Master Index of Archived Threads
IGT 04/03, Mets at Redbirds
| Kid Carsey Apr 03 2007 05:07 PM |
|
Reyes ss Eckstein ss
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 05:26 PM |
|
The Mets should really hammer Kip Wells......of course Cardinals fans probably think that about Hernandez..
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 03 2007 05:34 PM |
|
Not a glowing thought on two contenders #2 early on.
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 05:48 PM |
|
Has Willie confessed as to his thinking about the #2 slot yet? A deke-job on the NL? Wright found wanting? Renewed faith in LoDuca? Dudn't matter what the batting order is? Who cares?
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 05:51 PM |
|
Willie was juist asked on SNY about that,said somehting like he just wanted to see how things were in ST....but had no problem going back to LoDuca....said he sleeps on such things the night before a game....you'll be happy to know that ira...
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 03 2007 05:54 PM |
|
Wanting confessions from managers is living in a dream world. I think we'll
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 06:00 PM |
|
|
I'm just happy to be here.
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 06:07 PM |
|
Come on you fecking Mets......
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 06:16 PM |
|
|
Is it? What's the BFD? How come this is a state secret? Must he describe it as vaguely as "he just wanted to see how things were in ST.."? If that were the case, why doesn't he bat everyone out of order all spring long? See how Delgado adjusts to the number 8 slot, and check out Shawn Green at leadoff? He had something in mnd, and I just don't understand the need for all the mystery. The radio announcers just mentioned that Willie would never have allowed a bunt in that spot just now with Wright batting.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 06:26 PM |
|
Double plays are nice.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 06:30 PM |
|
Shawn Green playing right and center tonight, according to that SNY graphic. Happy Passover?
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 06:35 PM |
|
That was about an ugly a strike 3 I've seen Wright wave at, ever.
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 06:35 PM |
|
Unt a zissen Pesach af dir.
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 06:38 PM |
|
|
Maybe if he was used to batting in the five slot, that wouldna happpened?
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 03 2007 06:39 PM |
|
ira: >>>Is it? What's the BFD? How come this is a state secret? Must he describe it as vaguely as "he just wanted to see how things were in ST.."? If that were the case, why doesn't he bat everyone out of order all spring long? He had something in mnd, and I just don't understand the need for all the mystery.<<< Ain't doing it this season, ira. Hopefully someone can clear things up for you.
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 06:45 PM |
|
Mah nish ta nah halailai hazeh? Just assume I'm waiting for Willie to show up on the 'Pool, and set me straight.
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 06:55 PM |
|
Is everyone curled up wth Paula and Randy and Simon tonight? It's baseball, gentlemen, baseball.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 06:56 PM |
|
Skip Schumacher sounds...fictional.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 06:57 PM |
|
I'm not watching Idol and Haley Scarnato has a smoking bod.
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 07:01 PM |
|
I'd tune in for an hour of Haley Scarnato nekkid. Good title, actually. "I watched 'Haley Scarnato Nekkid' and then an hour of 'House' last night." Sounds like a plan.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 07:02 PM |
|
Amish Guys Riding Tractors > Hole-In-Throat Dude
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 07:03 PM |
|
Naked Haley Scarnato > Amish Guys Riding Tractors > Hole-In-Throat Dude
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 07:05 PM |
|
Naked Haley Scarnato > Amish Guys Riding Tractors > Hole-In-Throat Dude > Naked Hole-In-Throat Dude
|
| Kid Carsey Apr 03 2007 07:16 PM |
|
IGT takes swan dive to the street ... details at eleven.
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 07:19 PM |
|
For fucks sake,Joe Smith is a major league player...whats the big deal Gary?
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 07:23 PM |
|
Thanks, Rolen.
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 07:32 PM |
|
I nearly feel bad for Shumarker..that was brutal.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 07:32 PM |
|
LoDuca almost took the button off of Skippy's cap.
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 07:46 PM |
|
ESPN spoiled me by televising the season opener on Sunday. ESPN game cast just isn't doing it for me. At least the Mets are winning 2-0 and batting in the sixth.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 07:47 PM |
|
Those new SNY on-screen graphics are really sharp and all, but I have to squint to read the batter's stats.
