The Mets giveth. The Mets taketh away.

The chatter wasn't exactly epic, but it had its moments.

The first 8 weren't boring, they were excellent. Sheesh, do these people just not like baseball? Those innings weren't boring because they built to something. Good crisp play, a few well hit balls and good defesne. Pitchers who threw strikes. Much better than the stink a few channels up on my TV.

Not all baseball players are in fact baseball fans.

"Anyone can close."

"Anyone can close."

I think the theory is that any good relief pitcher can close. The Mets don't have any of those.

I agree that when your bullpen sucks, that's a big problem. It's one of the main reasons why I continue to be kind of amazed that these Mets have overachieved for as long as they have this season.

I was at the game; it was bad enough being conflicted as a 40+ year Met fan and 27 year DC area resident who's somehow gotten emotionally attached to this Nats team.

Nonetheless, I think I need to go to more Nats/Mets games -- the last one I was at before this was the one where Pagan had the inside the park homer and started the triple play (which, incidentally, was Dickey's first start as a Met).

Moore's comment is silly, of course; I thought it was a great game for the first seven innings, too -- great strike throwing (Detwiler's first inning: 9 pitches, 9 strikes, 1-2-3 inning), good defensive plays, etc. I thought the game was going to be over by 9:15, and then all hell broke loose.

#2 and #8. I think Moore's comment was just off the cuff and shouldn't be over-analyzed. But look at the Win Probablity Chart the last 2 innings.

I'm thinking this one has to be the game of the season (for the Nats) so far. Anyone else with a memory less geared towards the "what happened last week" want to nominate some others? The other one I might put up there was Bryce Harper and Stephen Strasburg's Fenway Park debut, but that just wasn't nearly as exciting a game.

#2 and #8. I think Moore's comment was just off the cuff and shouldn't be over-analyzed. But look at the Win Probablity Chart the last 2 innings.

I'd guess Moore's idea of exciting baseball features a lot of offense, so the first eight inning didn't qualify.

How about the game the Mets and Nats played last time in DC? Mets had the lead 3 times in the late innings and Washington came back; "only" did it twice tonight.

The last few batters of the 9th were crazy. Bobby Parnell throws his fastball 75% of the time. With runners on first and third, Mets up by 1 with 1 out, he strikes out Moore on 3 straight curves. (I'm not sure I remember the last time he threw 3 straight curves). Then he throws I believe 5 curves in a row to Espinosa, and then on a 2-2 he finally goes back to the fastball, base hit up the middle. Then he gets Flores on 3 curveballs.

Parnell now has allowed a BABIP over 325 in each of the 4 seasons where he has thrown more than 5 innings.

re: "boring". I suppose in some ways whenever you have a last few innings like the game last night, the previous innings will seem boring in comparison. A go ahead HR in the third isn't going to be as exciting as one in the 9th. But even as a Met fan, I thought th e entire game was quite exciting. Both pitchers were on their game (Niese especially was great, IMO), it was a 1 run game all the way until the bottom of the 8th, and then the theatrics after that were pretty cool also.

I'm thinking this one has to be the game of the season (for the Nats) so far.

I still think that the comeback against Matt Cain and the Giants beats this one out, but this one was pretty incredible too.

The chatter wasn't exactly epic, but it had its moments.

You brought your "A" game to that one Lassus. Eso kinda jumped in nicely though to offset your work. That's a shame because I thought you really gave 110%.

You brought your "A" game to that one Lassus. Eso kinda jumped in nicely though to offset your work. That's a shame because I thought you really gave 110%.

I really have to give a lot of credit to the Primer Mets fans for bringing the angsty-angst to the Game Chatters. Since I generally share that worldview, but from a Nats perspective, it leads to some entertaining interactions.

Speaking of which, does anyone know whatever happened to Sam M. and Russlan? Haven't seen those guys around in what feels like years. Kind of miss them.

I've never seen a team win on wild pitches this often. This is at least the second time this year, and they won one on a wild pitch late last year. There may have been a third time this year, but I'm not sure about that.

I wonder if Davey Johnson has some secret method for making this event more likely.

Tough game to lose, but my lack of faith in the Mets bullpen is so extreme that I no longer expect to win close games like this. It makes it psychologically easier to handle.

The best part of the game for me was Collins' decision to pinch-hit Valdespin for Jason Bay rather than Scott Hairston. Indicates that he might be viewed the way he really should be: a weak platoon outfielder.

Speaking of which, does anyone know whatever happened to Sam M. and Russlan? Haven't seen those guys around in what feels like years. Kind of miss them.

