ESPN New York: Collins appreciates Wright's leadership in initiating one-on-one meeting
Metsblog.com: ensuing Mets contest "as ugly and frustrating as a game can get"
Note that these two pieces were posted exactly 3 hours apart.
Collins really just needs to shut up for a while.
24 August 2011
23 August 2011
More on the fences
OK, this is starting to get ridiculous. I can't run through my daily Mets internet rotation without coming across something about if/how/why the dimensions of Citi Field need to be changed. We've already experienced the ultimate irony on the subject, but I feel compelled to go more in-depth on what a waste of time the whole thing is.
Quite simply, this is yet again one more thing to talk about in lieu of a pennant race, one more distraction away from how to actually fix the franchise, one more case in which everyone in Metsdom has the answer and very few are asking the right question in the first place.
MLB home run/scoring information is not hard to find on the world wide web. I perused some this morning and discovered the following (click for the source):
1) The Mets' home runs per game rate is actually higher at Citi Field than on the road.
2) There are 5 National League parks more stingy with homers than Citi Field. Where's the outcry for the Pirates, Dodgers, 2010 World Champion Giants, and 2009 Division Champion Cardinals to reconfigure their fields? The Marlins, of course, are altogether moving out of their stadium (in which they won two World Series, by the way).
3) In terms of scoring, Citi Field is about as average as it can be. A score of 1 is the standard. Citi Field scores .973, placing it 16th out of 30 ballparks, which is incidentally all of one spot below the bandbox in Philadelphia.
Interesting sidebar: The Phillies' staff ERA is is better at home than it is on the road. Amazing how unlike Mets' hitters supposedly are, Philadelphia's pitchers aren't intimidated by the park in which they play 5 times as many games as anyone else.
All that said, yes, the Mets do struggle a little more to score at home than on the road. If you sort the stats here, you'll see as of this morning, they're scoring 4.25 runs per game at home and 4.63 (rounded) per game on the road. But 1) that only amounts to roughly one run every 3 games, and b) we already established above that as compared league-wide, scoring for ALL teams at Citi is perfectly normal. Also, the point of the game is to score more runs than the other team, right? Well, Mets pitching is slightly better at home, with a home ERA of 4.03 and a road ERA of 4.42, almost exactly the same 4/10ths or so of a run per game difference on offense, only this time in the Mets' favor.
If somebody wants the walls moved in just to see more homers hit, fine, just don't kid yourself that it's going to help the team all that much. It's just not that big a factor. Even to the extent it is, David Wright and Jason Bay being "robbed" once or twice a month is the least of your worries when the pitching staff is putting forth a daily effort to compile the league's 13th-worst ERA.
Quite simply, this is yet again one more thing to talk about in lieu of a pennant race, one more distraction away from how to actually fix the franchise, one more case in which everyone in Metsdom has the answer and very few are asking the right question in the first place.
MLB home run/scoring information is not hard to find on the world wide web. I perused some this morning and discovered the following (click for the source):
1) The Mets' home runs per game rate is actually higher at Citi Field than on the road.
2) There are 5 National League parks more stingy with homers than Citi Field. Where's the outcry for the Pirates, Dodgers, 2010 World Champion Giants, and 2009 Division Champion Cardinals to reconfigure their fields? The Marlins, of course, are altogether moving out of their stadium (in which they won two World Series, by the way).
3) In terms of scoring, Citi Field is about as average as it can be. A score of 1 is the standard. Citi Field scores .973, placing it 16th out of 30 ballparks, which is incidentally all of one spot below the bandbox in Philadelphia.
Interesting sidebar: The Phillies' staff ERA is is better at home than it is on the road. Amazing how unlike Mets' hitters supposedly are, Philadelphia's pitchers aren't intimidated by the park in which they play 5 times as many games as anyone else.
All that said, yes, the Mets do struggle a little more to score at home than on the road. If you sort the stats here, you'll see as of this morning, they're scoring 4.25 runs per game at home and 4.63 (rounded) per game on the road. But 1) that only amounts to roughly one run every 3 games, and b) we already established above that as compared league-wide, scoring for ALL teams at Citi is perfectly normal. Also, the point of the game is to score more runs than the other team, right? Well, Mets pitching is slightly better at home, with a home ERA of 4.03 and a road ERA of 4.42, almost exactly the same 4/10ths or so of a run per game difference on offense, only this time in the Mets' favor.
If somebody wants the walls moved in just to see more homers hit, fine, just don't kid yourself that it's going to help the team all that much. It's just not that big a factor. Even to the extent it is, David Wright and Jason Bay being "robbed" once or twice a month is the least of your worries when the pitching staff is putting forth a daily effort to compile the league's 13th-worst ERA.
