Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sandy Alderson Thread

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

  • Originally posted by trepye View Post
    So much hyperemotional Efroth sprayed all over, where do I start....




    A team has to have a balance between legit power hitters, speedsters, contact hitters and a player that can work a count. Power was seen as David hit 29 on a team that was 14 games over 0.500 at home in 2010, Tulowitzki hit 4 homeruns in a 4 game series. Homeruns where possible in the previous configurations. It was just that they where well hit balls. Imagine that, hitting a homerun when real contact is made not an excuse-me flyball going over a short fence

    Thats my point we need REAL power hitters that will hit them at home and on the road. Not glorified flyball hitters that exploit short fencing.


    Which brings me to this fallacy...




    When has a power hitter not gone to a team because of the ballpark??? Cite an example, any.

    As far as the Wilpons I do believe that they wanted to create a team that was similar to the ones that are in the World Series right now. The Tigers and the Giant built their teams that through their large ballparks and were able to use this differentiation in fields dimension to create throwback teams that were fundamentaly sound hitters and had great pitching. The owners of these teams stuck with it (albeit there was an alteration in Detroit but was not as radical as the one in Citifield), but Aldy got the best of the Wilpons lack of conviction as he seemingly wanted to recreate the Orioles, Blue Jays who hit alot of homeruns through their cute little band boxes, but not much else.

    World series is gonna be lotta fun to watch teams who stuck with their ballparks characters and executed their long term plans.
    Lets talk fallacy. David Wright hit 29 homers in 2010...very true. If you took 5 minutes to look at the splits you would see that he hit 17 on the road and 12 at home. Hardly the home run threat.

    Nobody is asking for Citizens Bank park, but Citi in its original form was just plain stupid.

    To answer your question about home run hitters not going to a overly pitcher friendly park....well what player is going to come out and say "I am not going to XXXXX because its too much of a pitcher park"? No hitter is going to say that...he could think it, but he will never say it.

    How many players complained about Citi Field in its original form? Sheffield, Chipper Jones, Wright. I am sure those players dont want a band box, but you want something that plays at the very least fair. I know as a fan I want a park that plays that way. Didnt Mauer and Morneau comment on how ridiculous Target Field is?

    My point is when a team builds a stadium and screws there already in house signed "face of the franchise" type of players it just lets you know how out of touch management/ownership is with their own team. What happened in Minnesota with Morneau and Mauer is off the charts ridiculous.

    It is going to be a great World Series, but as you stated Detroit changed their dimensions...so they didnt really stick with their ballpark ...did they?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjsallstars View Post
      I do not need the Wall Street Journal and NY times to tell me whats relevant and irrelevent in my life. The Mets are relevant as far as I am concerned and judging from your 4599 posts they are relevant for you also. I do not accept losing but I like to live in a realistic world. I realize what the current state of the Mets are and still choose to root for them. I root for them because I am a Mets fan and believe anything else would be disloyal. I also believe taking "time off" from rooting for my team when they do not win or come upon hard times is not the right thing to do. I still enjoy going to games and can actually enjoy all a ballgame has to offer even when the team I am rooting for loses more times then it wins. For me it is still fun and I am also interested in what moves they make during a offseason but I guess I have the patience to actually wait until the deals are made before I pass judgement if they are good or bad or I may actually wait a long period of time to see how a move works out. I also give a front office the benefit of the doubt that they know more about there jobs then I know about there jobs and realize there may be factors I do not have knowledge of that effect there decisions.
      Bullseye.

      Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
      And of course you contradict yourself.

      "Sign the right players"......Unless your going to sign 9 Ichiro's the right players also include a heavy dose of power hitting. I repeat POWER HITTING. So tell me because you seem to know.........what power hitters are coming to a park that you cant hit homers in?

      Your response is going to be then we dont need power hitters. The team should be designed around speed and defense. I know thats your next thought because thats the knee jerk incorrect response that you get from people that dont look back at history.

      The best teams that have ever been assembled had a heavy dose of power. I am not saying you need 6 guys that can hit 50 homers but you need power to win. I will use our own Mets. Their best teams ever by far was the 1985-1990 teams. They had power. They were able to hit homers (even in Shea which was a pitchers park). They were able to change the game with one swing. This is 2012 not 1912.

      Citi Field in its orginal form was doomed from the start. I didnt just have this epiphany. If you go back to when the Gates of Hell opened in 2009 I was claiming that there is no big time power hitter in their right mind going to sign here.