Sam got into kind of an argument with Arbitol and has been almost completely MIA since. Russlan, I believe, is in med school or something but has recently raised his head in various places. Honestly, the only reason I'm there as much as I am is that my GF works nights.

The Mets chatters have been utterly dead this year, which is funny considering how long we were doing so well.


The best part of the game for me was Collins' decision to pinch-hit Valdespin for Jason Bay rather than Scott Hairston.

Hairston was really ####### terrible last night, and he's seemed a lot moreso lately than earlier.

Also, thoughts on Valdespin? This is what I said in late April:

I like the look of Valdespin. His stance looks like Robinson Cano's. He looks like one of those guys that can hit 15 homeruns, 15 steals, and not actually be that good (like the first Alex Gonzalez). But as a lefty that can play infield and outfield, that's a long career right there.

I wonder how long he'll keep up the Tony Batista act of swinging wildly for the fences in every AB.

Tough game to lose, but my lack of faith in the Mets bullpen is so extreme that I no longer expect to win close games like this. It makes it psychologically easier to handle.

As sad as this is, after they went up 3-2 there was a part of me that said as long as they only allowed the game to be tied in the bottom of the 9th I would take it.

The best part of the game for me was Collins' decision to pinch-hit Valdespin for Jason Bay rather than Scott Hairston. Indicates that he might be viewed the way he really should be: a weak platoon outfielder.

Yeah, I was scared that Bay would come back and be thrust into the lineup every day. So when Baxter comes back, I wonder what the roster move is. It might just be putting Duda on the DL, but assuming he doesn't go on the DL, is it crazy to send Nieuwenhuis down? His numbers are still decent, but he's looked lost for a while, and the K rate is so high that his numbers probably have some more room to go down. The only problem with this is that you would be using a Torres/Valdespin platoon in the OF. But I think the should end up running platoons on their corner OF spots; Hairston and Bay vs lefties and Baxter/Duda vs righties. And really, either Valdespin or Kirk in CF vs righties and Torres vs lefties. How many teams in the age of the 12 man pitching staff platoon all 3 OF spots?

on Valdespin: I think your call is pretty good. His ISO is 282, which obviously isn't sustainable, and he swings at everything, which is probably a combination of A) wanting to make an impression, and B) the fact that he likes swinging at everything. I don't know enough about his glove, other than I don't want to see him at SS, but he might have a future as a bench piece type. If nothing else, he's not a bad guy to send up there when you're looking for a HR and the other team has a right hander on the mound.

Hairston was really ####### terrible last night, and he's seemed a lot moreso lately than earlier.

Yeah, well, of course he's not really that good. I think he's probably a better player than Bay right now, although it's probably close. I just like that deference was not shown to Bay's contract in that situation. That's new.

So when Baxter comes back, I wonder what the roster move is.

Does Turner have options? I think you send him down at this point.

Yeah, I believe Turner does. And you're probably right. You still have Cedeno to cover both middle IF positions, plus Valdespin could at least fill in at 2B. Though you become kinda short on right handed bench, at least when a lefty is on the mound.

Something I've been thinking about; is it possible to grade Sandy and co so far? They were thrust into a position where they were basically care takers, at least so far. They've basically made one big move, the Beltran trade, and so far that looks like an awesome deal. Other than that, they have done a lot of letting the players they have in the system prove what they can do, which is more than you can say for Omar, who always had a proven vet ready to play instead of a young guy. The plan of spending most of their money on relievers in the off-season has backfired. Pagan has predictably bounced back for the Giants; that trade with them doesn't look so hot right now.

We're close to 2 years in, but I would still say incomplete. A lot will come down to how the drafts go, and we're of course years away from determining that.

Is Rauch hurt?

I thought it was odd when TC started Byrdak in the 10th with 2 righties before Harper.

I thought it was odd when TC started Byrdak in the 10th with 2 righties before Harper.

Wasn't it him or Bautista? I'll take anyone over Bautista at this point.

Of course it's too early to judge Alderson. The drafts are years away, and his payroll was cut mammothly. Omar might have started all these youngsters if he had the same talent and same payroll constrictions to work with.

If we look at Sandepo’s record, it’s hard to believe they routinely built and re-built good bullpens in San Diego. In 2011 their only big-ticket signing was DJ Carrasco (DFA’d earlier this year). In 2012, they signed Francisco, Rauch, traded for Ramirez, resigned Byrdak and Batista, hired a new BP coach. Big splat.