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 07:51 PM |
|
Delgado walks and Wright follows with a single. The Mets are in business with Alou at the plate. Come on, we need some insurance runs.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 07:53 PM |
|
Ooomph, Alou got my ass a few inches off the seat there. Close.
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 07:59 PM |
|
2 Ribbie single for El Duque. Mets 4, Cards 0
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 07:59 PM |
|
Should be five runs....
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 07:59 PM |
|
WThe Mets need to make the Cardinals pay. Bases loaded with 2 outs. Here's where the Mets need that good, scary bat off the bench.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 08:00 PM |
|
El Duque will bathe in Schaefer tonight.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 08:00 PM |
|
Hernandez is drowning in Schaeffer. I had the same reax to the new grafix. Can't read 'em. Kip Wells pitched great tonight.
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 08:01 PM |
|
Who knew that the scary bat belonged to Orlando Hernandez?
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 08:01 PM |
|
OO -JD Similarity Score ++++
|
| Gwreck Apr 03 2007 08:01 PM |
|
New year, new 3rd base coach, same result...Jose Valentin getting thrown out at the plate. Seriously, is it just me, or does this happen a disproportionate amount of times with Valentin trying to score?
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 08:02 PM |
|
|
What the hell do I know..
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 08:13 PM |
|
I always thought Kip Wells had some ability. Just another Pirate not reaching his potential.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 03 2007 08:19 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 03 2007 08:39 PM |
|
|
I dunno, but I do know that third-base coaches are among those things that fans of almost every team are particularly concerned. The thing about plays at the plate, if he has one in three chance of scoring there, it's probably worth trying. We got two big runs, I'll take it. Though it looked like a hook slide would have gotten him in there.
|
| Elster88 Apr 03 2007 08:23 PM |
|
Wow Rolen races around the bases doesn't he?
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 08:24 PM |
|
We are still awaiting the Mets first Kaboom of the season.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 08:24 PM |
|
|
Eckstein's gritty scrappy grit heart is rubbing off on everyone.
|
| Elster88 Apr 03 2007 08:25 PM |
||
|
I liked our third base coach last year. I did not like the retarded midget.
|
| cooby Apr 03 2007 08:26 PM |
|
|
|
| Elster88 Apr 03 2007 08:27 PM |
|
Um, they're starting to hit our boy hard. Might be time to take him out soon.. I STILL wish we hadn't used Wagner on Sunday. Every inning counts.
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 08:27 PM |
|
I sense the force is strong with Carlos and young David.
|
| Elster88 Apr 03 2007 08:29 PM |
|
Oooh, on the replay they showed an old dude in the first row of the bleachers letting Rolen's homer bounce of his hands and down into the walkway below him. In his defense it probably shattered a few bones.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2007 08:32 PM |
|
Was Ryan Franklin pitching with a noose around his neck? I haven't been participating here, but I have been watching. Among other things, I learned that there's a chain grocery store in Missouri called "Schunks" and they have Oscar Mayer bacon on sale this week. (Bacon: the Oscar Mayer product that doesn't have a catchy commercial jingle.) I'm going to bed now. Somebody please feel free to kick off the Schaefer thread once the game ends. And remember voters, it's OHernandez! Thank you! Good night! Drive home safely!
|
| Elster88 Apr 03 2007 08:33 PM |
|
Scrappy Scrapperson couldn't run down Delgado's blooper into left. I'm surprised he was even there. Shift must not have been on.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 03 2007 08:35 PM |
|
Boy's looking pretty solid tonight so far, particularly on the defensive end. By the way, Curt? THAT'S how you pitch to contact. boo-yah! Seriously, El Duque looked pretty solid tonight, although I'd have prefered a few more swings and misses. Valentin just looked lost at the plate against Wells. Alou wuz robbed by the wind--I thought it was a goner for sure. And that concludes all my thoughts on the game so far.
|
| GYC Apr 03 2007 08:38 PM |
|
|
You're telling me. I'm in Florida, stuck without SNY or WFAN so I have to listen to the Cardinals' broadcast on XM radion. "The pitch to Alou..."