      I saved the best for last because I found this to be hysterically funny, and frightfully psychotic all at the same time:

      "This mans philosophies are not beffiting of the vision that the Wilpons had of this team"

      Do you really believe Wilpon has a vision for this teams success? At any point in time do you believe that Wilpon had a vision for this teams success? After what we have witnessed in the past 6 years you can not honestly tell me that you believe that. Further more to blame Alderson for Wilpons lack of vision is so off the charts stupid that it defies logic. Yes even internet forum logic.
      Put it in the books.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjsallstars View Post
        I agree with most of what you say except for two major points. Citi is far from a bandbox and the Mets are currently developing some pretty good young pitchers which well fit well into a FAIRLY configured ballpark
        I never called it a bandbox. What Im saying is that through his rhetoic Aldy want to turn it into that.

        PP:Comerica is still 430+ at its deepest points. It is still in essense a huge field. Citifield was severely shrunk to the benefit of the visitors.
        :lightbulb:Definition of a homerun: When the baseball gets hit to a DISTANCE that the fielder cannot get it into homeplate before the batter rounds the bases.

        Associated Press -- Citi Field's smaller dimensions helped opponents more than the New York Mets.
        Thanks Sandy Alderson.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjsallstars View Post
          I do not need the Wall Street Journal and NY times to tell me whats relevant and irrelevent in my life. The Mets are relevant as far as I am concerned and judging from your 4599 posts they are relevant for you also. I do not accept losing but I like to live in a realistic world. I realize what the current state of the Mets are and still choose to root for them. I root for them because I am a Mets fan and believe anything else would be disloyal. I also believe taking "time off" from rooting for my team when they do not win or come upon hard times is not the right thing to do. I still enjoy going to games and can actually enjoy all a ballgame has to offer even when the team I am rooting for loses more times then it wins. For me it is still fun and I am also interested in what moves they make during a offseason but I guess I have the patience to actually wait until the deals are made before I pass judgement if they are good or bad or I may actually wait a long period of time to see how a move works out. I also give a front office the benefit of the doubt that they know more about there jobs then I know about there jobs and realize there may be factors I do not have knowledge of that effect there decisions.
          Disloyal? Nobody said you had to root for someone else. Beside, loyalty is usually a two way street, whether it is in a marriage, or a business, etc. People can basically root for anyone....rooting for the Giants in the playoffs is not like someone cheating on their spouse.

          Many of us on this forum have been supporting the Mets since the 1960's. My first game was in 1968; other go back to the 1962 season. Outside of the M Donald Grant era, for me this is the lowest point in rooting for the Mets. And I just don't see any end to this.

          You have every right giving the front office the benefit of the doubt. I see 4 straight years of losing 90,83,85,88 games and I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. I think Fred and Jeff have no idea how to run a baseball club, not based on what I would hypothetically do, but based on the other MLB front offices and owners. There's a reason the Angels are named the most fan friendly MLB team, and the Mets are not. There's a reason Mets fans sit home and root against the Yankees every October, instead of rooting FOR their team. There's a reason why the Giants and Cards played a fantastic series, and the Mets did not make the postseason.

          Is 26 years without a WS championship long enough?:gt Do you really believe that this team needs to 'stay the course' ?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by trepye View Post
            Citifield was severely shrunk to the benefit of the visitors.
            Your seemingly correct. Do you know why your correct? Probably not.

            Its because the other teams have better players. Very simple. Why dont the Mets play in Yellowstone park so no opposing player ever hits the ball over a fence. That would be great, then we can really utilize the Wilpons vision of this team. My Lord. Maybe that would make the "I loved our big ball park" crowd happy. Certain areas of the Citi were just plain stupid. Was it in impossible to homer in? No. Now we just need the players to play there. Duda, Thole, etc are not the answer.

            Reducing the distances from ridiculous to pitcher friendly alone will not make them a better team. Alderson likes power.....so do I. I am 100% on board with it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mandrake View Post
              Disloyal? Nobody said you had to root for someone else. Beside, loyalty is usually a two way street, whether it is in a marriage, or a business, etc. People can basically root for anyone....rooting for the Giants in the playoffs is not like someone cheating on their spouse.

              Many of us on this forum have been supporting the Mets since the 1960's. My first game was in 1968; other go back to the 1962 season. Outside of the M Donald Grant era, for me this is the lowest point in rooting for the Mets. And I just don't see any end to this.

