nmigliore

I'm sure I'm in the minority here but I don't think the Cup winner should be considered tainted or tarnished. The season itself is what, 85% or 86% complete by most teams? If a winner somehow comes from a team that traditionally wouldn't have made it, they'll have to win more than 16 playoff games to do so. The things I don't like about this proposed format is I feel like 24 teams is 3 or 4 too many and I especially think the seeding for who plays who out of the play-in round is weird (eg: #1 seed playing winner of #8 vs #9; in my opinion, should be the lowest advancing seed to face #1). According to Hockey Reference, these are the playoff odds (when season paused) of the 8 extra teams sneaking in: CBJ: 33.6% FLA: 37.9% NYR: 21.8% MTL: 0.1% WPG: 57% MIN: 48.9% ARI: 13% CHI: 2.5% I think the bone to pick here is with the bottom two in each conference (NYR, MTL, ARI and CHI). MTL and CHI getting in looks especially dumb.

With this proposed 24-team playoff format, has there been any word on the implications of conditional draft picks? If the Coyotes beat the Preds in what may be some kind of best-of-5 play-in series, does that count as winning a playoff round and thus turning the 2021 3rd rounder into a 2nd? Vancouver makes the cut here, does that technically mean they are in the playoffs and thus we get their 2020 1st rounder? Would think the answer to these would be "yes" but who knows, maybe the league will decide these aforementioned playoff parameters only kick in once we reach the traditional round of 16 teams?

I've been reading Stan Fischler's Devils Over The Decades series on the Devils website and a lot of the recent chapters have been about the 1988 team. When you read about some of these games, it makes you want to watch them, especially when they were well before your time (I was born in 1991 and didn't become interesting in Devils/hockey until 1998). Would love to see some of these big games (regular season and playoff), especially this one referenced vs the Rangers featuring a Pat Verbeek penalty shot: https://www.nhl.com/devils/news/devils-over-the-decades-ch-15---showdown-with-the-rangers/c-313503838?tid=277567796 Hell, I would settle even for just the Blackhawks finale but all I could find is highlights via YouTube.

Just listened to this, it's incredible. The stories are just pure gold. Did they ever do a part 2 with him yet? The one I listened to was from December.

No worries, just messing around - it's been so long since I have teased you. I think it's silly to be down on him - the team as a whole stunk but more specific to Hughes there's clear evidence of bad shooting luck (to some degree) and I don't think the fact he was literally the youngest player in the NHL last season should be overlooked.

That's an interesting note since, by the numbers (look away, CR!), Hughes had the largest negative variance in goals to expected goals in 5v5 play which could be due to bad luck and/or poor finishing/shooting skill.

On mobile it's Pause Binge > Classic Games. It's honestly not much, though. I think you're looking in the right area because the Canes/Devs game is listed there, but there's about 7 or 8 other classic games if you scroll left or right. I will say some of them are funky - the Leafs/Kings Game 6 of '93 is more like bits and pieces of Games 5 and 6, not one full game; God knows why they don't have Game 7 but I found it later on YouTube. And when I clicked one of the Wings/Caps '98 games, the camera angle was awful. Since posting this I found a YT channel of someone called Serg72 and he has tons of games uploaded there. Without looking right now I think the NHL has a channel on YT for classic games (or it's a playlist on the actual NHL one).

Not necessarily via NHLN but the NHL app, I've enjoyed watching some classic games lately. For one, it's so weird watching 1990s hockey compared to the modern era; the game feels so much slower, goalies look SO small in net and the amount of hooking/grabbing/tackling/whatever and getting away with it is incredible... but it brings me back to my childhood. Just recently watched Mario destroying the Rangers (he made it look so effortless) and the Kings/Leafs playoff series from 1993 (I don't know how nor why but I had a VHS tape of the 1992-93 Leafs season that I must've watched 100 times as a kid).

I love David Wright, he's my favorite New York Met of all time (you may snicker, but bare in mind my generation).... but yes, it's time to hang 'em up. The last 3-4 years have been sad to watch, it just needs to end.

Philly will definitely be more competitive this season; I don't think they're quite good enough to sneak into the WC discussion, but I agree with the idea that they could flirt with .500. To me, the big battle in the NL will revolve around the 2nd WC spot. The Dodgers, Cubs, and Nats are in a tier above everyone; I would say the Cardinals are alone in a tier below that trio and the WC favorites*; after that... the Giants, D-Backs, Mets, Rockies, and Brewers all profile similarly - something between 81 and 86 wins. * - The Cardinals are very easy to overlook. They don't really have much star power (only four players project to be worth => 3 WAR and only one => 4 WAR), but they're just very solid all over. Every starting position player and rotation spot looks at least average to above average for them, and their bullpen looks good too.

Yeah, even in those pretty good 2008 and 2010 seasons, Pelf had some good fortune going his way: 2008: 89 ERA-, 106 xFIP- 2010: 94 ERA-, 108 xFIP- It's not like he was "bad" in those years by the advanced metrics, but they did see him more as a slightly below league average starter whereas by ERA he looked above average. I think one season that's so easy to forget is 2012; it was only 3 starts, but I remember Big Pelf looking like a changed man in the spring, he came out of the gate that season throwing harder, and (again - super small sample size alert) the underlying numbers in those 3 starts were pretty damn good. Would things have gone differently for him had he not gotten hurt? Probably not, but you never know. Also, Pelf retiring is starting to make ME feel old. It feels like yesterday he was making his MLB debut.. wow.

Bobby Cox, in the same quote, also said the Mets have "Five No. 1 starters" so yeah... as much as I respect the old man, I'd take his opinion with a giant grain of salt. Edit: I'm a doofus... missed that Hasan already mentioned that bit. Sorry.

