Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sandy Alderson Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by trepye View Post
    You still have not explained to me why you root for the Mets when historically their pitching & defense does not align with your preferences towards [exaggerated] offensive output (of say the Phillies and Yankees).
    Because when I was 7 years old and fell in love with baseball in 1971 the Mets played at Shea and Shea was not the disgusting hell hole of a baseball field that Citi is.

    I also root the for the same teams that I rooted for when I was that age - I do not jump around based upon uniform colors, mascots or stadiums. For you this is apparently an option. For me it is not.

    There is no doubt I lean towards offense, but that doesn't mean I cant hope for the Mets to be an offensive team. Right? In the mid 80' they had an excellent offense. Great pitching, but they had an excellent offense.

    The offense doesn't have to exaggerated, but it MUST exist. The Mets offense for the past several years as not existed and that hasn't affected you at all. You want to build great pitching around a poor offensive team. I rather both be top of the line, and don't mind have a stadium that can satisfy both. I don't need 600ft fences and hope for the sliding triple. I rather have a 400ft CF fence that allows its fair share of homers, and the same park where my pitching can shut down other teams.

    Here is a question for you being that you mentioned Philly. When the Phillies had Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Moyer, Myers, and a shut down pen over a several year period do you think they worried about where the fences were when they were pitching? My guess is ....no.

    Yet they had 5 straight 1st place finishes in the small park. How the hell did they manage that? I mean after all they had a park that was so anti great pitching.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 12-24-2014, 08:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawman
    replied
    Originally posted by trepye View Post
    You still have not explained to me why you root for the Mets when historically their pitching & defense does not align with your preferences towards [exaggerated] offensive output (of say the Phillies and Yankees).
    I don't want to speak for Pauly (or anyone else here) but rationality and choice have very little to do with long-term rooting for the New York Mets. It's more of a condition.

    Leave a comment:


  • trepye
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post

    I hope my finagling has met with your requirements.
    You still have not explained to me why you root for the Mets when historically their pitching & defense does not align with your preferences towards [exaggerated] offensive output (of say the Phillies and Yankees).

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by trepye View Post
    Ok, ok all I wanted is a yes-or no answer, not a dissertation on how I would respond (you actually falsely assert that I would not want Tulo, lol, seriously??). Smaller ballpark hell or high water, got it (you should really consider being a Phillies fan or a Yankee fan; the Mets history does not align with your preferences).

    Oh, BTW, did you deliberately leave out the 3-time WS winning SF Giants out of that list of "great teams" because they have a huge ballpark or because they were imbalanced? Or maybe they throw off your staunch hypothesis of balance and little ballparks? Please finagle an unbiased basis for that omission.

    I am sorry for not answering yes or no. I actually wanted to explain some of my position. Going forward I will try use less words with less syllables.

    Finagle? Seriously ...like I need to finagle anything to avoid a disagreement with you? Get real my man.

    Smaller ballpark than what Citi was to make it neautral. If you increase your reading comprehension than maybe you may have picked up on that.

    Giants - actually I did forget the Giants. Bigger ballpark, excellent pitching, good bullpen. All very true - they have some offensive players too.....dont they? Actually I dont consider the Giants as a great team to be quite honest.

    Put this in the "be carefull what you wish for" catergory

    SF Giants - League Ranking
    2010 - OBP 9th Slug 6th OPS 8th
    2012 - OBP 7th Slg 8th OPS 7th
    2014 - OBP 6th Slg 6th OPS 6th

    Middle of the pack offensively in the NL. Which by the way they beat the Mets in every one of the 3 catergories every one of those 3 years. Coincidence? I dont think so. Also with the exception of 2012 they were also middle of the pack in HR's because when the sun is shining in SF the ball does carry.

    I hope my finagling has met with your requirements.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 12-18-2014, 12:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • trepye
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    You continually point to the renovations as to the Mets demise. I do not. The Mets "spiraling home record" has ZERO to do with any renovations. Why?....