              You have every right giving the front office the benefit of the doubt. I see 4 straight years of losing 90,83,85,88 games and I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. I think Fred and Jeff have no idea how to run a baseball club, not based on what I would hypothetically do, but based on the other MLB front offices and owners. There's a reason the Angels are named the most fan friendly MLB team, and the Mets are not. There's a reason Mets fans sit home and root against the Yankees every October, instead of rooting FOR their team. There's a reason why the Giants and Cards played a fantastic series, and the Mets did not make the postseason.

              Is 26 years without a WS championship long enough?:gt Do you really believe that this team needs to 'stay the course' ?
              Yes, I do believe the Mets need to "stay the course". Now let me define the term stay the course because it seems like certain things I write are either conveniently ignored or twisted around. My meaning of staying the course is to formulate a plan and stick with it. I believe the plan that the front office/ownership has is to rid itself of overpaid contracts while allowing young players to develop and after thoroughly accessing a player decide to build with them or trade them for other needed pieces. I think the Mets are not even half way to the point where this, in my opinion 'prudent' plan will pay dividends. They still need to get Bay and Santana off the books to have flexibility to take on productive salary. They have determined a budget and so far have stuck to it, Another prudent thing to do. They have not went out and picked up over priced players at a trade deadline to appease fans and maybe, just maybe give there young players a false hope that they could contend but now are stuck with another overpriced player. Believe it or not, for the first time in a long time they are running there business the right way. It may take time for the work to show up in wins and losses but they are running the team like other franchises who have been able to sustain a good team without always overpaying to do it. I ask all the fans from the 60s (I am a fan from the 70s, I will not take credit for rooting for the 69 Mets when I was 3) would you run your business, personal finances, etc. like you are asking the Wilpon's to KNOWING the state of of the Mets the last few years? So I do not expect the doomsayers to agree with me but how can anyone who is thinking levelheaded at all not realize that this is what the Mets HAVE to do a this time. I am not saying we as fans should be thrilled with it, I am just saying its reality and if you cannot find any good reasons to watch or go to games maybe the time spent on bashing the team and asking for things that currently will not and can not happen could be put to more usefull purposes.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
                Its because the other teams have better players.
                Or maybe Citifield looks more like their own homepark and they are more comfortable hitting thus less homefield advantage for Mets; check out the OPS' for the last 4 years...

                Mets: 0.679 (last in NL BTW, 2012), 0.726 (2011), 0.718 (2010), 0.748 (2009)
                Visitors: 0.694 (2012), 0.702 (2011), 0.669 (2010), 0.719 (2009)

                Like I said, the visitors are thanking Aldy. For the first time, not just since the team moved to Citifield but since the early 2000's the OPS has shifted to the visiting teams favor over the home team when they play in Flushing.
                Last edited by trepye; 10-23-2012, 11:02 AM.
                :lightbulb:Definition of a homerun: When the baseball gets hit to a DISTANCE that the fielder cannot get it into homeplate before the batter rounds the bases.

                Associated Press -- Citi Field's smaller dimensions helped opponents more than the New York Mets.
                Thanks Sandy Alderson.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by trepye View Post
                  Or maybe Citifield looks more like their own homepark and they are more comfortable hitting thus less homefield advantage for Mets; check out the OPS' for the last 4 years...

                  Mets: 0.679 (last in NL BTW, 2012), 0.726 (2011), 0.718 (2010), 0.748 (2009)
                  Visitors: 0.694 (2012), 0.702 (2011), 0.669 (2010), 0.719 (2009)

                  Like I said, the visitors are thanking Aldy. For the first time, not just since the team moved to Citifield but since the early 2000's the OPS has shifted to the visiting teams favor over the home team when they play in Flushing.
                  So what does that tell you?

                  What it tells me is that the Mets have an inferior team to their opponents. The record, and the standings should tell us this.

                  Their home park has very little to do with the lack of talent that they have. They are inferior at home and the road because...............they are inferior. Teams with the biggest home field advantage are the teams with more talent. If Justin Verlander pitched and you were hitting....it could be in your living room it wouldnt matter. Very simple talent wins....road ....home. Its very over rated. Look how many road games were won in the playoffs this year.