21 August 2011
Collins laments Citi Field's offensive stinginess, 20-run game ensues
My nominee for Quote of the Season, from Jeff Bradley of the Newark Star-Ledger:
“It’s very difficult to play here if you’re an offensive player,” Terry Collins admitted today, before the Mets lost, 11-9, to the Milwaukee Brewers.Seriously, you can't make up this stuff....
25 July 2011
All you need to know about the Mets, right here:
Over the weekend, this tweet from Peter Gammons popped up around the internet (cap tip to Metsblog):
The problem is, it's still not good enough a team. During that same period of 2005 through today, a .542 season would not have been good enough to win a single playoff berth out of the N.L. East. The worst winning percentage among East Champions during that span was the Phillies' .549 in 2007, and the worst of the wild card teams was the Dodgers at .543 in '06 (N.L. standings from 2005 onward start here). So per the figure quoted by Gammons, the safe expectation for the Mets when they have Reyes, Wright, and Beltran all playing together is to narrowly miss the playoffs. Wouldn't you know it? In addition to the one division title, that's exactly what happened--twice--during the peak of the Reyes-Wright-Beltran era with The Collapse and Shea Goodbye.
I almost tire of saying it: As good as these three guys may be individually, what the Mets have been doing with them simply hasn't worked, and it's past time for a new approach.
Now, what I'd really be interested in knowing is the team's record with and without Paul LoDuca.
Interesting Elias note: since 2005, Mets are a .542 team with Wright, Reyes and Beltran in the lineup together, .480 with one or more outObviously, the point there was to illustrate how different a team the Mets are with and without those 3 cogs in the machine. Personally, I find the stat meaningless since you have no idea what the team's comparative ERA might be or who else is in the lineup during those games, but I'll play along. The Mets are a far better team with Reyes-Wright-Beltran than without.
The problem is, it's still not good enough a team. During that same period of 2005 through today, a .542 season would not have been good enough to win a single playoff berth out of the N.L. East. The worst winning percentage among East Champions during that span was the Phillies' .549 in 2007, and the worst of the wild card teams was the Dodgers at .543 in '06 (N.L. standings from 2005 onward start here). So per the figure quoted by Gammons, the safe expectation for the Mets when they have Reyes, Wright, and Beltran all playing together is to narrowly miss the playoffs. Wouldn't you know it? In addition to the one division title, that's exactly what happened--twice--during the peak of the Reyes-Wright-Beltran era with The Collapse and Shea Goodbye.
I almost tire of saying it: As good as these three guys may be individually, what the Mets have been doing with them simply hasn't worked, and it's past time for a new approach.
Now, what I'd really be interested in knowing is the team's record with and without Paul LoDuca.
04 July 2011
The Math
(Special "Ribs on the Grill, Margarita Within Reach, Buffett Wiggling Out of the Speakers, Lying in My Hammock, 4th of July/Start of My Vacation" Edition)
After a dramatic win to take Game 3 of the Subway Series, Act II, the Mets yet again find themselves at .500. Last night, while perusing the web, I saw an internet post stating that the difference between .500 and 90 wins is only 9 games, or a scant 5% of the season. I replied to that post, and will repeat the gist of my response here in more detail.
Yes, 9 games is the difference between 90 wins and 81. Yes, 9 games is only slightly over 5 1/2% of a 162-game season. The problem is, the Mets aren't working with a 162-game season at this point. In fact they're working with less than half of a 162-game season, as 84 of those games are already in the books. As fate would have it, the Mets are also right at .500 at the moment. That 9-game difference between .500 and 90 wins has to be made up in 78 games. Now those 9 games comprise 11.5% of the remaining season, a much larger portion than our original claim of 5%.
Looking at it more directly, in order for the Mets to win 90 games, they have to go 48-30 the rest of the way. 48-30 works out to .615 ball from now until the end of the season. Only one team in all of baseball has that high a winning percentage at the moment. The A.L. East-leading Yankees, who just took 2 out of 3 from the Mets are only at .610. That one team that's playing .615 or better? The Phillies, who at 53-32 are roughly one-half game above that percentatge. Essentially, for the Mets to go on to win 90 games, they have to turn into the Phillies the rest of the way. The Phillies have one of the best starting rotations in recent memory. The Mets? Not so much.
Is it possible? Well, anything is. Is it remotely likely? Heck, no. I've seen other people say that "we're only 7 out of the Wild Card, and we blew that big a lead in a couple of weeks back in '07." The difference is 1) The 2007 Phillies only had one team to catch for the division title as opposed to the 6 the Mets currently trail in the Wild Card, and 2) sadly, we are talking about the team that blew said lead, not the one that erased it.
Enjoy the 4th, take the opportunity to listen to Vin Scully at least for a while tonight if you can, enjoy the rest of the season. Just don't kid yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)