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 08:39 PM |
|
In a hurry, Carlos?
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 08:41 PM |
|
Alou hitting into some tough luck today.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 03 2007 08:41 PM |
|
Not what Willie meant by tightening up.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 03 2007 08:42 PM |
|
. . . Green's swan song didn't last long. Don't know what it is, but he really offends me on some basic level. Maybe it's just that I'd far rather have Milledge taking his at bats.
|
| Gwreck Apr 03 2007 08:43 PM |
|
I'm curious if Schoenweis is getting the whole inning or not. This would seemingly be Heilman territory.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 08:44 PM |
|
Hey, Schoenweis is a local. Cool.
|
| Elster88 Apr 03 2007 08:44 PM |
|||
|
I think Alou did too.
Hahaha that's hilarious. Even though it must've sucked for you just imagining that is killing me. Something Sterling would do.
|
| iramets Apr 03 2007 08:45 PM |
|
|
What's the thinking behind Endy coming for D for Green rather than Alou?
|
| Edgy DC Apr 03 2007 08:47 PM |
|
I've got the Cardinal broadcast here also. Eckstein is up, and there's scrap everywhere.
|
| cooby Apr 03 2007 08:47 PM |
||
|
At first I thought that said Edgy
|
| Elster88 Apr 03 2007 08:49 PM |
|
We're getting dangerous here.
|
| GYC Apr 03 2007 08:50 PM |
|
Schoeneweis is already on my bad side.
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 08:50 PM |
|
Gimme danger
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 08:51 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 03 2007 08:52 PM |
|
|
That's S-c-h-n-u-c-k-'s, pronounced "Shnooks" They operate some pretty nice stores. St. Louis is unique among U.S. cities in that its top 2 grocery chains are local, family-controlled companies. (Dierberg's is the other). Schoeneweis is the first No. 60 in Mets history. Nervous.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 03 2007 08:51 PM |
|
|
Ugh. I don't like this. Let's go, Heilman!
Yeah, I'm not sure. Maybe it's that Endy can do more damage in right field, and you don't want to take Alou's bat out of the game?
|
| Gwreck Apr 03 2007 08:52 PM |
|
|
Simple:
|
| Elster88 Apr 03 2007 08:52 PM |
|
Heilman's BAA with righties last year .231
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 08:52 PM |
|
Look at that 2006 split on Heilman. BAA: .231 vs. RH: .231 vs. LH: .231 (Yeah, what he said)
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 08:55 PM |
|
Got under it. Good word, Aaron.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 08:55 PM |
|
Balls of Jupiter
|
| Rotblatt Apr 03 2007 08:55 PM |
|
Atta boy, Aaron!
|
| OlerudOwned Apr 03 2007 08:55 PM |
|
Smoke 'em inside.
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 09:00 PM |
||
|
Gary asked Keith that,Hernandez thinks Alou covers more ground than Green....
|
| Frayed Knot Apr 03 2007 09:02 PM |
||
|
Yeah, it's just a double switch and Green was the last out.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 03 2007 09:03 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 03 2007 09:05 PM |
|
Alou is a bad leftfielder. Green is a bad rightfielder. Assuming that they're equally bad (hardly established, but assuming so), a bad rightfielder is greater handicap. Green may have the weakest righttfield arm in the bigs. It's a good thing he's scrappy.
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 09:04 PM |
|
Green is too tall to be scrappy.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 03 2007 09:06 PM |
|
Oh, wait, I didn't mean that s to be in there.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 03 2007 09:08 PM |
|
Totally Paulie totally whiffs on a totally high pitch totally after it's in Molina's mitt. Totally un-cool.
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 09:08 PM |
|
That's more like it.
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 09:11 PM |
|
Hey Billy, it's getting late, so how about a quick 1-2-3 inning tonight?
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 09:11 PM |
|
Wags looks redneckier than last year. He appears to have really stepped up his smokeless tobacco use over the overseason.
