THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


The Victor Zambrano apology thread

Nymr83
Jul 08 2005 09:59 PM

I'm sorry i spent so much time knocking this guy, but he has gotten his walks under control (unlike Ishii) and has pitched in a way i never thought possible (unlike Ishii, who continues to prove me right about pitcher who walk people.)

So sorry Zambrano, please rub off on Ishii...or better yet stay away from him so he doesn't rub off on you.

first 6 starts-
2W-3L, 5.71 ERA, 32 IP, 41 hits, 21 BB, 27 K's
last 10 starts-
2W-4L, 2.59 ERA, 66 IP, 49 hits, 29 BB, 35 K's

byebye walks, hello good ERA.
the K's are down too but maybe thats helping him throw less pitches or something and go deeper into games?

editted for spelling

metirish
Jul 08 2005 10:08 PM

Victor Victoria he is, without the wins though, Zam has been amazing for the "Amazings" SO's are down but the control is where it's at for him right now, tonight he was super, keep it up Vic.

Frayed Knot
Jul 08 2005 10:50 PM

Not to say 'I told ya so' ... well because I really didn't; I honestly didn't know what to expect from this guy.
BUT, I think that a huge portion of Met fans jumped to premature conclusions here (so unlike them too!). Considering that we got a whopping 3 starts out of this guy last year before he went down - meaning he then started this year effectively having sat for 8 months - it's not surprising that it took him awhile before hitting his groove* and even less surprising that there were few willing to give him the time to do so.
I mean ... despite the deafening amount of silence taking credit for the deal, somebody saw something in him that they liked.




* at least I hope it's a groove and not a temporary fluke

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 09 2005 04:17 AM

For me to apologize to Zambrano, he'd have to outpitch this guy by even a little bit:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=7292

How is Zambrano better? Is he any younger? Not by 8 1/2 years. Any cheaper? Not by nearly 2 mil in 2005. Having a better year? More of a home boy?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=6752

KC
Jul 09 2005 06:29 AM

Not to turn this into another Kazmir thread, but I wonder if he'd even be in
Norfolk yet if still in our farm system?

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 09 2005 09:22 AM

Last night in Detroit, Kazmir hit Placido Polanco in the wrist with his first pitch thrown. Tigers starter Nate Robertson followed suit by throwing behind Crawford and was summarily ejected after 1 pitch!

Tigers won anyhow as Kazzy lasted only 3 innings, giving up 5 runs, 5 hits, 4 walks, a HBP, a WP, & a HR in 74 pitches.

Zambrano has gotten better after a poor start and Kazmir is going the other way. Zambrano allows more baserunners and whiffs fewer, Kazmir allows more XBH and runs.

Kaz 3-7, 4.39, .784 OPSA
Zam 4-7, 3.58, .686 OPSA

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 09 2005 09:47 AM

Well, the idea was that Kazmir would be stuck in the minors through next season, while Zambrano would help the Mets immediately (or after ten minutes) win the NL east in 2004, and be much better (than a minor leaguer, obviously) in 2005, and really hit his peak in 2006 and maybe for a few years beyond that while Kazmir was struggling to establish himself.

If you're scoring, that's Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, and one Not Yet Proven.

Rotblatt
Jul 09 2005 10:10 AM

I'd still rather have Kazmir, but Victor has looked very solid lately. He was great last night.

But in Looper's performance, you can see the effect of not being able to strike people out. Not to hijak the thread, but did Loop throw a single pitch that wasn't a fastball? He kept shaking Castro off, then just threw the damn thing as hard as he could. That's not the way to pitch, Looper . . .

Anyway, Victor's got better stuff than Loop, so he's more likely to get away without striking people out--especially if he can keep limiting the HRs & BB's--but his low K rate is disturbing. Which, incidentally, is why I think Wang will come back down to earth as well.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 09 2005 10:20 AM

The Mets obviously had the shorter term perspective and wanted to accelerate their ability to compete and Zambrano looks to be acheiving that. TB has the longer view, sorta like the 62 Mets calling for the Youth of America.

I don't think it really judges the trade properly to apply each team's objective to one another.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 09 2005 10:27 AM

Loop's reduced ability to whiff people troubles me a lot more than Zambrano's for the reasons you said. Zambrano seems to have gained the ability to replicate his good delivery and it's made a bigger difference than more K's might have: It's possible I suppose that his prior recklessness contributed to more K's because he was so unpredictable.

Edgy DC
Jul 09 2005 10:49 AM

Bringing heater after heater last night.