                  There is no real magic to this. Its baseball. They are not a good team and havent been....so how can your statistical results show you anything other than that. Its a fact. Your looking for an excuse to somehow blame Alderson for something else. Its really a lame attempt. Really lame.
                  Last edited by Paulypal; 10-23-2012, 11:14 AM.

                  Comment


                  • The ballpark was fine - the dimensions didn't need to be altered.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by CokeMachineGlow View Post
                      The ballpark was fine - the dimensions didn't need to be altered.
                      Here, we agree. I liked the old way, as designed. It was distinctive. Two dozen more homers ... what a waste of money, effort, and overblown publicity.
                      Cleon Jones catches a deep fly ball in F. Scott Fitzgerald's Valley of the Ashes, and a second-grader smiles in front of the black and white television.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
                        They are not a good team and havent been....so how can your statistical results show you anything other than that. Its a fact. Your looking for an excuse to somehow blame Alderson for something else. Its really a lame attempt. Really lame.
                        Well I (and at least two newspaper articles) gave you cold hard numbers that indicate the changes undoubtedly benefits the visiting team, can you at least try to reciprocate in equal objective numerical values instead of simple opinionated barbs? Give your "opinions" some weight and give us some cold hard numbers. Alderson has wasted Mets $$ on shorter fences, I see no objective evidence to the contrary.
                        Last edited by trepye; 10-23-2012, 01:54 PM.
                        :lightbulb:Definition of a homerun: When the baseball gets hit to a DISTANCE that the fielder cannot get it into homeplate before the batter rounds the bases.

                        Associated Press -- Citi Field's smaller dimensions helped opponents more than the New York Mets.
                        Thanks Sandy Alderson.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Strawman View Post
                          Here, we agree. I liked the old way, as designed. It was distinctive. Two dozen more homers ... what a waste of money, effort, and overblown publicity.
                          But....they could sell some 'all you can eat and drink' party seats in LF. Maybe that paid for the changes.

                          And I personally am glad they got rid of the Model zone....most of it, anyway.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Paulypal View Post
                            So what does that tell you?

                            What it tells me is that the Mets have an inferior team to their opponents. The record, and the standings should tell us this.

                            Their home park has very little to do with the lack of talent that they have. They are inferior at home and the road because...............they are inferior. Teams with the biggest home field advantage are the teams with more talent.
                            If Justin Verlander pitched and you were hitting....it could be in your living room it wouldnt matter. Very simple talent wins....road ....home. Its very over rated. Look how many road games were won in the playoffs this year.
                            Bingo bold.

                            Originally posted by CokeMachineGlow View Post
                            The ballpark was fine - the dimensions didn't need to be altered.
                            Originally posted by Strawman View Post
                            Here, we agree. I liked the old way, as designed. It was distinctive. Two dozen more homers ... what a waste of money, effort, and overblown publicity.
                            Originally posted by trepye View Post
                            Well I (and at least two newspaper articles) gave you cold hard numbers that indicate the changes undoubtedly benefits the visiting team, can you at least try to reciprocate in equal objective numerical values instead of simple opinionated barbs? Give your "opinions" some weight and give us some cold hard numbers. Alderson has wasted Mets $$ on shorter fences, I see no objective evidence to the contrary.
                            I, for one, am glad they altered the dimensions to be more "fair" to the players. I genuinely don't need cold hard numbers to recognize big and small ballpark dimensions. CitiField is no bandbox, but it's also no longer a cruel joke like the one in Miami.

                            I also don't need cold hard numbers to tell me that nothing gets changed nowhere no how without the owners backing.


                            Originally posted by mandrake View Post
                            But....they could sell some 'all you can eat and drink' party seats in LF. Maybe that paid for the changes.

                            And I personally am glad they got rid of the Model zone....most of it, anyway.
                            I tend to agree.
                            Put it in the books.

                            Comment


                            • You are right the Wilpons were in on this change, but I really do believe that they liked the idea of a big ballpark. Until they got lousy advise from Alderson. I really do believe that they were on to something with the large dimensions, like I said, look at the current 2 world series teams. Aldy was even warned that these changes where going to impact the Mets home field advantage and these owners couldnt just go with their instinct and fell for the chirpings of an American League GM.


                              September 24, 2011, 11:53 am

                              Actually, Citi Field Is Not That Bad for the MetsBy HOWARD MEGDAL
                              It appears that three seasons of pinning the Mets' offensive problems on the ballpark have finally led to action. General Manager Sandy Alderson said last week that the team would decide next month about adjusting the dimensions of the widely criticized Citi Field, and "If we do something, it won't be subtle."