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 09:11 PM |
|
Where did all the fans go....you would think it's a blow out game..
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 03 2007 09:13 PM |
|
Way to wipe our asses with those gold-piped Cardinal unis.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 03 2007 09:13 PM |
|
|
Ask and ye shall receive. On to the next!
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 09:14 PM |
|
Stay tuned for Maz's post-game gig...
|
| Rockin' Doc Apr 03 2007 09:14 PM |
|
Thank you and goodnight.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 03 2007 09:16 PM |
|
How about La Roster burning that bench? I think Rick Ankiel was in the on-deck circle.
|
| metirish Apr 03 2007 09:17 PM |
|
Wasn't Bennent the last guy left....?
|
| Edgy DC Apr 03 2007 10:45 PM |
|
If'n you mean Bennet, yup. I was being ironical.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 02:48 AM |
|||
|
Let's see if Green comes out when Alou's the last out. So far, Endy's substituted for Green both nights. My point being that it's SOMEWHAT discretionary as to when the double switch gets pulled, and Willie may be telling us that Green's a worse fielder in his opinion than Alou if he keeps doing the doubleswitch when Green's the last out, not Alou. You've got to interpret his actions to understand his thinking, because listening to what he says is meaningless. I'm still trying to figure out why he kept dicking around with the BA in ST--I just know he had to be thinking something other than "Huh, Wright bats #2--maybe. Looks cool. What the hell. Me hungry. Want Subway sandwich. Gotta pee," like he tells us.
|
| soupcan Apr 04 2007 07:11 AM |
|
Okay I've got a question. I thought y'all might have addressed this in the IGT at the beginning but surprisingly (to me at least) no one brought it up. First inning, Reyes on second no outs. Why is LoDuca laying down a sac bunt? It's the first inning, he's my #2 guy, I've got my meat coming up, why am I giving up an out to move a runner to third in the first inning? I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to baseball stratagem and I understand the upside of scoring first, etc. but don't you go for the big inning in that situation? Especially since its the first inning?
|
| metirish Apr 04 2007 07:18 AM |
|
I don't remember that bunt ,but it makes no sense really when Reyes scores from second on a single,nothing was mentioned on the post-game either.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 07:22 AM |
|
I don't know. From what we've seen, Willie is willing to play small ball, but certainly not married to it. It's possible that the infield was giving him the bunt, so he took it. It's also possible that Randoph is more willing to bunt earlier in the year, to challenge peeps to play for it later in the year. Historically, in such situations, it's been a distinguishing characteristic between US ball and Japanese ball --- with US managers tending to go for the big inning and Japanese managers tending to go for the first run.
|
| soupcan Apr 04 2007 07:29 AM |
|
I'll buy that but I'm still shaking my head at it a little. If it were Johann Santana and not Kip Wells I would've been fine with that, runs may be harder to come by, yadda yadda....but the fact that it was Wells and it was the first inning and there were no outs and it was the top of the order....strange choice.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 07:29 AM |
|
I thought it was strange, too. About the only play that gets Reyes home from third with one out that doesn't get him home from second is th play that occured, the sac fly, which of couse cost Willie an out. With Wright batting second, of course he doesn't bunt in that stuation, and maybe that run stays stranded, but (the radio guys argued at the time--see page 1 of this thread) moving Reyes over is how WWSB conceives of Loduca's role. If he were to have Loduca hit away all the time, the more logical question would be (and is) "Wouldn't you rather have Wright hitting away the extra 54 times per season?" I was watching the game on radio, so I couldn't see how deep the infielders were playing, but the only real rationale I can give the bunt there is to mess with the other team's heads a little: play us deep and we'll bunt on you. Despite the result, I don't like the bunt there.
|
| soupcan Apr 04 2007 07:31 AM |
|
|
Yeah, neither do I.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 07:40 AM |
||
|
But I don't think sacrificing is a summation of Lo Duca's role. I think moving Reyes over is more the residue than the meat of what you're hoping for from Lo Duca.
