Board 8 > ~MLB Discussion Topic 5~ i hate everything

(+) Yeah! (+)

and part of the issue is they CANT sign anyone. they just so happened to sign new players to 2-3 year deals last offseason (bruce, frazier, vargas) JUST SO HAPPENS the year before basically the biggest FA market in like MLB history at the exact positions where they'd have those kinds of needs. theres nothing they COULD even do next season. theyre blocked by those guys
---

and It's not pessimism. it's realism. it's trying to be smart about how your team operates and how basically everything they do is wrong. Trust me. I see it every day. Pessimism implies that there is some correct positive to be had. There is 0 reason to ever have any hope this team will be good so long as the Wilpons own the team.
---

certainly theres a good core of players there.

they're not going to be supported properly. they've had this great pitching core for 3 years now and have not once supported them with proper offense.

they won't have sufficient depth for them.

they're all insanely injury prone. there's no reason to believe they won't get hurt.

they won't make good bullpen signings.

i know this all for a fact because it's always the same.

they COULD get lucky, but theres no hope they'll be "good".
---

You never know, they could somehow bumble their way into the postseason again next year. Baseball can be weird. I get what you're saying though. I didn't mean to suggest you should do a total 180 on your stance on the Mets. I was optimistic about them this year and it turned out I was wrong. But the situation as of this moment at least looks somewhat more hopeful even if they've got ownership problems and other major hurdles to deal with.

But I'm not a Mets fan, I just like watching them. You are and you've been burned by them plenty of times before. So I understand.
---

Sure. That's what I mean by they could get lucky and make it in. Could happen to anyone. They have a good core like I said but they don't have the players or the means to get the players to support that core. And they won't with these owners. And further, these owners do all the things wrong to impede progress - like forcing Reyes into lineups, like forcing players back from injury too soon, forcing players to play through injuries, stealing team funds etc. Can a team still win lots of games despite that? I guess so, but not without a ton of luck.
---

An easy question I came across today-
You catch David Wright (or put in your favorite player here)'s home run in his final career game ever. Do you keep it, sell it, or give it back to him (for the usual kind of goodies you might get for that- a signed ball, etc)? This is easy for me- give it back to him, all I ask for is a picture with him and the ball (and that he signs the pic for me if I send it to him later). [mayyyyybe a bat or something too].

But a much harder one-
You catch a David Wright (or your favorite player) foul ball in his final career game. There is a kid nearby you who is sad, and wanted the foul ball. Do you give it to them?
I'm not seeking any kids out to give it to, but if l like used my height to get one from a kid behind me, or even if there was just one nearby who expressed sadness or something, I think I would have to... I'd at least take a pic of myself w the ball first, but it would be tough to give it up... in general I don't care about foul balls besides the pure act of catching them, but this one would obv have more meaning to it.
---

Wigs are you going to his final game?
---

of course! I asked my dad if he wanted to go, but he took like 2 hours to get back to me. I luckily was still able to get SROs from mets.com for like $30 (no actual sets left), and I checked 20 mins later and they were all sold out. The cheapest ones on the secondary market at the time were like 90 bucks for the upper deck/last row seats, so caught a break there.
---

^ this was all like right as he was having his press conference btw. So I tried to be quick on the draw
---

I still can't believe the Giants lost their first 11 games in September.

What a fucking clutch fail.
---

WiggumFan267 posted...

An easy question I came across today-
You catch David Wright (or put in your favorite player here)'s home run in his final career game ever. Do you keep it, sell it, or give it back to him (for the usual kind of goodies you might get for that- a signed ball, etc)? This is easy for me- give it back to him, all I ask for is a picture with him and the ball (and that he signs the pic for me if I send it to him later). [mayyyyybe a bat or something too].

But a much harder one-
You catch a David Wright (or your favorite player) foul ball in his final career game. There is a kid nearby you who is sad, and wanted the foul ball. Do you give it to them?
I'm not seeking any kids out to give it to, but if l like used my height to get one from a kid behind me, or even if there was just one nearby who expressed sadness or something, I think I would have to... I'd at least take a pic of myself w the ball first, but it would be tough to give it up... in general I don't care about foul balls besides the pure act of catching them, but this one would obv have more meaning to it.