                              As Manager Terry Collins said: "It's very difficult to play here if you're an offensive player. Especially if you're a guy who's supposed to be driving in runs. It's a tough place to play. If there are some adjustments made, I think that would help. I think it would certainly help to get some of our guys to relax. I'm not denying it won't. I think the park gets in the mind of hitters."

                              But the only hitters it seems to affect are the visitors. The park has not depressed the Mets' offense and has been a secret weapon for their pitchers.

                              Entering the final homestand of 2011, Citi Field ranked 24th of the 30 major league ballparks in Park Factor runs per game. Park factor is simple: it is the average total number of runs scored in a team's home games divided by that of the team's road games.

                              Why does this matter? Because the aspect of play that has consistently led to Citi Field's playing as a below-average run environment is not the team's offense. It is how well the team's pitching staff uses the park.

                              "When we pitch at Citi, we at least know, 'O.K., he's really got to get this to get me,' " Dillon Gee said. "So it gives us a little bit more confidence."

                              Before a recent slump that coincided with a 1-8 homestand, the 2011 Mets had team on-base plus slugging percentages of .742 at Citi Field, .718 on the road. (They are essentially even now: .726 at home, .725 away.) They hit 45 home runs at home, 58 on the road, and they had played six more road games than home games. So their offensive output is about the same on the road and at home, though that is mostly a result of recent play, and will probably revert to form.

                              Mets pitchers this season, on the other hand, have been far more effective at home than on the road. They have allowed a .699 O.P.S. at Citi Field and a .784 O.P.S. on the road. In 81 road games, Mets pitchers have allowed 89 home runs. In 75 home games, they have allowed just 54 home runs.

                              These statistics are in line with previous seasons. In 2010, Mets hitters had a .718 O.P.S. at Citi Field, .677 away. Mets pitchers allowed a .669 O.P.S. at home, .779 away. In 2009, when Citi Field opened, Mets hitters' O.P.S. was .748 at home, .711 on the road. And Mets pitchers allowed a .719 O.P.S. at home, .801 away.

                              It is true that almost all teams hit better at home than on the road, but Citi Field does not cut into that advantage.

                              Since they began play at Citi Field, the Mets have a .731 O.P.S. at home, .704 on the road. That is an O.P.S. advantage of 27 points, compared with 37 for the National League over all. That is a negligible difference, largely caused by the recent offensive woes. (Take out the previous homestand, and the Mets' advantage is virtually identical to that of the league.)

                              But Mets pitchers have a huge edge over the typical advantage pitchers have at home. From 2009-11, Mets pitchers have allowed a . 696 O.P.S. at Citi Field and a .788 O.P.S. on the road. That is a 92-point advantage, compared with 42 points for that of the league. The Mets pitchers' 50-point O.P.S. advantage is greater than the difference between Ben Zobrist's good 2011 season for Tampa Bay and Jose Reyes's great one for the Mets.

                              Any changes to, say, the outfield walls would affect both the offense and pitching at Citi Field. But the current setup appears to have little to no effect on the Mets' offense, while providing a huge advantage to the pitching staff.

                              Statistically, the Mets have a marked home-field advantage. But if they want more offense, they need to field a better offensive team.


                              http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...-for-the-mets/
                              :lightbulb:Definition of a homerun: When the baseball gets hit to a DISTANCE that the fielder cannot get it into homeplate before the batter rounds the bases.

                              Associated Press -- Citi Field's smaller dimensions helped opponents more than the New York Mets.
                              Thanks Sandy Alderson.

                              Comment


                              • To recap on the "new" fences:

                                1. They helped the opponents score more runs.

                                2. Dickey didn't like it and said so.

                                3. Wright wasn't affected in any real way.

                                4. The Mets didn't hit better.

                                5. Argument about free agents not "wanting to come to Citi" not valid - because we don't sign any.

                                6. They removed a home-field advantage to conform to some arbitrary ideal of "fairness"

                                7. They spoiled the design of the stadium (at least in LF, where a rickety temporary scaffolding passes for a "party deck")

                                8. They have just as many - if not more - hideous ads on them

                                Seems like a good deal for our GM!
                                Cleon Jones catches a deep fly ball in F. Scott Fitzgerald's Valley of the Ashes, and a second-grader smiles in front of the black and white television.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X