I don't think we're talking about 54 trips.
|
| Frayed Knot Apr 04 2007 07:40 AM |
|
|
I don't like it - although I hate moving the runner to 3rd w/a bunt less than I do moving him to 2nd. The bunt wasn't on until Reyes got to 2nd via the wild pickoff throw and, in this case, it did help build a hitless run: BB, E, SacB, SacF Maybe it's because I've seen more of Alou over the years than Green, but I can't imagine Green being considered the poorer fielder or the one who covers less ground.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 07:52 AM |
|
By the way, I'm not partial to the bunt there either.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 07:54 AM |
|
|
That's right, but: my main point here was that the doubleswitch is discretionary. There's no hard and fast rule about employing it with a 1 run lead, a 3-run lead. a blowout, or in the 7th inning or the ninth, so if Alou makes the final out in the 7th inning of a game with a one-run lead, it might be telling if Willie decides to put off the doubleswitch one more inning, and get Green an extra at bat (and then remove him rather than Alou).
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 08:00 AM |
||||
|
W/o a backup 3b man, pretty close to 54. Will you buy 52? However many games you expect Wright to play, divide by three and there's your number for the difference of ABs between batting #5 and batting #2.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 08:02 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 04 2007 11:32 AM |
|
The doubleswitch has to come in the inning before you expect the pitcher to bat, though, if you want the option of retaining the pitcher beyond the end of the inning.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 08:08 AM |
|
|
True, but this becomes less important as late inning pitchers lasting more than an inning becomes rarer and rarer. In a way, this "12-man staff, everyone pitches to two or three batters" stuff covers up some of Willie's problems using the doubleswitch, since the removal of the pitcher is routine anyway, and the scenario where the pitcher's spot needs to be protected doesn't really mean that much.
|
| metsmarathon Apr 04 2007 08:14 AM |
|
|
league-wide, the difference between plate appearances for a #2 and a #5 is 53. for the mets, it was 60.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 08:17 AM |
|
So, really, you see the move as a defensive replacement, with the doubleswitch as gravy, I guess. I think it's altogether possible that Willie thinks less of Green. Alou's got less range, but Green less skills. And if he thinks equally poorly of them, then the opportunity to make the double-switch is the tie-breaker. And how silly does it look in 2006 to have a very good-to-excellent arm (Endy's) go into left while a clearly poor arm (Green's) remains in right? I'd like to see confidence in Milledge grow to the point where both corner outfielders are replaced. I haven't seen the Mets pull that one since they sent Ellis Valentine and Joel Youngblood in for late-inning small lead defense, in replacement of Dave Kingman and Gelorge Foster. But, as benches are shorter these days, I imagine that's an nnot about to happen.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 08:18 AM |
||
|
How ya figure? Every team plays 162, and every lineup slot removed from #1 subtracts 18 Abs, so why would it differ from team to team?
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 08:19 AM |
||
|
That's over 162 games. The number of games that Lo Duca and Wright are both in the starting lineup should be no more than 75% of that.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 08:22 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 04 2007 11:36 AM |
|
|
Because some teams make a greater percentage of their third outs in the bottom of the order than others. The odds of a game ending with the number seven hitter are greater than the odds of a game ending with the number four hitter, but the actual difference varies from team to team.
|
| soupcan Apr 04 2007 08:28 AM |
|
Too...much...math...head hurt.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 04 2007 08:30 AM |
|
Too...much...math...head hurt. Me hungry. Want Subway sandwich. Gotta pee.