I agree with you on both scenarios.
---

BTW re my comments before about next year. Don't get me entirely wrong. I'm excited about a lot of the young core and the things they have to offer. Guys like Nimmo, Conforto, Rosario, McNeil are all fun players to watch on offense. At least now. Same for the pitching. Like I trust deGrom to be consistent, but no one else can be. The mets pitching was mediocre to awful to start the year, besides deGrom. The offense was fine to start, then realllly tailed off in most of the middle months, and picked slightly back up lately Sure they look great now, but you can't ignore those months and just be like oh they looked good at the end we're good to go and be optimistic about it. "Ending strong" doesn't mean much more vs looking at the season at a whole. Sure it's better to trend upwards, but that just means they may have to do it over again, and deal with awfulness for 2-3 months , and that DOES matter. April and May matter just as much as August and September (unless you know you're out of it obv). I mostly think a lot of their success is not sustainable because we've seen the same players exert the same non-successfulness for a lot of the year. Guys made strides and improvements, but everyone is always prone to fluctuations in both directions, more the negative way. Starting bad and improving later is not a recipe for success.

But the Mets don't show strong year to year consistency for their players who were good one year but not the next. A lot of times it's because an injury (either shorter or longer term) leads to longer-term performance issues , or just general lack of performancy consistency. Or they'll get injured and then again, either not return, or return significantly affected by it. Just because they look good NOW doesn't mean they'll be good again. That's why you need to take advantage of it WHILE they look good - or premptively evaluate who is going for fall off and fill in depth properly. The Wilpons/Mets are always awful at this and prefer to never spend ANYTHING on depth. guys like Frazier and Bruce should be depth in a perfect world.
---

Well as I said, I was wrong about them this year, so I'm going into next year not having any major expectations. But the Wilpons are never letting go of the team. You can rant about them till your fingers bleed, but unfortunately the Mets are stuck with them.

And the thing about their performance recently is that they're pretty enjoyable to watch. Of course it helps when you know they're out of it.
---

Hamels allowed more runs in the first inning tonight than any full start as a Cub.
---

Yeah I'm just saying it's not a question of pessimism. It's just the way it is. Optimism would be short-sighted. I like to think I'm as optimistic as can be realistically expected at least, given the circumstances (which is - they could luck into being good).
---

Hopefully Yankees can complete the sweep tonight to make up for that 4 game series back in the beginning of August.
---

As far as the David Wright home run ball question, obviously return it for a signed bat/ball. You have a valuable souvenir, and are happy to exchange it for different one.

Foul ball, I keep it. Kids shouldn't be able to just act all sad to get stuff they want. It's one thing if David Wright flipped a ball to a kid and you grabbed it from him... a foul ball is just pure luck, and you like David Wright and would probably feel happy to think about the ball. I would imagine you could even get him to sign it at some point.

Here is my 'hypothetical'... if a team's division championship banner fell off a truck and you picked it up, would you return it to the team or try to hold it for ransom?

We had some guys near Boston run into this situation this week and they tried to hold it for ransom. And then the company that makes the banners just was like, OK we'll just do another one, so the guys returned it, hoping for good playoff tickets and they got nothing.
---

Probably just return it. I get why they wanted to see if they could get something for it, but it clearly didn't work out in this case.

Could have also kept it, but I imagine it's a huge banner so that may not be practical. Plus, it would sting if the Red Sox didn't end up winning the World Series. You'd be like "Hey check out my banner from that one year when the Red Sox almost won."
---

It's just an AL East banner, not a WS banner. Outside of Fenway's perimeter they put those sorts of things up. Inside the park are only pennants and WS.
---

I know but winning the AL East and then going to on to lose in the playoffs is still a disappointment. I guess the difference with this season though is the banner would commemorate their dominant over 100 win season.
---

In general we're spoiled enough now that we don't care about the 100 wins as a fanbase. I think it's cool, but in the past 16 years we've had some ridiculous achievements. And we all know that David Price/Chris Sale are different in July than they are in October. It's cool to have banners around the outside of the stadium for every major accomplishment but no one is going to think about the great season if David Price is giving up 7 runs in 2 2/3 in October. We're just going to think "I wish David Price would opt out"
---

neonreaper posted...