Beaten by a tike.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 09 2005 11:03 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
accelerate their ability to compete


I love vague phrases--they relieve one of any responsibility to back up one's meaning.

May I examine how this program to "accellerate their ability to compete" is going so far?

2004--get back in the pennant race, perhaps steal a Wild Card? Something like that? That one gets an F--total, utter humiliating failure to achieve anything like improvement.

2005-- Maybe this is "get out of last place"? ""Win a weak division and get blown out in the post-season"? However you define this one, just so long as you define it, this is an F in progress.

If the Mets had kept Kazmir, they'd be doing about the same as they are having swapped him out for parts, only much cheaper and much younger. What part of this analysis do you dissent from, exactly? (Other than reflexively defending the Mets' move. I'll grant you that: the Mets need a lot of defending, and you're the man to do it.)

OE: check your work or mtbn e-mail, please.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 09 2005 11:23 AM
My idea of a Victor Zambrano Apology Thread

"Okay, man, I do apologize sincerely to all these Mets fans who expected me to be, you know, good or something. I don't know why they expected it--I mean, I've never really been all that good, I've always had trouble getting the ball in the zip code of home plate and I tend to blow up at the drop of a hat and all like that, so I don't really get it, but I apologize anyway.

"Sometimes, I look good for a month or two, like now, but then I always screw the pooch and get off-track, and I'm sorry for that, too. Maybe if you'da just expected me to be what I 've always been, a .500 pitcher at best, you wouldn'a had these expectations or if you hadn'ta traded your number one pick to get me, it would be cool, but I didn't make that trade so I wish you wouldn't blame me. You want to yell mean shit at someone, yell at Peterson when he comes out on the field to get me when Ive walked four batters in a row or something. Otherwise you can just go fuck yourselves. Sideways. Up the ass.

"That's my apology, you miserable sonofabitches. Kazmir this. Kazmir that. Fuck you."

Frayed Knot
Jul 09 2005 11:36 AM

Didn't like the trade when it happened, don't like it any better now; but liking the deal and bashing Zambrano because of it - particularly when it's based on just a handful of starts - is a seperate issue. Although that's exactly what many fans have bene doing.
Judged on his own merits he's been good a lot more than bad, and the bad mostly came following the long layoff.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 09 2005 12:20 PM

Sal --

I'm not or ever have strongly advocated this trade. It stunned me as much as you, and probably more, because I think I've been paying more attention than you've been before and since.

All I've ever tried doing in thse conversations is to make sense of it, and for that to be interpreted as "reflexive defense" and make me into some phantom pajama-wearing opponent, is unnecessary and counterproductive insulting and it pisses me off and wastes my time. I'm earnest here. F you for doing that allatime.

I think the trade showed that the Mets felt, for the most part, that young pitchers are too unreliable to compete with, and that letting other organizations deal with the ups and downs of breaking guys in is preferable if a chance exists to play better sooner.

Trading for Zambrano must have made sense to them because he was a guy tho although older, was still relatively cheap and had upside (like Kazmir) but unlike Kazmir, had already been through the rocky seasons typical of young guys with good arms. I think they made a decision that said: We value the next two years over the 3rd, 4th and 5th year.

I'm not saying it was wise: I'm just saying that's what it appeared they did. They obviously had grand illusions about the effectiveness of that strategy in the short term last year, and I was here saying so sooner than you were last year, so there's no need to continually behave as if you need to pound that into me.

As to this year, it appears only one of the Mets and Rays are going to lose 90 times this year and so far the respective performances of Zambrano and Kazmir have something to do with that. I know what you're trying to say: 81 or 85 wins over the course of this year, as opposed to 71 or 75 probably isn't worth it. It may not be.

But I think the Mets organization is less tolerant of 90-loss seasons than you are of 85-win years.

ps-- didn't get yer email. try ---( mbtn01 at y a h oo . com)

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 09 2005 02:13 PM

Wish we had some 'chives--if you wrote a more strongly worded response last July 29 than my "I fucking hate this trade" I'd sure like to read it.

To understand this trade, you have to move past the trade itself and examine the philosphy behind the Mets' deals. They tried to suck you in by behaving like buyers at last year's deadline without the faintest semblence of a competitive club to back that up--they were hoping to strike gold while digging with a plastic toy shovel. That isn't smart, and it doesn't work, but they thought that if they got very, very lucky, their loyal fan base would come out in droves last August and September. But the team would still suck HMC, and then they could claim "Well, we came close, we were competitive, bbbyyy." As it happened, the w-l record deterred even the staunchest pajama-wearing fans from buying that particular load of bullcrap.