Thor was apparently popping 100 mph fastballs like nothing today... and then conducted his interview shirtless. Mike Puma‏Verified account @NYPost_Mets 2h2 hours ago More Syndergaard with two perfect innings. Threw 13 fastballs, of which 11 registered at least 100 mph. Please stay healthy young fella....

2017 Seth Lugo: 19.5 K%, 5.7 BB%, 3.95 FIP, 4.18 xFIP 2017 Jason Vargas: 17.7 K%, 7.7 BB%, 4.67 FIP, 4.94 xFIP Vargas threw more innings and posted a better ERA, but the rate stats/underlying numbers show a strong case for Lugo over Vargas. The Mets DID need to add another starter for depth, I'll give them that, and Steamer projects Vargas for roughly 2 WAR if he can throw a full compliment of innings. I'm just disappointed they chose him when cheaper, superior alternatives were out there (Jaime Garcia) and the contract basically guarantee he's locked into the rotation for 2 years.

Man, for a moment I completely forgot Jason Vargas was once a Met - traded to us by the Fish as part of that ill-fated Matt Lindstrom deal in the winter of 2006. Vargas largely spent 2007 in AAA but did make 2 starts for the Mets in 2007, one of them being one of my favorite Mets Classics: https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN200705170.shtml. A couple winters later, he was part of that wild 3 team trade that netted the Mets JJ Putz, Sean Green, and Jeremy Reed. This wreaks of Omar's involvement, heh.

Oof. Would've rather have signed Garcia, who signed for the same money but for 1 year and a club option. In terms of health and ability, Garcia > Vargas. I'm not sure Vargas is even as good as Seth Lugo.

I've said it before but I think the Mets really need someone to bridge the gap between deGrom and Thor to the highly questionable trio of Harvey, Matz, and Wheeler. I think it would be a mistake to enter the season banking on the questionables to stay healthy AND perform. I do like Lugo as a 6th starter option (and you could probably argue he belongs in the rotation right now) but the Mets need more depth than that.

I was just looking at some of the numbers of Cobb, Lynn, and Garcia over the past few seasons and was a bit surprised to see Garcia has arguably been the superior starter of the trio, at least by the underlying numbers: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=pit&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2017&month=0&season1=2015&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=2520,6562,8137 Garcia has also thrown the most innings between the three in that timeframe, which should count for something, and has the best 2018 WAR projection by Steamer. Lynn and Cobb come with more upside I think - Lynn has really outperformed his peripherals in that 2015-2017 snapshot thanks to an elite strand rate - while Garcia is the most "boring" but probably the most reliable.

I will say that I doubt the Gonzalez experiment lasts too long anyway. He'll either go down with an injury or be DFA'd due to lackluster performance by late May. It still doesn't at all excuse the signing but I'd be surprised if he's still the starter come summer time.

I pushed for Frazier earlier in the offseason so I'm pretty satisfied with this signing, especially at the ridiculously-discounted price. He's not going to turn this team into a legit contender himself, but he does make the team better and knocks Jose Reyes down the infield pecking order, which can only be a good thing. We definitely need to add a starter, so I'm glad that seems to be getting some kind of attention. Will they afford Lance Lynn or Alex Cobb? I don't know. I would normally say no but with this free agent market in such a whacked out mode, you never know. If they settle for dirt cheap, Jamie Garcia probably makes the most sense and I wouldn't hate it. Not sure if I've been here for the Gonzalez signing but total YUCK. I'm not a Smith fan but 1000 out of 1000 I'll roll with him over a washed up guy like Gonzalez who was also a clubhouse nuisance with the Dodgers last year. I find it laughable the Gonzalez-mentoring-Smith columns laughable... this is the same guy who cried over losing his job to Cody Bellinger last summer. He's here to play as a starter and nothing else.

I'm probably the lowest on Smith but if your answer is going to be Duda, why bother? The range of outcomes between Duda versus Smith will likely be negligible. You're not signing Duda and banking on a 2- or 3-win upgrade to the roster, which is what the Mets need. Also, the Mets kind of have insurance for Smith with Bruce anyway, and in that scenario, their outfield defense would be much sharper by pushing Conforto rightfully to a corner and inserting Lagares in CF. As much as I would've liked to see the Mets upgrade 1B and maybe use Smith as a trade piece, I don't think the answer is out there. I really liked Carlos Santana but he's off the market now. Eric Hosmer is one of the most overrated players in baseball and he's going to get wildly overpaid. Logan Morrison was pretty good last season but how much of that was real after being terrible for years? After those two uninspiring guys, it gets even uglier.

I'm kind of okay with the Mets going with d'Arnaud and Plawecki next year. I think they can squeeze enough out of both guys to get average production, maybe better if you're optimistic. If they had the cash to do it, Lucroy would be an interesting guy to look at on a 1-year pillow deal, but they have more pressing needs to address first IMO.

Fully agreed on Cain - he was the perfect fit here. So of course they go and sign a guy who is the exact opposite of a perfect fit.

I just don’t understand this love affair the Mets have for Bruce. He fits bet in the AL where he can split the between DH and OF, not in the NL. An outfield of Cespedes-Conforto-Bruce might hit well but man the outfield defense might be really ugly. The Mets needed a true CF and/or a true 1B. Bruce isn’t either of these things and neither is Conforto as a CF.

Yep it's hard to argue with that, re: the draft. Conforto looks like he can be a star if he can stay healthy, but then again he was taken 10th overall. Fulmer was a great pick for 44th overall, I'll give them that, but Detroit's reaping those benefits now. But besides that... it's been pretty miserable. Seth Lugo was a nice find relative to his round but his upside is probably no higher than a league average starter. Nimmo looks like he can be a contributor in some capacity but he was a high pick (13th overall) and the upside is pretty limited there.