We had some guys near Boston run into this situation this week and they tried to hold it for ransom. And then the company that makes the banners just was like, OK we'll just do another one, so the guys returned it, hoping for good playoff tickets and they got nothing.

Return it to them but ask for something nice and if they don't or give something lame back, make a fuss on social media.
---

also hey

guess what

The Mets are literally only the Mets.

"Wilmer Flores has been diagnosed with early onset arthritis in both knees."

the combination of incompetence with being wildly cursed is truly something.
---

ARTHRITIS!!!! at fucking 27.

what the fucking fuck.

of course career-debilitating injuries only happen to our franchise players or beloved folk heroes.
---

Seriously? Come on Mets.
---

Blue Jays really killed that spark of hope that the Rays had. 7 run rally in the 9th for 9-8 win.

Also it's been brought to my attention that Buck Showalter has 666 wins with the Orioles. Nice.
---

Well Wigs the Mets just might finish off the Nats after escaping the 11th

LET'S SEE
---

Come on Mets, you can do it.

GET BIRDMAN COFFEE!

(Does anyone else even remember this reference)
---

Too bad Yankees couldn't sweep. I do have a little more hope for them now in a potential ALDS, but the Red Sox will still probably beat them there. Mookie has been destroying the Yankees this year. And Sale will probably do well in the postseason too with how much rest he's been getting.

Would be nice if the Red Sox get destroyed in the playoffs though. If the Yankees can't win the Wild Card game the A's better go all the way to the World Series.
---

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

If the Yankees can't win the Wild Card game the A's better go all the way to the World Series.

Fuck that

Reg posted...

GeneralKenobi85 posted...

If the Yankees can't win the Wild Card game the A's better go all the way to the World Series.

Fuck that

Well of the other three AL teams, two of them have already been there the last two years and I don't know why anyone would want to see the Red Sox there unless they're a Red Sox fan.

A's-Brewers World Series would be neat.
---

Yes hello I'm a fan of an AL West team that is neither the As nor the Astros

Reg posted...

Yes hello I'm a fan of an AL West team that is neither the As nor the Astros

Ah okay, I could see that being an issue then. Mariners or Angels? Or Rangers even?
---

Let's just say that last year my NL team of choice was the Dodgers, and it's the Cubs this year.

https://www.mlb.com/mets/news/jacob-degrom-should-be-national-league-mvp/c-295265432

Also AL MVP should be Mike Trout. At an absolute bare minimum Top 2. It's crazy he's being ignored.

He is literally having one of the best 15 (offensive) seasons in MLB of all time (since divisional play began in 1969):
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.fcgi?id=SCxkp
---

Also also:
Clayton Kershaw, in his 2014 MVP campaign: 0.2 fWAR over the best position player
Jacob deGrom, in 2018: Freaking 2.0 fWAR over the best position player
---

LOL mets

Earlier in the year I thought it should be Mookie. I still think he'll probably end up winning it but I don't think anyone would really complain if Trout wins it again.

deGrom winning MVP would be crazy. As I said previously, I don't particularly like pitchers getting the MVP. But the article made some good points. I don't think I'd have a major problem with him winning. Would be a little weird though since his team has completely failed to actually capitalize off his performances. I suppose in deGrom's case here it's not about giving the award to the player who's been the most valuable to his team. It's simply about giving it to the best player.
---

That's what I think MVP should be - simply the best player. The "Value" thing leads to a ton of ambiguousness and you can argue what that means, but at the end of the team, if you think it means something complicated like "best player on a winning team" or "elevated the team from a losing team to a winning team", why would you want to vote on a complicated facet such as that? Isn't it a lot more sensical to just vote on "who is the best player?"

If deGrom were up against the AL MVP Powerhouse like Betts, Trout, Martinez, etc I don't think he should win - but to me, he's a clear cut above guys like yelich, baez, carpenter, freeman, etc. When it comes down to it, who would you most want to have on your team (needs, contracts, etc aside) - the 2018 version of Yelich, Baez, or deGrom?