So this year they spent almost (but not quite) enough money to get a good team, again thinking that if they got very, very lucky, the dumbass pajama crowd would pony up for tickets. For Chrissake, they still have Piazza batting 4th because they have no better options when everyone on this forum now can see that Piazza has no business batting sixth on a contending team, much less fourth. The Mets are worse than atrocious, they are a fraud, held back by the fragile tendon in Pedro's left arm from nailing down last place for the season right now. They stink on ice, and they were built to stink on ice. The Zambrano deal is only a sign of the corruption and careerism and cluelessness behind this team.

Biut it's a handy symbol because it was so clearly a challenge trade--a young pitcher with unfulfilled potential for an older pitcher with unfulfilled potential, and it was designed to show results that (they hoped) wouldn't be in for another decade, after we had forgotten the trade that got Zambrano here. Only the Devil Rays put Wilpon's feet in the fire by promoting Kaz, and Kaz threw BBQ fluid on that fire by pitching as well as Zambrano from the get-go, making it impossible to hide behind the lameass claim of "What has Kazmir done yet?"


The way deals work out, FK, is that players take the heat for them. You trade Kazmir for Zambrano, then Zambrano gets the hard time if the trade doesn't work out. What, do you expect me to picket Jim Duquette at the unemployment office? You trade Nolan Ryan for Fregosi, well, Fregosi's going to listen to some boos if he doesn't play well. Am I supposed to vent at the invisible front office, and give Fregosi a pass? Fuck that noise. Is it Minkeiwicz's fault he can't hit .250? I suppose not, but he's sure going to hear the fans' displeasure when he grounds out to ss--I'm not going to search out Minaya and remind him what a fraudulent dumbass he was to sign Minkeiwicz instead of a real first baseman. If Minkeiwicz wants to hear nice cheers from the fans, then let him hit well--if Zambrano wants cheers, let him outpitch Kazmir. I'm not giving them a pass because it's not their fault they're mediocre players.

I'm not saying you're a pajama-wearing fool, Dickshot, only that your posts seem designed to explain the inexplicable, to make sense of the senseless, to provide clues for the clueless. The only explanation I've read here that makes any sense at all of this team's philosophy is Soupy's "It's all about Fred's real-estate empire, not some silly baseball team" and even Soupy won't stand by the implications of his own analysis.

Sorry to frustrate you by posting so consistently like such a caustic fucktard, but I read real pain in your thoughtful posts, without any perception of the true identity of your torturer.

If you're going to be trading long-term potential for short-term gains, well, you'd better show me the short-term gains or I'm going to be critical of your expertise. Isn't it odd that so many non-professionals (you, me, Frayed Knot, most other posters on this site) questioned the acumen behind the Mets' last few moves, and we've all been proven correct? Doesn't that suggest something negative about the ability of the people making those moves? You could give any poster here the budget that Minaya and Duquette have gotten and get the same results, maybe better. Doesn't that suggest a sort of corporate cluelessness to you, a big picture of systematic incompetence or at best indifference? If you're not willing to consider that possibility, then it's unlikely (as Edgy likes to say) that you'll ever "make sense of it."

"We keep on finishing last, but every trade is made for a reason, there is providence in the fall of every sparrow, and we need to search harder to find the rationale behind these moves." Pack lunch.

KC
Jul 09 2005 02:39 PM

The Mets weren't built for last place, the National were. This team is an under-
achieving mess and you're damn lucky they're in last and lose games like last night
because (you think) it makes you look smart. If anyone makes it through those
five paragraph ugly and repetitive posts, god bless them. You don't like caustic
fucktard? How about just being a tad nicer to your friends and not project whatever
the hell is eating you on all of us innocent bystanders.

metsmarathon
Jul 09 2005 03:40 PM

" For Chrissake, they still have Piazza batting 4th because they have no better options when everyone on this forum now can see that Piazza has no business batting sixth on a contending team, much less fourth."

i think everyone in the free world would agree that piazza is batting 4th because that's where willie keeps pencilling him in, not because we have no better option.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 09 2005 03:57 PM

KC wrote:
damn lucky they're in last and lose games like last night.


