Anger Rising: Braves 7, Mets 4

by Eric Simon on Sep 14, 2008 11:45 PM EDT in Aftermath Comment 32 comments

I'm reminded of that scene in Spaceballs when Lone Starr and Barf are in the space diner after returning Princess Vespa to Druidia. After our heroes place their orders, the camera pans to the other side of the diner to find John Hurt, reprising his role from Alien, doubled over in pain as a creature forces his way out of his stomach. Hurt looks up at the horrible, growling alien protruding from his gut and utters those four words we all had to be thinking on Sunday afternoon:

Oh, no. Not again.

Luis Ayala, oh savior of saviors, was brought in to preserve a 4-2 lead that would've meant a series victory over the Braves. Ayala, officially dead to me, retired nobody and allowed a three-run homerun to Greg Norton that gave the Braves a 5-4 lead. The two insurance runs allowed by Pedro Feliciano were a foregone conclusion by that point. To the Mets' credit, they had three cracks with the tying run at the plate, but Carlos Beltran, Fernando Tatis and Luis Castillo went down in succession and that was that.

Ayala's inevitable meltdown wasted what was a nice bounceback effort by Oliver Perez, who retired 14 of the last 15 batters he faced and struck out eight in seven innings of work. The Mets' offense, on the other hand, left a boatload of men on base, squandering numerous opportunities to tack on runs.

Meanwhile, the Brewers managed just ten runs en route to a four-game sweep at the hands of the Phillies at CBP this weekend. The Mets' lead has been trimmed to one game with fourteen to play, though the Phillies have played two more games and both were losses. The teams have practically identical schedules the rest of the way, with the Phillies playing an extra series against the Braves and the Mets playing a four-gamer at Shea against the Cubs and an extra game against the Nationals. One benefit of the Brewers giving it up this weekend: The Cubs are far more likely to have clinched the NL Central by the time they roll into town next week, so a game or two of B-lineups could be in order. The Mets need all the help they can get.

Big winners: David Wright, +33.4% WPA, Oliver Perez, +20.7% WPA
Big losers: Luis Ayala, -75.4% WPA, Carlos Beltran, -13.2% WPA
Teh aw3s0mest play: Wright two-run homer in 3rd, +18.5% WPA
Teh sux0rest play: Oh no, not again, -55.6% WPA
Total pitcher WPA: -59.3%
Total batter WPA: +9.3%
GWRBI: Greg Norton

Game Thread Roll Call

Nice job by Omar21; his effort in the game thread embiggens us all.

Name	# of Posts
Omar21	61
Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright	35
itsmetsforme	31
JoshNY	24
anonymous	24
elifriedman	17
mmxii	10
gogomets	6
Rod Gaspar Fan Club	4
pingel	1
future	1

0 recs | Comment 32 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Done.

Just wanted to embiggen us all once this season, in my inaugural season on Amazin Avenue.

I quite like this site. Far more intellectual than Mets Blog, which is an orgy of people who possess the frustrating combination of mob mentality, ignorance, lack of wit and bad grammar.

by Omar21 on Sep 15, 2008 6:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention

weird racial conspiracy theories. Or was that covered by “ignorance”?

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Sep 15, 2008 7:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think racial conspiracy has merit.

I think it’d be morally presumptuous and idealistic to say that race does not factor into decisions made on behalf of an organization that carries as much social significance as the Mets.

There is statistical proof that says the World Series has a meaningful impact on the US economy. If that doesn’t convince you that the Mets have a social siginificance, than I don’t know what will.

While I believe race plays a role in personell decisions, I don’t feel that the majority of posters who refer to it apply their sentiment correctly.

The “caveman view” is that Omar is latino and he favorrs latino players. It’s incredibly ignorant to believe that a multimillion dollar business would be managed using such a simple thought process. Marketing and consumer psychology is a trillion dollar business. We are products of a society infused with racial biases and stereotypes. Do you really think the Wilpons and Co would be willing to gamble hundreds of millions of dollars without taking a core demographic characteristic into account?

I think acknowledging a racial conspiracy is fair. I think the way Metsblog bloggers are applying that awareness is incorrect.

Whatever.

by Omar21 on Sep 15, 2008 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow, I couldn't agree less.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Sep 15, 2008 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with you, Catsmeat.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Sep 15, 2008 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what what what?

I’m going to sound like a broken record here, after that Ryan Howard discussion, but could you point to some evidence about this? Where, specifically, do you see race playing a role in the Mets’ management decisions?

by anonymous on Sep 15, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and no one in the country knows more about energy than I do.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Sep 15, 2008 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Be afraid

Be very afraid.