    1) Its not like they made Citi a hitters park with the first renovation that drastically changed any outcome
    2) and this is the real reason.....The Met roster had become weaker and weaker. Carrying David Wright, Ike Davis, Lucas Duda, etc.. has burdened this team beyond belief.

    "Teams with larger outfields make the playoffs" -- Isnt this cyclical? Baseball offense is down right now, and offense is at a premium. The Yanks, and Phillies just got old. This of course will turn around now that the White Sox, Cubs, Toronto, and Boston have made a great push to get back into the playoffs.

    To answer your question...No - I never think its a mistake or wrong to neutralize a park. If the Mets dont make the playoffs.. you Trepye will find 25 reasons why it is because the park is neautral and not the size of an airport. Right now even with this pitching - if the Mets dont make the playoffs its because their offense is pathetic. Pitching is nice, but you still need to score. The Mets excel at nothing offensively -Power, speed, XBH's......nothing.

    That needs to be changed before they are a true contender.

    So again to answer your question I will never think making Citi more hitter friendly than what it was is wrong if they make the playoffs or not. For every reason you give about the size of the park as a factor I will give you 10 other reasons why the other way.

    At the end of the day the Mets need to bolster their offense to compete. Tulo would be a great addition. I am sure you will disagree. They need to hit to be a great team. Look at all the great teams over the last 50 years they had excellent pitching AND excellent pitching - unbalanced teams dont last. Orioles, Yanks, Dodgers, A's, Reds, Pirates, Braves all had excellent pitching but they hit the hell out of the ball also. By the way many of those teams play or played in hitters parks as well.
    Ok, ok all I wanted is a yes-or no answer, not a dissertation on how I would respond (you actually falsely assert that I would not want Tulo, lol, seriously??). Smaller ballpark hell or high water, got it (you should really consider being a Phillies fan or a Yankee fan; the Mets history does not align with your preferences).

    Oh, BTW, did you deliberately leave out the 3-time WS winning SF Giants out of that list of "great teams" because they have a huge ballpark or because they were imbalanced? Or maybe they throw off your staunch hypothesis of balance and little ballparks? Please finagle an unbiased basis for that omission.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by trepye View Post
    So let me ask you something PP, if the Mets Home record continues this dismal spiral since (both in record and offensive output) the fences were initially moved in in 2012 (as I predicted it would, and the Associated Press corroborates) and yet a majority of teams with the largest outfields make the playoffs (and the Mets don't with this pitching) would you think its wrong?? I just would like to get your answer on record prior to the outcome.
    You continually point to the renovations as to the Mets demise. I do not. The Mets "spiraling home record" has ZERO to do with any renovations. Why?....

    1) Its not like they made Citi a hitters park with the first renovation that drastically changed any outcome
    2) and this is the real reason.....The Met roster had become weaker and weaker. Carrying David Wright, Ike Davis, Lucas Duda, etc.. has burdened this team beyond belief.

    "Teams with larger outfields make the playoffs" -- Isnt this cyclical? Baseball offense is down right now, and offense is at a premium. The Yanks, and Phillies just got old. This of course will turn around now that the White Sox, Cubs, Toronto, and Boston have made a great push to get back into the playoffs.

    To answer your question...No - I never think its a mistake or wrong to neutralize a park. If the Mets dont make the playoffs.. you Trepye will find 25 reasons why it is because the park is neautral and not the size of an airport. Right now even with this pitching - if the Mets dont make the playoffs its because their offense is pathetic. Pitching is nice, but you still need to score. The Mets excel at nothing offensively -Power, speed, XBH's......nothing.

    That needs to be changed before they are a true contender.

    So again to answer your question I will never think making Citi more hitter friendly than what it was is wrong if they make the playoffs or not. For every reason you give about the size of the park as a factor I will give you 10 other reasons why the other way.