|
| Rotblatt Apr 04 2007 08:34 AM |
|
I hated the bunt play. For some reason, I decided it was a spur of the moment decision by LoDuca rather than Willie's call but I have absolutely no reason to believe that--it just popped into my head after the play. Regarding hitting from the 2 hole, obviously I'd rather have Wright there (mostly for at bats, and also to give Beltran & Delgado more runners to drive in), but I don't think it's going to make a big difference for us, IF Lo Duca hits as well as he did last season. Last year, Lo Duca was a good contact hitter overall (.318 AVG & only 38 K) who excelled with runners on base (.327 AVG/.381 OBP)--a split that on average holds up over his career. I don't think that's such a bad thing to have in the 2 hole, although obviously David's better OBP & vastly superior SLG would be an improvement. Anyway, unless it looks like Lo Duca's declining, I'm cool with leaving him there. As to why Willie tried Wright out there in the Spring, it might be as simple as figuring out who to bat #2 when Lo Duca has an off-day, because obviously it's not going to be Castro.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 08:36 AM |
|
|
Why "2006'? Asuming that's a typo, I agree that putting Endy's arm in left suggests that Willie is surprisiingly unaware of basic strategy sometimes (or he's far wiser than other managers--for now, I'll go with "surprisingly unaware"). The fact that he gets away with some moves that are hard to explain just shows, I think, how little a role managerial strategy plays most of the time. If there are ten key controversal managerial moves per games, and Willie screws up three of them, some of the three will work out anyway (as in the first inning bunt) and some of the three won't matter And why a "small" lead? I'd think a defensive replacement in the OF would be even more important to protecting a big lead. The only reason you'd want Foster/Kingman rather than Valentine/Youngblood would be if you lose the lead, no?
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 08:48 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 04 2007 08:52 AM |
|
|
Could you apply for the job of Willie's PR spokesman, Rot? This is the first explanation I've read that makes some sense to me, giving D. Wright some familiarity with the #2 role because Willlie's (correctly) decided that his secondbaseman isn't a good choice for the #2 slot this year. "I just thought I'd expose David to batting behind Jose a little bit, because that's where he'll be batting sometimes this year when LoDuca takes a day off" is the kind of "confession" that I was askng for from Willie, and that he seems so reluctant to give.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 08:50 AM |
|||
|
No, a mental error, not a typing one.
It could suggest that. Let's not speak as if it's happened.
You don't see defensive replacements as something that occurs in save-like situations? Else it's just resting a guy with a big lead.
|
| metsmarathon Apr 04 2007 08:51 AM |
|||
|
sorry. meant to say "in 2006..." i went to ESPN, looked at the team stats for 2006, and clicked on the pulldown menu to filter first for #2 hitters, then for #5 hitters. the league-wide average plate appearances for a #2 hitter was 750, and for a #5 hitter was 697. for the mets, it was 754 and 694, respectively. 750 - 697 = 53
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 09:03 AM |
|
|
Not as purely as relievers in save situations, Shirley. If Wagner blows a one-run lead, you've got other relievers to pitch the 10th, and the 11th, etc. But if he blows a one-run lead and you've OPTED to take Alou and Green out of the game, you might regret having made that choice more. (Of course, this point would be clearer if Alou and Green were offensive monsters and Endy and Milledge were pure glovemen--in practice, the real difference is having used up two good pinchhitters, not the small difference between the offensive output of your outfielders.) The nightmare scenario is going deep into extra innings and two weak glove men getting multiple ABs in place of your two sluggers, where a solo HR means the game. I guess I'm saying with a big lead, such a move is a no-brainer, while with a small lead, you'll need to exercise your brain a little bit.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 09:07 AM |
||||
|
Thanks for the explanation. The difference between 53 (reality in 2006) and 54 (what the numbers should be in theory) seems small enough to be accounted for by randomness, no? I mean, if one guy makes one more out instead of getting one more hit during the entire season, then your number is 54, right on the head, which seems more reliable for projection into the upcoming season than how the numbers last year shook out.
|
| metsmarathon Apr 04 2007 09:41 AM |
|
yup. merely meant to provide actuals to back up the theoretical.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 09:41 AM |
|
I think if you check Mets history, you'll see that most classic Met defensive substitutions --- Gaspar for Swobodsky 1969, Jorgenson for Kingman 1982, Elster for Magadan with HoJo sliding over 1989 --- have taken place in games with a margin of three runs or less.
