Jump to content

Valaika DFA. Mateo replaces him


eddie83

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LA2 said:

I'm not going to add another mound of statistics to show how wrong you are about Villar. I'll just say that all the Mets fans that were Meh about him and disagreed with me in the spring about how good an acquisition he was for them have all had to eat crow. He has saved their infield throughout this season not only by filling in at second and then at third and now at SS when McNeil, Davis, Guillorme, and Lindor all fell out, but now has the fourth most AB's on the team and their third best OPS+. He either leads off or bats in the middle of the lineup. A guy who stole 62 bases for the Brewers and played in all 162 games for the 2019 O's and quickly became my favorite player and I wish we could have afforded to keep is not someone you just dump when it's time to contend, as the Mets have learned.

If Villar was your favorite player, that’s fine. 

Although it is a digression from my original comment about the Pitching arms that were mentioned mentioned not being part of our next good team, I mentioned him As an example, and it remains true.

Edited by Philip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

Delmon Young had a career of nine years and 3.2 WAR.
I don’t know why you’re being so contentious, I’m not saying anything controversial when I say that the pitchers that were mentioned will not be a part of our next good team. If you want to disagree with that, fine go ahead.

Because you are constantly acting like flawed players don’t have a spot in the majors or on contending teams and you couldn’t be more wrong about it.

Sure, pitchers X, Y and Z may not be here but there will be guys just like them Who will be.  
 

Guys who suck at defense will be on good teams.  Guys who can’t hit well will be on good teams.  It’s what happens and always has Happened and always will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Because you are constantly acting like flawed players don’t have a spot in the majors or on contending teams and you couldn’t be more wrong about it.

Sure, pitchers X, Y and Z may not be here but there will be guys just like them Who will be.  
 

Guys who suck at defense will be on good teams.  Guys who can’t hit well will be on good teams.  It’s what happens and always has Happened and always will happen.

OK gosh, why is this so difficult. You haven’t said anything I disagree with.

Almost none of the guys we currently have on the roster will be on our next good team.

I specifically mentioned somebody like McKenna as possibly being on our next good team even though he can’t hit or are you so blinded by your anger that you missed that comment. I specifically mentioned someone like Endy Chavez Who couldn’t hit but was valuable.

On the flipside I have in the past mentioned other players who were not valuable because they couldn’t do anything, and I’ve also said that guys who are weak in one area must be outstanding in another area or their presence is not required on a seriously contending team. This is not rocket science.

Let me clarify. Every team has imperfect players, and that goes without saying and I never suggested otherwise. However no team does or should retain a player who is considered an overall detriment. Sometimes that is in evitable as with the Orioles, we’re almost everybody is an overall detriment. But with a contending team that doesn’t have those limits, and does have higher standards, the degree of flaw that will be accepted is smaller.

Villar was an example of someone who was traded Away by team that got good enough to trade him. 
The pitchers I referred to probably aren’t good enough to be on a contending team.

Edited by Philip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sports Guy said:

Because you are constantly acting like flawed players don’t have a spot in the majors or on contending teams and you couldn’t be more wrong about it.

Sure, pitchers X, Y and Z may not be here but there will be guys just like them Who will be.  
 

Guys who suck at defense will be on good teams.  Guys who can’t hit well will be on good teams.  It’s what happens and always has Happened and always will happen.

Excellent assessment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...