

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, but I don't want a power hitter bunting with 2 outs and nobody on. Bruce chose the right time to do it in a game last week and, yes, there are going to be others where it would help too. Y'know, like any time a runner/not making an out would be a net-plus. Like, y'know, any time.

Chad Ochoseis Apr 20 2017 06:39 PM Re: Offensive

I'm pro shiftbunt. Not all the time - nothing is ever true all the time, except maybe the statement "nothing is ever true all the time". But, throwing out some wild-ass guess numbers here, a great power hitter will homer in about 8% of his at bats (40 HRs in 500 ABs sounds about right for a great power hitter, no?). When the defense virtually concedes the entire left side of the field to a lefty power hitter, it's not unreasonable to assume he should be able to bunt successfully for a hit 60% of the time, I don't think. Hitting into the shift is hard. Let's say, without getting too fine about it, that our hypothetical lefty power hitter will get a base hit 12% of the time when he pulls the ball and it stays in the park. I don't take wOBA as gospel, but let's use it here. You get 0.89 credit for a single under wOBA and 2.10 credit for a home run. So if you accept the assumptions, bunting against the shift will get you (0.6)(0.89) = 0.534 wOBA credits on average. Swinging into the shift will give you (0.08)(2.10) + (0.12)(0.89) = 0.275 wOBA on average. So bunting into the shift looks like a much better strategy. Tons of caveats here. My guess that a bunt against the shift would be successful 60% of the time was a wild guess, and so was the 12% success rate for swinging into the shift. I didn't count the fact that the batter will get some doubles and triples swinging into the shift, too, though those wouldn't affect the numbers all that much. I'm implicitly assuming that the batter is equally likely to walk whether he bunts against the shift or swings into it. And I'm thinking about lefties here - even when there's a "shift" against righties, the first baseman isn't shifting much. And, of course, there are situations where the numbers get thrown out and swinging makes plenty of sense, like when your entire offense is named "Jay Bruce".

Edgy MD Apr 20 2017 06:43 PM Re: Offensive

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, but I don't want a power hitter bunting with 2 outs and nobody on. Bruce chose the right time to do it in a game last week and, yes, there are going to be others where it would help too. The other thing, of course, is that they have to be decent at bunting which I believe a NYM last was sometime during the Ford administration. Attempting those so-called 'gift' bunts only to fail at them is going to do nothing more than put struggling hitters into a hole with the count. I guess that's a theory, but I disagree. Your typical hitter is much better at taking a pitch outside of the strike zone when he starts a bunt than he is when he starts a swing. Bunting makes you more selective, and so is as likely to put you ahead in the count as behind. I can certainly list a dozen accomplished bunters since the Ford administration, but it's certainly a chicken-and-egg thing. How do we know who is and who isn't if nobody tries to do it? We do know that defenses are utterly and almost mockingly daring them to try—so far out of position that a popup in the air for perhaps 6.7 seconds last week wasn't caught—and that's the sort of posture that needs to be answered.

Edgy MD Apr 20 2017 06:47 PM Re: Offensive

Chad Ochoseis wrote: When the defense virtually concedes the entire left side of the field to a lefty power hitter, it's not unreasonable to assume he should be able to bunt successfully for a hit 60% of the time, I don't think. And on this team, the next batter also has a good chance to be a power hitter, so we're not giving up the chance at a homer for a bunt, we're giving up the chance at a solo homer for a chance at a two-run homer, plus a chance for a one-run double, plus a chance for a single setting up a first-and-third-situation with a chance at a three-run homer ... Unless you are being walked to get to the pitcher, baserunners almost always make everything better.

Frayed Knot Apr 20 2017 08:17 PM Re: Offensive

Edgy MD wrote: I guess that's a theory, but I disagree. Your typical hitter is much better at taking a pitch outside of the strike zone when he starts a bunt than he is when he starts a swing. Bunting makes you more selective, and so is as likely to put you ahead in the count as behind. I've seen enough bunters going after stuff out of the zone to just accept as fact that bunting makes one more selective. But even if that were true they'd still have to make contact and place it well. Missed bunts and foul bunts are what's going to put a batter in a hole. How do we know who is and who isn't if nobody tries to do it? Nowhere have I said I'm against them trying, just not as a reflex with all hitters in all situations.

Edgy MD Apr 20 2017 11:50 PM Re: Offensive

...just not as a reflex with all hitters in all situations. As if that is an argument anybody is making. How about often enough to challenge defenses to abandon the shift? And ... another Conforto base hit dies in the shift.

Edgy MD Apr 21 2017 12:00 AM Re: Offensive

A Granderson RBI single may have just been lost to the shift also.

Centerfield Apr 21 2017 01:15 PM Re: Offensive

I would say leading off the ninth inning down by two runs is one of those no brain situations.

Edgy MD Apr 21 2017 01:17 PM Re: Offensive

It's also a no-brain situation to take a strike, but no. And when both Keith and Ronny are calling you out about it nightly, I'm not sure how the message can be missed. I think I'm going to write a letter.