On Page 3 of the sports section of yesterday's New York Times appeared a story about how statistical sinkholes at second base, the corner outfield positions, and everywhere except Johan Santana's place on the pitching staff were what ultimately sunk the Mets.
On Page 4 of the sports section of yesterday's New York Times appeared a story about how Jerry Manuel doesn't want to hear about how the statistical performances of his second baseman, corner outfielders, and non-Santana pitchers were what ultimately sunk the Mets. He wants to focus on intangibles and situational hitting, and all of the scrappy little things that the stat guys can't quantify. In fact, he even implies that he'd be more than happy with a sink hole at second base as long as he hustles a bit.
Query: is it not possible for a good player to possess good intangibles? Couldn't marrying that up be a total chocolate-in-my-peanut butter moment for the Mets?
(thanks to reader Scott M for noticing this curious combination of stories in yesterday's Times)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Query: Is it not possible for a good player to possess good intangibles?
Answer: Albert Pujols.
{I know that was a rhetorical question, but I'll take any chance I get to remind people how good Albert Pujols is at almost everything.}
Post a Comment