    At the end of the day the Mets need to bolster their offense to compete. Tulo would be a great addition. I am sure you will disagree. They need to hit to be a great team. Look at all the great teams over the last 50 years they had excellent pitching AND excellent pitching - unbalanced teams dont last. Orioles, Yanks, Dodgers, A's, Reds, Pirates, Braves all had excellent pitching but they hit the hell out of the ball also. By the way many of those teams play or played in hitters parks as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • trepye
    replied
    So let me ask you something PP, if the Mets Home record continues this dismal spiral since (both in record and offensive output) the fences were initially moved in in 2012 (as I predicted it would, and the Associated Press corroborates) and yet a majority of teams with the largest outfields make the playoffs (and the Mets don't with this pitching) would you think its wrong?? I just would like to get your answer on record prior to the outcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by Strawman View Post
    OK that's a good one - props for that line Pauly!
    Thanks Strawman. Once in a while it happens.

    I will never come around to the thinking that bringing in the fences is wrong.

    I understand the reflex reaction to say "we have great pitching why move the fences in and reduce the advantage we have". I get that reaction for sure.......but its dead wrong.

    My thinking is this -- My good pitching is going to control your good hitting. So I dont care where the fences are. On the other hand now my hitters get to face your pitching thats not as good as mine on a field that they can take advantage of.

    I always use this analogy = If your pitcher is Clayton Kershaw (Cardinals in October not withstanding), their pitcher is Joe Average, your lineup is average at best, and their lineup is above average.

    Ok so your exceptional pitcher can shut down their team enough to the point where you cant take advantage of the dimensions because squaring the ball up is a big enough challenge. On the other hand your hitters are facing their average pitchers where they can take advantage.

    When Matt Harvey is pitching do you care if RCF is 415 or 385? Really do you care?

    Another point is that its not like Citi just became a band box. I consider it closer to neutral than the disgusting pitchers park it was in 2009.

    The record states that with the new dimensions Citi would have had 27 more homers last year.........17 of the 27 were hit by the Mets. Disadvantage? Uhhh no.

    The funny thing is I didnt see the report on how many sliding triples with a big cloud of dust were hit. Nobody ran that report. How come?

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawman
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    Unfortunately the fence contractors are probably the best players that have stepped on the Met oufield in quite some time now. Also probably doing the most valuable job.

    OK that's a good one - props for that line Pauly!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by trepye View Post
    Nuff said.... why is this such a surprise after his tenure here with the Mets?? He has advocated spending too similar amounts of $$ on two different off-seasons on fence contractors changing the home playing field (against the teams pitching strength prowess) as he has spend on the talent that plays in it (taking out D. Wrights gargantuan contract).

    He is HOOOORRIBLE. How much longer we are going to enable his dismal reign and keep attending to watch a putrid homefield product)??
    Unfortunately the fence contractors are probably the best players that have stepped on the Met oufield in quite some time now. Also probably doing the most valuable job.


    AND the GM should be????????????????????

    Fill in the blank.

    _____________________ will come here and will work with the Wilpons and their cost cutting at every turn and lead this team to a WS title.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 12-17-2014, 12:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • trepye
    replied
    Originally posted by mandrake View Post
    Counting only GMs with three or more years on the job in the ’90s, Sandy Alderson finished with the worst mark. Of all the general managers in his study, these were the bottom five beginning with the worst:

    Sandy Alderson, Athletics (1990-97) – 0.905
    Ed Lynch, Cubs (1995-99) – 0.904
    Fred Claire, Dodgers (1990-98) – 0.903
    Bob Gebhard, Rockies (1993-99) – 0.889
    Herk Robinson, Royals (1991-99) – 0.879
    “Alderson is probably a surprise here,” he writes. “Alderson is known as the godfather of the modern sabermetric-savvy GMs, but the record is what it is. The A’s had a lot of bad years in the ‘nineties, and they spent far more on payroll than they really needed to.”[/I]
    Nuff said.... why is this such a surprise after his tenure here with the Mets?? He has advocated spending too similar amounts of $$ on two different off-seasons on fence contractors changing the home playing field (against the teams pitching strength prowess) as he has spend on the talent that plays in it (taking out D. Wrights gargantuan contract).