"Luck is the residue of design" --Branch Rickey


Eventually, they'll play better, Kase, of that I have no doubt (because how can they ever play worse than last night? They'd have to be on the fix, and pretty stupid, too, to muff games more glaringly.) Eventually, if you spent 110 million when your competitors are spending 75 million, even the dumbest, most corrupt ballteam will pull off a few good signings and eke out a pennant. Just don't hold your breath waiting for this collection of ballplayers to do so.

You don't like my longer posts? I'm sorry. That's really too bad, because I just composed a little skit that's a couple of dozen paragraphs long. Best to hit that "BACK" button right now.


(last July, Flushing)

"Duquette! Get your scrawny ass in here! On the double!"

"Yessir! I'm here, actually."

"What can you do so we make the playoffs this season?"

"Well, Mr. Wilpon, sir, I'm doing everything I can—"

"Not good enough! Can't you trade for someone?"

"I'm trying, sir, but—"

"'But' what?"

"Well, sir, we're sort of a long way from contention, not that that's your fault for buying the wrong free agents or anything and, anyway, the other clubs want our best prospects but they're not offering a whole lot in exchange—"

"That's enough gibberish for now, Duquette. Like I care about your problems: I've got a real estate empire to run, and having a last-place team isn't making it attractive for the city to give me a sweetheart stadium deal—wait, these 'prospects,' are they playing for us now?"

"No, sir, that's why they're prospects—they're younger players, sir, in our minor league system—"

"And you can trade them for major league players who might be able to help us win games this season?"

"I could, sir, but that wouldn't be prudent because—"

"Don’t give me backtalk, young feller. Are we more likely or less likely to win games this season if you trade these 'prospects' this afternoon?"

"More likely, sir, but over the long run—"

"Do you expect, Duquette, that you'll be here in the long haul if we don't make the playoffs this season?"

"Maybe not, sir, but I wouldn't be doing my job properly if I were to—"

"You need to have a job to be able to do it properly, Duquette, get me? Unless you've got a better idea?"

"Several, sir, actually. I think we should trade our veterans for some other team's prospects, and improve the team for next season, sir."

"Duquette!"

"Trade Piazza, sir. I can still get a young player from the Angels, sir, a really promising young fellow—"

"Trade Piazza! He's the guy the fans all come to see. They buy all these jerseys, saying 'Piazza' on them, I thought they were saying 'Pizza' at first, but—"

"Then trade Glavine, sir. Boston has offered some excellent Triple-A players for him. I tried to get Derek Lowe, but Theo just laughed at me. I can get even better prospects if you'll let me put Leiter into the deal—"

"Leiter? He's the one giving me all that good advice, isn't he?"

"It's not really so good, sir, actually—"

"Makes a lot of sense politically, too. Leiter's a good man. Keep him. And Glavine. I'd look like a fool if I dealt him. Didn’t my kid sign him to a big contract? Got his picture in the papers? Keep him. What else?"

"Well, sir, Pittsburgh wants to deal this fellow Benson—"

"Benson? Who's he? I like the sound of Benson. I come from Bensonhurst, you know. That's in Brooklyn—"

"Yes, I've heard, sir. Benson's a pitcher, sir—"

"A star? A big name? Bring fans into the park?"

"Well, no, sir, not really, but he could be. The problem is that Pittsburgh wants young prospects—"

"Again with the prospects. Who do they want?"

"They want Ty Wigginton, sir, and Matt Peterson—"

"Never heard of them."

"Well, sir, if you'd read the scouting reports I send to you—"

"Wait, Peterson…is he the guy we hired as a pitching genius last year, worked with What's His Face in California?"

"Oakland, sir. Art Howe, sir. No, sir. I mean, Yes, sir, we hired Peterson to coach our pitchers, but that's Rick Peterson, this is Matt Peterson I'm talking about—"

"Never heard of him. Dump him. Get this Benson character—"

"Well, sir, the problem is that Benson's a Free Agent after the season. Now, we could probably sign Benson as a Free Agent for the same money whether we trade for him or if Pittsburgh trades him to another team, and that way we'd get to keep Wigginton and Peterson—"

"Too much information. Learn to simplify, son. Why would this Benson sign with us?"

"Well, sir, he's drawn to New York—he has this wife, sir, she's a model, a lovely girl, sir, very attractive, and I think she—"

"Wait! I'm seeing some free publicity in this. Let's get him."

"But if we wait a few months, sir—"

"Someone isn't going to be here in a few months if we don’t sign Benson now."

"I'm probably not going to be here in a few months either way…"

"What? What was that? More backtalk?"

"No, sir. I'll get right on it, sir. Anything else, Mr. Wilpon?"

