THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Stats midway through the season

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 04 2005 10:16 AM

Strange how one guy got so much more heat about similar stats than the other guy did.

NameGABRH2B3BHRRBIBBSOHBPSBCSAvg.Slg.
George Foster, 198278289367810093732671000.2700.398
Carlos Beltran, 200574286327519194024531420.2620.430

TheOldMole
Jul 04 2005 10:36 AM

We still expect Beltran to do better. And we're still accepting the quad story.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 04 2005 11:29 AM

Foster's indifferent defense was probably also a factor.

seawolf17
Jul 04 2005 01:15 PM

Want to really spit?






Name G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO HBP SB CS AVG SLG
George Foster, 1982 78 289 36 78 10 0 9 37 32 67 1 0 0 .270 .398
Carlos Beltran, 2005 74 286 32 75 19 1 9 40 24 53 1 4 2 .262 .430
Bobby Bonilla, 1992 79 270 42 72 18 0 10 46 49 51 1 4 1 .267 .444

smg58
Jul 05 2005 10:50 AM

That's... disturbing. Although I think Foster wound up with something like 12 HR that season, so I imagine the negative press built up over the year. Plus, I think people know that Beltran is streaky, and are still expecting (or at least hoping for) an explosion in time to vault the Mets into serious playoff contention. That being said, I'm amazed that he's gotten so little attention up to this point, and I can't see that lasting much longer.

Edgy DC
Jul 05 2005 11:21 AM

Foster really needs to pick it up on the basepaths.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 08 2005 07:07 AM

So what's your explanation for the difference between Foster's reception and Beltran's? Everyone one just buy Yancy's "defensive indifference" explanation?

Some alternate possibilities:

a) Mets fans are different now

b) fans are different now

c) big money is more run of the mill now

d) Hispanics get less racism than blacks

e) Beltran's attitude is more fan-friendly than not-so-curious George's

f) Beltran's good looks

g) Foster's bad relationship with Mets is being overstated by applying his entire Met career to his first three months in retrospect

h) we actually hate Beltran more than we perceive

i) the Mets' p.r. machine has learned from its many errors

and of course Yancy's principle.

Any others?

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 08 2005 07:13 AM

From Bret's list, I think the more likely choices are C, E, and G.

smg58
Jul 08 2005 07:40 AM

I think it's a combination of things. For one thing, Foster was lazy and Bonilla obnoxious; Beltran does not appear to be either. Plus, Pedro has managed to divert a lot of attention towards himself, and that attention has been all favorable so far. And I think people feel the Mets are heading in the right direction in general, and that makes a difference.

Still, a couple of weeks of the Beltran from last year's playoffs would be nice...

seawolf17
Jul 08 2005 07:44 AM

Ditto smg and Yancy.

I wasn't a Mets fan yet in '82... was Foster hated at the time? I would have assumed that would have been an exciting trade when it went down.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 08 2005 07:47 AM

And I think people feel the Mets are heading in the right direction in general, and that makes a difference.

We were thinking that in 1982, too. At least going into the season, anyway.

George Foster was a big reason for that.

And the Mets were a game under .500 as late as July 2.

The optimism was delusional at that point, though, but I think it was there. I remember in 1983 I began to feel a different kind of optimism, one that acutally felt grounded in reality.

soupcan
Jul 08 2005 07:52 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote:
The optimism was delusional at that point, though, but I think it was there. I remember in 1983 I began to feel a different kind of optimism, one that acutally felt grounded in reality.


'83 for me too - prolly cause that's when Terrell and Darling showed up and you could sense good things starting to happen.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 08 2005 07:53 AM

Not to mention Hernandez and Strawberry.

soupcan
Jul 08 2005 07:53 AM

Oh yeah - them too.

seawolf17
Jul 08 2005 07:57 AM

And Clint Hurdle.

soupcan
Jul 08 2005 07:59 AM

Alright enough.

I had a brain cramp.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 08 2005 08:52 AM

[url=http://www.ultimatemets.com/gamedetail.php?gameno=3330&tabno=B]This game memory[/url] hit the UMDB today. A fun anecdote about Tom Hausman, and a tie-in to our conversation about George Foster.

Edgy DC
Jul 08 2005 08:57 AM

Players from that game I don't remember: Tim Tolman, Bret Roberge.

Players from that game I maybe scarcely remember: Tony Scott.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 08 2005 09:02 AM

Tollman kind of rings a bell.

So does Frank LaCorte, vaguely.

seawolf17
Jul 08 2005 09:05 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 08 2005 09:07 AM

edit: wrong thread

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 08 2005 09:06 AM

I think the Pirates have invaded this thread.

Benjamin Grimm
Jul 08 2005 09:22 AM

seawolf17 wrote:

I wasn't a Mets fan yet in '82... was Foster hated at the time? I would have assumed that would have been an exciting trade when it went down.


It was a very exciting trade when it went down. He was coming off a great season: 22 homers and 90 RBI in the abbreviated 1981 season.

But as a Met, especially in 1982, he never got started. (His 1983 picked up a bit, but by then the damage was done.) I don't remember at what point in the season our expectations went sour. According to Professor G in the link I posted, it was around the middle of the season. That may be right.

Foster's arrival was greeted as enthusastically in 1982 as Beltran's was this year. And their numbers, at the same point in their Mets tenure, are similar.

I don't get the sense, though, that the fans are even close to turning on Carlos. And I don't think it's because Mets fans are content with a .500 record. The Mets were right around that mark on July 1, 1982 as well.

Beltran is getting a lot more slack than New York usually gives.

Elster88
Jul 08 2005 09:25 AM

I think it's also because every single radio call-in person and every single media member went on and on about how important it was that the Mets spent the big money on the biggest stud in the free agent market. Now they have to give him time before they take back what they said.

Actually that's probably not true, because most of such morons can say one thing and something completely the opposite in the next breath without realizing it.

Willets Point
Jul 08 2005 09:26 AM

Beltran is younger too. I think Mets fans excitement over Foster was curtailed by the realization that his All-Star days were behind him. Fans now realisticallly expect some good years from Beltran (I hope).

Edgy DC
Jul 08 2005 09:27 AM

Part of it is that Pedro Martinez has been all we could have hoped for and more. He's keeping the sharks at bay.

Doesn't stop them from going after Duke's boys, though.

Willets Point
Jul 08 2005 09:31 AM

Foster's similarity scores are interesting. #1 one a beloved Met/Dodger who a lot of people would like to put in the hall of fame. #2 a paroled convict who brought down the Dukakis campaign.

1. Gil Hodges (921)
2. Willie Horton (917)
3. Fred Lynn (914)
4. Del Ennis (910)
5. Rocky Colavito (910)
6. Jack Clark (907)
7. Joe Adcock (906)
8. Tino Martinez (906)
9. Matt Williams (903)
10. Lee May (901)

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 08 2005 09:33 AM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 08 2005 10:11 AM

Willets Point wrote:
#2 a paroled convict who brought down the Dukakis campaign.


Nah--that was Bernard Shaw.

OE: Not the "infinitely more arduous" guy, either. But then yours wasn't the recidivist guy.

seawolf17
Jul 08 2005 09:35 AM

It's also interesting that there's nobody really that similar to Foster; 921 is a relatively average similarity score. He was a thumping outfielder; you'd think they're a dime a dozen in baseball history, but I guess not.