    He is HOOOORRIBLE. How much longer we are going to enable his dismal reign and keep attending to watch a putrid homefield product)??

    Leave a comment:


  • Strawman
    replied
    Originally posted by mandrake View Post
    The GM should be on the same talking points as the manager. Like last year was a 90 win team (really???) . It's like Sandy gave Terry a 90 win team ,and Terry comes up short. It would be better if Sandy didn't look like he is setting Terry up to fail.

    I agree that there are two sides of Sandy. The good baseball mind, and the egotist that seems to like to stab people in the back. The Mets can only win if they get everyone on board. hat includes the GM.
    Well, I haven't seen much of that good baseball mind in the past few years!

    Yeah they should be on the same page. Don't they have meetings? Isn't Alderson big on running a tight ship? Isn't that his "skill set?"

    Though in Sandy's defense, I kind of agree with him on this matter - if there's even a chance Ruben Tejada is going to be the SS, let's just throw in the towel now. If the Mets don't acquire a better choice, Flores is pretty obviously the starter. His range is Jeteresque (which is to say, limited), strong arm, very reliable glove (tops in MLB on 'routine' grounders) - and we can hope the bat is a big one. With Tejada we know....

    Leave a comment:


  • mandrake
    replied
    Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
    Welcome to the douche side of Alderson.

    Collins saying that there will be a competition for the position is a good thing. Alderson to come back with a douche answer like that is just typical.

    The Mets dont have a real MLB shortstop, so saying that they are going to line guys up around the block to compete is ok by me. Collins has be nothing but enthusiastic about 2015, and although he isnt Whitey Herzog he has been given a crap hand to play for the past 5 years.

    This organization can make a Christmas feel like a funeral. Its December 2014 and I am already growing tired of the 2015 Mets and their lack of action and eagerness to destroy whatever optimism the fan base has left.
    The GM should be on the same talking points as the manager. Like last year was a 90 win team (really???) . It's like Sandy gave Terry a 90 win team ,and Terry comes up short. It would be better if Sandy didn't look like he is setting Terry up to fail.

    I agree that there are two sides of Sandy. The good baseball mind, and the egotist that seems to like to stab people in the back. The Mets can only win if they get everyone on board. hat includes the GM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paulypal
    replied
    Originally posted by mandrake View Post
    Sandy Alderson also shot down statements made by Terry Collins suggesting that Ruben Tejada would be competing with Wilmer Flores for the starting shortstop job this Spring. “I guess conceptually it’s a possibility. They’ll both be there.”


    Is it asking too much for Sandy and Terry to be on the same page ?
    Welcome to the douche side of Alderson.

    Collins saying that there will be a competition for the position is a good thing. Alderson to come back with a douche answer like that is just typical.

    The Mets dont have a real MLB shortstop, so saying that they are going to line guys up around the block to compete is ok by me. Collins has be nothing but enthusiastic about 2015, and although he isnt Whitey Herzog he has been given a crap hand to play for the past 5 years.

    This organization can make a Christmas feel like a funeral. Its December 2014 and I am already growing tired of the 2015 Mets and their lack of action and eagerness to destroy whatever optimism the fan base has left.
    Last edited by Paulypal; 12-10-2014, 06:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mandrake
    replied
    Sandy Alderson also shot down statements made by Terry Collins suggesting that Ruben Tejada would be competing with Wilmer Flores for the starting shortstop job this Spring. “I guess conceptually it’s a possibility. They’ll both be there.”


    Is it asking too much for Sandy and Terry to be on the same page ?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X