|
| Frayed Knot Apr 04 2007 11:11 AM |
|
I no longer have any clue as to what is being argued here.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 04 2007 11:29 AM |
|
Willie dumb. Lineup bad.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 04 2007 12:06 PM |
|
My Imaginary Dinner with Ira: Me: I think I'll order the pot roast. Ira: We've been to this restaurant four times, and each time you ordered chicken? Explain to me why you're ordering pot roast today. Me: I don't know. I'm just in the mood for pot roast today. Ira: There's something you're not telling me. Why are you hiding the real reason that you'r'e ordering pot roast? If you prefer pot roast to chicken, why did you order chicken last week and the week before that? Me: I'm not hiding anything. Last week I felt like eating chicken. Today I want pot roast. Ira: You're not being forthcoming. I can only assume that you have some evil motive for ordering pot roast that you're reluctant to share. Either that or you don't have enough brains to discern the differences between chicken and pot roast.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 01:52 PM |
|
That's pretty good, Yancy. The only difference is that Willie has, or should have, good reasons for most of the stuff he does, and (generally) there should be no advantage to him in keeping those reasons secret, or expressing them poorly. I don't think the lineup is bad or, more precisely, I don't think there's enough info about optimal lineups to make a rat's ass worth of difference. (I do think, in the absence of situational info, the preference should be towards giving your better hitters more at-bats, but that may amount to only a small advantage.) I do see Willie as unusually secretive and hostile to questions about his reasoning process (the mystery may also be in him trying, and failing, to be clear). Rotblatt gave an excellent and lucid explanation as to the lineup juggling in ST, and in general, when we try to delve into Willie's reasoning process around here, we often come up with excellent and lucid explanations that wouldn't endanger the Mets if WIllie were to voice them. Instead of excellence and lucidity (and plausibility and rationality), though, we often get from Willie "I know my players" and "I just thought that would be better" and other non-responsive answers that are neither helpful to my understanding of his thinking nor my confidence in his ability to understand the questions being asked. I think his kneejerk reaction to a question, even a good question, is to give as little information as possible. Whether this is a decision stemming mostly from his adversarial vision of the press or from difficulty communicating (or both), I can't quite tell. But I've heard Torre, I've watched extended interviews with Bobby V, and, sir, he is no Torre nor Bobby V. Being a big league manager doesn't mean you must be uninformative and nasty, and I hope you don't mind too much my pointing where I feel Willie's being both, especially when there's no reason for him to be either.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 02:03 PM |
|
|
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'd assume that the vast majority of games, period, are with small leads rather than big leads. It would be interesting, if you're suggesting that in an equal sample of games that there would be a meaningful difference in the way such substitutions take place, to examine such games. (I'd suggest comparing 1-run leads in the late innings, suitably defined, against 6+ run leads, or 5+ run leads, or how ever few runs you need to constitute an equal number to the 1-run leads.) If you just reviewed the 1969 games where Gaspar played but did not start, we might see if there's a pattern to his use.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 02:13 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 04 2007 02:29 PM |
|
I thought of the first guys who popped into my head who regularly got defensive sub duty in a particular year. In each case, I linked to the player's first zero-plate-appearance of the season. Does anybody else think strategic defensive substitution is, in practice or in theory, more a move for a team with a large lead than a slender one? This strikes me as silly. If we aren't clear on seeing simple baseball basics, what difference does it make if Lo Duca bats second, fifth, bunts, doesn't bunt, or comes to the plate with a pogo stick and and crys out to Odin? It's like we're in two different universes.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 02:27 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure if the zero-plate appearance means that much, since the defensive replacement often gets an at-bat. I think many defensive substitutions, as you observe, aren't so much for defensive reasons as they are for "rest" or "playing time" reasons,--in some cases the worse fielder may come into the game to give some better fielder a few innings off. Would that count or not-count as a defensive replacement? If you found that there are , say, 20 games in 1969 where the Mets held a 1-run lead in the 7th inning or later and 20 other games where they held a 3 or more run lead, it would be interesting to see if there's a real and significant difference in Hodges's insertion of Gaspar. For the right geek, there's an interesting project.