"Yeah, get me that guy's phone number, little Puerto Rican, Mexican fellow, worked for me before, now he's up in Montreal—"

"That's Omar Minaya, sir. His number's in your Rolodex."

"Then what the hell are you doing still standing here?"

"Nothing, sir. Nothing at all."

Nymr83
Jul 09 2005 03:58 PM

]
BUT, I think that a huge portion of Met fans jumped to premature conclusions here (so unlike them too!). Considering that we got a whopping 3 starts out of this guy last year before he went down - meaning he then started this year effectively having sat for 8 months


My negative opinion of Zambrano stemmed from his inability to keep the walks under control, not his 3 starts with the Mets last year.

]For me to apologize to Zambrano, he'd have to outpitch this guy by even a little bit:


Zambrano is pitching well, its not HIS fault he was traded for Kazmir.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 09 2005 04:04 PM

Huh. Kinda got sidetracked there, never got around to the Zambrano-Kazmir part of the conversation.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 09 2005 04:37 PM

metsmarathon wrote:
everyone in the free world would agree that piazza is batting 4th because that's where willie keeps pencilling him in.


Holy cats! What colossal bad luck. Everyone in the free world, billions of people (including babies and people in comas and all) and you have to get the one dumb fuck who doesn't understand the purpose of a batting order.

I mean, what are the odds on that?

Nymr83
Jul 09 2005 05:49 PM

Mike Piazza is hitting 4th/5th because his name is Mike Piazza. There are certainly better options.
I liked the skit...but you left out getting rid of Justin Huber...suprising from a Piazza-hater.

metsmarathon
Jul 09 2005 10:49 PM

so, is piazza a better hitter than cliff floyd and david wright, suddenly? and carlos beltran? holy cats, indeed!

how do you reconcile this with your hatred of the fellow?

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 10 2005 03:25 AM

metsmarathon wrote:
so, is piazza a better hitter than cliff floyd and david wright, suddenly? and carlos beltran?


No, of course not. He's now like, oh, Jim Hickman and Ed Kranepool and Butch Huskey--you know the guys who, if you're batting them 4th, you suck.

metsmarathon wrote:
how do you reconcile this with your hatred of the fellow?


How many ways do I have to state it: I like Piazza fine, he does his best (in a kind of half-speed, I'm-the-king, safety-first kinda way), he's allowed to rip off the Mets by signing a contract ruinous to the team, etc. More power to him, etc.

It's the Mets I hate for being so stubbornly clueless about handling the problems that a washed-up catcher in his mid-30s presents. Them I hate with the passion of a thousand suns. Get it straight.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 10 2005 08:45 AM

KC wrote:
you're damn lucky they're in last and lose games like last night because (you think) it makes you look smart.


You give me too much credit. I don;t think it makes me look smart--I've consistently underestimated how bad the Mets will be: last season, for example, I think I predicted that the Mets would win 72 games, and they won 71. A really smart guy would have hit it on the head, doncha think? I just looked a little bit smart because all you dumbasses were predicting 80, 85, 90 wins from that bunch of schleps.

And how smart was it to predict that Piazza would drive in fewer than 80 runs last season? I was off the mark by a margin of 25 RBIs, for Chrissake. Don't you think a really smart guy would have taunted Edgy and Ralph that Piazza would fall short of 60 runs, and then jack up the betting price on poor Ralph to the point where the poor zhlub would have had to work an extra job or two to pay off his debts?

And don't you think if I was really smart I would have taken Ralph up on his double or nothing offer this spring? I'd be collecting another $400 dollars from him this go-around. And a truly smart guy would have gotten LF to back up his silly assertion that Glavine would outpitch Derek Lowe over the second half of 2004 and all of 2005 with a little cash, don't you think?

No, the really smart guy here is you, KC. You after all, underbid everyone with your prediction this spring that the Mets would win--what did you say, 61 games, I believe?--that's veritable genius. I don' t think you give yourself enough credit, my friend.

metsmarathon
Jul 10 2005 09:05 AM

how bad must the team be? i mean, we've got cliff floyd as our 5-hitter, and david wright as our 6/7 hitter!

that must be a pretty good lineup!

i shouldnt mention that floyd has more at bats in the 4-spot than does piazza, nor should i mention that piazza has more at bats in the 5-spots than he does in the 4.

nor should i mention that piazza should be knocked down (at least) a spot in the order because of a better option named david wright.

so the fact that we do indeed have two better options than piazza for the 4-spot means, what? nothing?