Those guys have all had great years - but the only player you can say has had a completely dominant, fantastic, and HISTORICALLY GREAT year in the NL is deGrom. Period.
---

(I would vote Scherzer and maybe even Nola above those players too FWIW).
---

WiggumFan267 posted...

That's what I think MVP should be - simply the best player. The "Value" thing leads to a ton of ambiguousness and you can argue what that means, but at the end of the team, if you think it means something complicated like "best player on a winning team" or "elevated the team from a losing team to a winning team", why would you want to vote on a complicated facet such as that? Isn't it a lot more sensical to just vote on "who is the best player?"

If deGrom were up against the AL MVP Powerhouse like Betts, Trout, Martinez, etc I don't think he should win - but to me, he's a clear cut above guys like yelich, baez, carpenter, freeman, etc. When it comes down to it, who would you most want to have on your team (needs, contracts, etc aside) - the 2018 version of Yelich, Baez, or deGrom?

Those guys have all had great years - but the only player you can say has had a completely dominant, fantastic, and HISTORICALLY GREAT year in the NL is deGrom. Period.

But that's what makes the MVP different from the Cy Young and the Silver Slugger awards. It is literally the Most Valuable Player, not the Best Statistical Player. And while you try to muddle the definition of value, I think the baseball world has developed a clear understanding on what that term means. A player who delivered great value to his team's success. Having the best stats is definitely a byproduct and huge deciding factor in deciding the award recipient, but it's not the only factor. That's what the Cy Young and Silver Sluggers are for. There is another element with the MVP that players on teams that are not contending simply do not have.
---

Trout and deGrom should win the MVPs and it's not particularly close imo
---

Actually replace Trout with Luke Voit
---

HarrietTubgirl posted...

Actually replace Trout with Luke Voit

Luke "Mike Trout" Voit you mean.
---

I think if you want to think of value that way, you would want something like "what players give your team the best chances to win?" Right? Who adds the most value? That would mean looking at stuff like Win Probability Added.

And the Silver Slugger is not a heralded award, its just kind of there but no one really cares about it. The 2 most heralded awards are Cy Young and MVP. I think there's an award for best overall hitter in the league (Hank Aaron award maybe? I don't know.). People definitely do have different definitions of value though which is why some take it one way and won't vote for players on losing teams for that reason, and some will. An award with these definitions has made its way to the forefront as basically the most meaningful award.

Shouldn't the most meaningful award in the league simply go to the best player?
---

I guess we'll never know how DeGrom would've performed had the Mets actually been contending for anything this year.

DeGrom had an outstanding year. Give him the Cy Young. He deserves it. But leave the MVP to someone who actually used their statistical prowess to propel their team into the postseason. The NL field may be a little underwhelming this year, but there are still plenty of worthy candidates.
---

Just to give a little perspective, since 1995, we've had only 6 MVP winners out of 46 winners come from teams that did not make the playoffs. And none since 2008. That's a clip of less than 8%, and in the near future, we are talking about none in the last decade. It should also be noted that 5 out of 6 of those players were on teams with winning records, some just missing the posteason. Only one was on a team with a losing record. Think of that. Just one MVP winner since 1995 from a team with a losing record. Not to mention that pitchers almost never win the MVP. Only 3 since 1992 have won!

Being on a contending team is important to the MVP voters. It's just how it is.
---

guffguy89 posted...

Being on a contending team is important to the MVP voters. It's just how it is.

just contending isnt necessarily enough either. If you play on the west coast your team actually has to make the playoffs unless you are miles better than everyone else.
---

eh, my stats are incorrect. They didnt account for some recent winners (Mike Trout). Never try to research something on your lunch break.
---

guffguy89 posted...

eh, my stats are incorrect. They didnt account for some recent winners (Mike Trout). Never try to research something on your lunch break.

When you start contending for best player of all time the rules of mere mortals no longer apply.

It is still impressive how consistently awful the Angels manage to be while employing Mike Trout.
---