Perhaps I should have prefaced my initial post(s) or provided a better understanding of my true lack of baseball knowledge in my profile.

Compared to the majority here, I am definitely a novice fan. I’ve just enjoyed yelling my guts out for the METS since 1997. I guess in order to be a true blogging fan I need to come to the table w/some serious knowledge. This was my first time blogging on a sports site. So thanks for the insightful info, guidance and unabashed berating.

I hope we make it to the playoffs guys and gals.

L8
Lou

" HOT DOG EATING, POKER AND BASS FISHING ARE NOT SPORTS. TIME FOR ESPN TO EVALUATE ITSELF. "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Sep 15, 2008 8:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Whoa....

I didn’t “berate” you did I? If so, I assure you that wasn’t my intention.

What I am mocking about Metsblog and less intellectual sites than Amazin, is the consitutuency of people that refuse to believe that there are more knowledgeable fans about baseball in the world or that we still have a lot to learn about this game.

At the extreme ends of the spectrum, we have “traditionalists” and “statisticians”. One end has decades of baseball tradition as it was understood by the masses, to draw from to justify their views. The other has “cutting edge” stats that sound accurate, more because of the lack of an objective view on the game than for the merit of the stats being offered.

For example, the “thinking fan” openly accepts VORP as “factual” support for evaluating the value of a player, even though there are obvious flaws in it’s calculation.

The flaws vary depending on the context in which VORP is applied. Based on a glance at VORP, I haven’t seen anything that takes into account the competition they are facing.

In a league where the disparity in talent is so great, why would otherwise intelligent people agree to wholeheartedly accept such a clear problem?

Do you really think it’s safe to assume that Ryan Howard and Justin Morneau have had to face exactly the same level of competition?

For anyone that quotes OPS, do we really know if the value of 10 points in OBP is equivalent to 10 points in slugging?

Not saying I believe the contrary in these cases. Just playing devil’s advocate.

When the world was flat, people bought it because there was no accredited evidence of the contrary at the time.

Just because there nobody has generated a number that reflects the value of having a great power hitter batting behind you, is that enough for an otherwise intelligent person to dismiss a century of baseball strategy?

Conceptually, doesn’t it make sense that a pitcher is encouraged to be more aggressive when facing a batter, if the following hitter is more likely to be able to drive in runs?

I’m not saying I know the answers. I’m saying that we shouldn’t dismiss the possibility that the best way to evaluate performance or a player’s value to a team is somewhere in between both ends of the spectrum. There are enough exceptions to both perspectives that in order to maximize performance, one must be open to multiple philosophies, because there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary in both cases.

Blah blah blah….I like Amazin better than Mets Blog, and I’m drunk.

by Omar21 on Sep 15, 2008 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If we are talking about MPV, yes indeed.

When considering a player for the MVP, the guys who get to vote rarely (if ever) consider VORP or OPS (for better or worse.) It’s always a combination of olde-timey ideas of baseball and being in love with raw numbers. Throw a dramatic September in the works, and it only gets worse.

We all know in our minds that AP should be the MVP, but the hearts/minds of the voters are a different story.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Sep 15, 2008 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hearts and minds?

YOU GO TO WAR WITH WHAT YA GOT!

" HOT DOG EATING, POKER AND BASS FISHING ARE NOT SPORTS. TIME FOR ESPN TO EVALUATE ITSELF. "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Sep 16, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just because there nobody has generated a number that reflects the value of having a great power hitter batting behind you, is that enough for an otherwise intelligent person to dismiss a century of baseball strategy?

You make it sound like the “protection” effect — that ability you propose whereby Ryan Howard makes the other hitters around him better — was not susceptible to empirical research that would confirm or falsify it, and like the “otherwise intelligent” stat-head is just in pig-headed denial. But in fact, this question has already been studied and the existence of the effect has been pretty convincingly falsified. (1 2)

by anonymous on Sep 15, 2008 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well yeah

Remember a few years back in 2001 when Rey Ordonez was in the top-10 in the NL in IBB (with 17)? The dude was a machine. I would guess it was caused by some kind of freaky reverse-‘protection’. Like Beltran’s un-clutchness, it cannot be seen in the stats. It is something you either know or don’t know.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Sep 15, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rey-Rey

As bad a hitter as Ordonez was, I suspect a lot of teams still preferred to take their chances with the pitcher. It’d be easy enough to go back and look at those 17 IBBs and see whether the circumstances (i.e. ‘the book’) dictated that the #8 hitter be walked in favor of the pitcher.

by Eric Simon on Sep 15, 2008 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure. Thanks for ruining my idea with your stats.