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 10 2005 09:15 AM

Not sure I'm getting your point. Is it a complaint against Willie's dumbness? Is it a complaint that Willie's lineup choices seem dictated by the Mets' marketing department? Is it a complaint against my assertion that Willie bats Piazza 4th when in reality he's sometimes batted him 5th? Why don't you state your issue forthrightly?

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 10 2005 10:34 AM

="Nymr83"]
]Zambrano is pitching well, its not HIS fault he was traded for Kazmir.


No, that's my fault. I didn't stage a hunger strike in the Mets' executive offices. So boo me.

What? You're willing to cut me a break on that one? Well, someone has to go down. If you're cutting me a break and you're cutting Victor Innameonly a break, who would you suggest take some heat for this colossal blunder? (By heat, of course, I mean only the cruel and unusual punishment of suffering mockery on an on-line forum read by dozens of Met fans. Oh, the humanity!)

Frayed Knot
Jul 10 2005 11:27 AM

I'd be willing to bet that very few of those Met fans who are whining about how WWSB's refusal to swap Piazza & Wright in the lineup is costing this lineup 10-15 runs/day and is the downfall of the season have noticed that they've been about equal hitters over the last month. Wright, in fact, has HRed once in the last month.
Most haven't noticed, of course, because they don't want to.


P.S. Wright has batted 5th & 6th collectively more often than 7th, and, despite constant wails to the contrary, has never once hit 8th this season.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 10 2005 01:59 PM

Frayed Knot wrote:
despite constant wails to the contrary, has never once hit 8th this season.


Oh, God! I'm going deaf.

There's been a constant wail, and I haven't heard it once. Help!

It's pretty easy to win arguments if you paint your adversaries as idiots and attack arguments they haven't made. But you knew that, didn't you?

Also, you could cherrypick better. I'm sure there are individual games this season (just a few) in which Piazza has actually out-hit Wright. If you're picking samples specifically for their small size, you should pick these, and then you can really chortle about your supposed point. OMIGAWD, Piazza has hit approximately as well as Wright for the PAST MONTH--inconceivable!!!!

Willets Point
Jul 10 2005 02:08 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote:

It's pretty easy to win arguments if you paint your adversaries as idiots and attack arguments they haven't made.


This reminds me of something someone once told me about a pot and a kettle and their relative coloring.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 10 2005 02:37 PM

Ooooh, don't tell me--you're all going to dogpile on me now for something I just pointed out FK doing?

Seems about right to me.

Frayed Knot
Jul 10 2005 07:34 PM

My point is that this notion that a flip of Piazza & Wright in the batting order would make a huge difference in the offensive output of the Mets - something which is a current and constant cry from Met fans - doesn't stand up to reason. But since many of those making that point are so wrapped up in it as their launching point for what ails the team that they don't even realize when it's NOT true (like for the last 4-5 weeks) because they don't WANT to realize that it's not true.

I personally don't care where Piazza hits but, wherever it is, I'm not going to pretend that it's the major factor in the lack of runs scored simply because it fits a pre-determined agenda. It's like Reyes and the leadoff spot; we can bitch and moan all we want about how some player shouldn't be hitting where he is, but let's not pretend that there are great alternatives when there aren't.

Willets Point
Jul 10 2005 10:16 PM

Not piling on, Bret, just pointing out that in one sentence describing Frayed Knot, you summed up the thing that aggrivates most of the folks here about you.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 11 2005 03:49 AM

Frayed Knot wrote:
let's not pretend that there are great alternatives when there aren't.


No, there are plenty of potentially great alternatives--trading this one or that one, backing up the truck, cleaning house--call it what you will, only most Met fans and certainly Met management prefers pretending that no sweeping changes are in order, all they need is a little time, a little tweaking, that Mientiewicz will come around, that Cameron will keep hitting .380 forever, that Piazza and Glavine will have a 1995 flashback. Your problems don't fix themselves, but if you don't really believe you have problems, well, then, THAT's a problem.

WP--I got that. I'm pointing out that it's most obnoxious when I do it (and I don't do it much) but perfectly okay when FK just makes shit up and claims that "everyone" thinks the shit is true. Now, why is that? Where's the outrage for FK making a claim that's literally false (unless someone wants to show me where the constant wail that Wright has batted 8th too much)?

Mind, I'm not complaining--it's only fair that I should get hostility,given my hostility to the Mets. I am pointing out that I'm not the only obnoxious prevaricator on this site, just the only one who gets called on it.