|
| metsmarathon Apr 04 2007 02:27 PM |
|
it is far easier to prevent runs from being scored than it is to try to score them. therefore, the more you can do to assure that you remain in the run prevention business, the better, particularly when you have a narrower lead. if you're in the latter stages of a game, and you have the lead, you are better off playing to ensure that you keep the lead than you are in strategizing what you need to do once you lose said lead. defensive subsitution is the move for a team with a smaller margin of potential victory, as the gains from having a superior defender are more important to your chances of winning that game than they would be with a larger lead.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 02:31 PM |
|
|
No, that's clearly not what we're talking about.
|
| iramets Apr 04 2007 02:40 PM |
|
|
I completely get it that it MATTERS more to substitute a good fielder for a poor one in a close game. I'm just not sure if there's significantly MORE substituting in equal samples of big- and small-lead games. Get Kingman a late inning at-bat and then put Jorgy in for his glove with a small lead is a classic move--what I'm asking is, did Jorgy also come in for Kingman wiht big leads in similiar situations? I suspect he did, though it mattered less and the reasoning was different.
|
| metsmarathon Apr 04 2007 02:47 PM |
|
if the discussion is no longer about why (or if it never was...), then i guess it simply comes down to looking it up. not that i'm volunteering...
|
| soupcan Apr 04 2007 02:59 PM |
|
Me think me agree marathon theory.
|
| Johnny Dickshot Apr 04 2007 03:06 PM |
|
Catch ball. Help win. Good. Big lead. Rest stud. Lose game. Must hit.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 04 2007 03:30 PM |
|
I think Johnny must have turned into the Hulk.
|
| Nymr83 Apr 04 2007 04:20 PM |
|
|
As opposed to Omar, whom you criticized FOR talking about his reasoning process.
|
| Edgy DC Apr 04 2007 09:22 PM |
|
|
I'm glad.
|
| iramets Apr 05 2007 06:22 AM |
||
|
No, I criticized him for talking vapidly and badly about his reasoning process. Neither of these guys are gifted verbalists, but their lack of gifts are different. Willie is hostile, defensive, and I think deliberately offers much less information than he has, probably in the belief that the questions are designed to expose his flaws as a manager. Omar is speaking a second language and is often asked questions that are really in Willie's domain (as where Wright will bat in the lineup, which is purely a manager's call). Rather than speak for Willie, or the alternative to say tersely "That's WIllie's call," Omar speaks for several minutes without saying anything of substance, and maybe he thinks he's fooling people that way. And maybe he is. Ultimately, neither of their jobs is primarily verbal anyway. If they make the right moves, it doesnt really matter how they've articulated their reasoning to the press (and ultimately to us). In that case, my critique is purely one of style. Torre's glib and he keeps his temper very well under provocation that would have Willie's teeth bared, so the contrast is a strong one that I'm exposed to a lot (Omar and Cashman likewise, though maybe less so). But I still am concerned that Willie especially may not HAVE the information or may not fully understand it--and that is a concern. IOW, with Willie, it may be more than just style--I remain unconvinced that he has certain key managerial abilities. His players' skills may be covering for his lapses in sound managerial judgment.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Apr 05 2007 06:57 AM |
|
I think Willie's in-game decision making was better in 2006 than in 2005. There's probably a learning curve for managers and he seems to be showing progress. His real strength, though, is in the off-the-field stuff. I think he handles the team well in the clubhouse. This is just a guess, of course, since I've never been in there. But I was watching him during the televised division-clinching celebration, and I saw him going around and saying a brief something to each player. He's quiet, he's cool, and he sets a good tone. You still need to make good calls from the dugout, but the clubhouse stuff has value too.
|
| iramets Apr 05 2007 07:51 AM |
|
Absolutely. One of his motivations in telling the press so little is that he's protecting the players from any misinterpretations (or correct interpretations) of his comments on their play. No doubt about it. There are plenty of parts to the manager's job beside what he displays in public. On the in-game side, as far as I can tlell, he's slowly working his way up to mediocre. He might even become a decent in-game manager someday--he's only been at it for two years. But right now, some of his moves seem awkward and tentative and lacking in awareness (I'm still not sure he knows what the function of the doubleswitch is yet) and his public remarks don't persude me otherwise. I'm still not a fan of Willie's.
|