Also, their continued touting of Batista is puzzling. They’re sabr guys – they have to know how bad he is. That they’re selling him as a viable starting option at all, let alone as a PREFERABLE option to their highly-touted prospect galls me.

I do like the way they’re handling the home-growns, especially the way they stuck with Murphy at 2nd and Ike through valley fever. Tejada has been a constant source of joy, while Valdespin and Niewenhuis have had their moments.

If we look at Sandepo’s record, it’s hard to believe they routinely built and re-built good bullpens in San Diego. In 2011 their only big-ticket signing was DJ Carrasco (DFA’d earlier this year). In 2012, they signed Francisco, Rauch, traded for Ramirez, resigned Byrdak and Batista, hired a new BP coach. Big splat.

Why is it hard to believe? Bullpens are frequently just amalgamations of small sample sizes. You get some flame throwing youngsters, some crafty veterans, and you hope for the best. And just because he was able to do something in San Diego once or twice doesn't mean that it's some skill that he's mastered that he should be able to do at any point in the future.

Following the probability chart: with no outs in the tenth Lombardozi bunts Solano to second and the Nats win probability goes down by 5% Does that make sense?

#8 - I was at that game as well. I'll always be disappointed that Pagan didn't run to first base with the ball to record to the third out and complete the unassisted triple play. IIRC, Pagan caught the first out with a sliding catch so close to second that the runners thought he had no chance. When he popped up, the trailing runner was standing on second (stunned). After stepping on second base, Pagan could have casually jogged to first with the ball and easily beaten the baserunner.

Following the probability chart: with no outs in the tenth Lombardozi bunts Solano to second and the Nats win probability goes down by 5% Does that make sense?

The thing to keep in mind with these win probability charts is that they're just statistical models based upon what ended up happening in that identical situation throughout a slice of MLB history. They don't take into account things like who is actually pitching and hitting in the current situation. So the listed win probability in the at bat after the Lombardozzi bunt would have been the same if it was me at the plate, or early 1920s Babe Ruth transported forward in time.

Wasn't it him or Bautista? I'll take anyone over Bautista at this point.

No, they still had Beato and Rauch aside from Byrdak and Batista.

Bullpens are frequently just amalgamations of small sample sizes. You get some flame throwing youngsters, some crafty veterans, and you hope for the best.

That’s an oversimplification. Assembling bullpens is a big part of the front office concern, and I have to believe there’s a method to the madness. Especially since they put all their limited budget on it.

It’s like the draft – maybe it’s a “crapshoot”, but they spend a lot of resources trying to get it right, and they are held responsible for their success or failures.

#33, of course, but it shouldn't be surprising that a GM could construct a good bullpen in one place and a bad one somewhere else.

Following the probability chart: with no outs in the tenth Lombardozi bunts Solano to second and the Nats win probability goes down by 5% Does that make sense?

Well, that bunt is a "play for one run" strategy in a situation where the Nats need more than one run to win. I could see it increasing the probability that they tie up the game, while also increasing the probability they ultimately lose it.

it shouldn't be surprising that a GM could construct a good bullpen in one place and a bad one somewhere else.

Semantics. It was just my way of saying I expected more from them than the worst bullpen known to man given their resume.

I mean, Batista as the 8th inning guy and the 5th starter...words fail me.

I mean, Batista as the 8th inning guy and the 5th starter...words fail me.

This + Nickeas does make me wonder WTF Alderson is doing.

This + Nickeas does make me wonder WTF Alderson is doing.

Here's the thing with Nickeas (and no, I won't stop reminding people that I carped about ths all winter)-- he's hitting precisely like you'd expect him to. He should be, at best, your 4th string catcher, the backup at AAA. I have no idea why they couldn't grab someone who hits right-handed and is at least a .200 hitter, maybe with a little pop. They have Johnson in the minors. No idea where the apparent infatuation with him comes from. Thole's an OK catcher, but he's also had concussion problems in the past, and catchers get banged up. Having Mike Nickeas as your #2 catcher going into the season says "eh, who give a ####?", and that might have flown in April, but in July, when you are (were) in the hunt, it's a failure by the GM.

Batista had that nice start at the end of last season. He still has potential. Or something.

Having Mike Nickeas as your #2 catcher going into the season says "eh, who give a ####?"

QFT

Especially since they put all their limited budget on it.

And Pagan. This team could really use him. I was not necessarily opposed to getting rid of him, but I also didn't understand the urgency, considering he's only making around $5 M this year (Torres is about $2 M cheaper).

If the Mets were looking to upgrade their #2 catcher by signing Jason Kendall, too bad, the Royals got him.