In at least 2 ever ten at bats, he was a threat. You never knew when he’d get a hit! If not this at bat, maybe one of the next six or seven. It was not worth the risk.

OK, enough joking. I’m willing to put money down on 15 of the IBBs were in games pitched by Al Leiter. His at-bats were comedy gold.

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Sep 15, 2008 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take a look at those later tonight

by JoshNY on Sep 15, 2008 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ordonez IBBs

(And I hope someone actually reads this since I’m doing the research!)

T7, up 2-1, 2 out, runners on second and third, Leiter grounded out
B4, up 2-0, 2 out, runner on second, Rusch struck out
B2, tied 1-1, 2 out, runner on third, Trachsel struck out
T4, down 1-0, 2 out, runner on second, Trachsel grounded out
T6, up 5-2, 2 out, runner on second, Rusch grounded out
B4, tied 1-1, 2 out, runner on second, Leiter walked
T4, up 2-0, 2 out, runners on second and third, Leiter grounded out
T3, up 3-1, 2 out, runners on second and third, Dicky Gonzalez (who?) flied out
T5, up 3-2, 2 out, runner on second, Gonzalez struck out
B4, tied 1-1, 2 out, runner on second, Rusch struck out
T5, down 1-0, 2 out, runner on second, Leiter grounded out
T7, up 3-1, 2 out, runners on second and third, Wendell flew out
T6, up 3-1, 2 out, runner on second, Appier grounded out
B3, up 5-0, 2 out, runner on second, Trachsel grounded out
T2, up 1-0, 2 out, runner on second, Appier walked
T6, up 4-1, 2 out, runner on second, Leiter singled (yay!)
B2, down 2-0, 2 out, runner on third, Rusch grounded out

Leiter was a miserable hitter but at least that year, Rusch was even worse, and really NONE were GOOD hitters for pitchers. None of these were with Rick Reed coming up.

I think the most important thing is that the Mets didn’t hit for the pitcher on ANY of these occasions. Only five of the 17 were in the sixth inning or later. In four of the five, the starter was still in the game and pitching effectively (Leiter 1 run through 6, Rusch 2 runs through 5, Appier 1 run through 5, Leiter one run through 5).

The one where Wendell hit was the only oddball. Wendell was the first guy out of the pen but had only thrown three pitches to that point. The Marlins had their 7-8-9 guys coming up, 2 right handed batters (Ryan Thompson and Dave Berg) and a pinch hitter, whom he retired in order. Close game like that, I’m surprised the Mets didn’t hit for Wendell. In any case, Franco gave up one run in the 8th (solo HR by Eric Owens) and Arman-blow walked the leadoff hitter (surprise) before picking up the save.

by JoshNY on Sep 15, 2008 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Good work, dogg.

I find it a bit funny that 10 of those IBBs were in the 4th inning or earlier.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Sep 15, 2008 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the way I see it

the earlier in the game, the more confident you are that the other team won’t hit for the pitcher

by JoshNY on Sep 16, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean you don't remember

the immortal Dicky Gonzalez? He’s the all-time greatest pitcher named Dicky. Man, I cannot believe that was 7 years ago. Wow, time flies.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Sep 16, 2008 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dicky Gonzalez

From what baseball-reference.com tells me, he is in fact the only MLB player ever to go by “Dicky.”

by JoshNY on Sep 16, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously not taking into account

The immortal Dickie Thon.

'Catsmeat!' he cried. 'I see it all. It was that chump, Catsmeat.'

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Sep 16, 2008 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

Not the same spelling.

by JoshNY on Sep 17, 2008 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work.

“Reverse Protection” PROVED! The #9 hitters were so bad that Rey-Rey got worse pitches to hit than had he been hitting, say, clean-up. Now, by association, the opposite is also true. Therefore, the ‘protection effect’ is true.

Can we now all agree that Ryan Howard is the MVP?

"The people of Houston are spending money like oil's selling at $40 a barrel."

by IanB in MD on Sep 16, 2008 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

can we?

I really have no idea what I proved, I was just looking that stuff up for fun.

by JoshNY on Sep 16, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OMAR 21, no one berates me. ;-)

I have learned the hard way not to take anything written or read here with much seriousness. It’s a group of people with some knowledge of baseball and they display that knowledge by sharing their opinions. Some backed with stats & some backed with GUT INSTINCT! “So sayeth W.”

My comment wasn’t directed at you or anyone specifically. I’m just speaking out loud.

Thank you for your insightful opinions.

How we all love to opine.

" HOT DOG EATING, POKER AND BASS FISHING ARE NOT SPORTS. TIME FOR ESPN TO EVALUATE ITSELF. "

by LOUtheMETandNATSfan on Sep 16, 2008 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs