<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Note: Santana at 91 and 92</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/</link>
	<description>Latest Mets News, Links, Rumors and Opinion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:22:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Santanaman</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109295</link>
		<dc:creator>Santanaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109295</guid>
		<description>OK, that&#039;s four opinions on this with a 50/50 split.  Attention on Bonds equals attention off everyone else.

Platoon him with Alou to keep him fresh.  I understand your points but I have also heard teammates of his say he is not that bad in the clubhouse.

I believe that we can win without him, but I also believe our chances are better with him.  

Let&#039;s run a poll.  Have we done a poll on this subject?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, that&#8217;s four opinions on this with a 50/50 split.  Attention on Bonds equals attention off everyone else.</p>
<p>Platoon him with Alou to keep him fresh.  I understand your points but I have also heard teammates of his say he is not that bad in the clubhouse.</p>
<p>I believe that we can win without him, but I also believe our chances are better with him.  </p>
<p>Let&#8217;s run a poll.  Have we done a poll on this subject?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zer09</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109291</link>
		<dc:creator>zer09</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109291</guid>
		<description>Exactly.  While you had a pretty good analysis going there, you missed out on the part where you&#039;re deciding to swing - yes I would agree with you if every pitch was going down the middle, but if you can locate the pitch where ever, then you need to account for reaction time - which is provided pretty well by the other Matt...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly.  While you had a pretty good analysis going there, you missed out on the part where you&#8217;re deciding to swing &#8211; yes I would agree with you if every pitch was going down the middle, but if you can locate the pitch where ever, then you need to account for reaction time &#8211; which is provided pretty well by the other Matt&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Another Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109282</link>
		<dc:creator>Another Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:36:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109282</guid>
		<description>Nah... human reaction time is about 0.2 seconds unless you manage to be scared in which case it&#039;s about 0.1 seconds.

This is why in 100m sprints, they use a gun to start the race (you get the &#039;scared&#039; reaction not the normal reaction). It&#039;s also why you get called for a false start if you exert pressure on the blocks less than 0.100s after the gun.

Now you could make a claim that a 110mph fastball is scary... and I&#039;d probably concede the point.

But that only gives you 0.038 seconds at best to locate the pitch. Not enough.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nah&#8230; human reaction time is about 0.2 seconds unless you manage to be scared in which case it&#8217;s about 0.1 seconds.</p>
<p>This is why in 100m sprints, they use a gun to start the race (you get the &#8216;scared&#8217; reaction not the normal reaction). It&#8217;s also why you get called for a false start if you exert pressure on the blocks less than 0.100s after the gun.</p>
<p>Now you could make a claim that a 110mph fastball is scary&#8230; and I&#8217;d probably concede the point.</p>
<p>But that only gives you 0.038 seconds at best to locate the pitch. Not enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zer09</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109276</link>
		<dc:creator>zer09</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:31:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109276</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sorry, I just don&#039;t see how signing Bonds will win the WS for us.  I guess he&#039;s going to bring all his WS experience with him to the Mets....ohh, umm, yeah, I don&#039;t think he has too much...

Look, point is, we already have a starter, albeit a fragile one, in Alou.  We have backups in Pagan and Chavez.  Where do you plug Bonds?  You think the home run king is going to accept a bench job when he’s still ready to play every day (or at least be the starter who needs the spelling instead of being the guy coming in off the bench). Also, why don&#039;t you pull up the pinch hit numbers on Bonds - as I recall, I don’t think they’re very good - so he would not be as useful in the 7th coming in...And you can&#039;t ignore the fact that with his arrival there would be 300 reporters who will be running around the clubhouse every day as well as the back covers of him in a Met uniform detailing his steroid-scandal perjury court hearings…

I don&#039;t buy the whole Bonds in NY thing.  Do you really want this kind of attention?  It seems to me (with Matt opening my eyes to this more than anyone in the past 6 months or so) that teams in NY are under a microscope as it is.  I mean, jeez, we have 5 blogs providing updates on scores in spring training games.  Clubhouse atmosphere counts for a lot, and team chemistry counts for even more.  Bonds has long been known as a bad chemistry guy.  Do you really want to turn this team into the Knicks?  I don&#039;t think that Bonds = WS.  Yes, he&#039;s a great player, and yes, he might be able to mean 2 or 3 or may be even 4 more wins for the Mets with his bat, but the bottom line is, we will lose more because of his presence and be a mockery of baseball to boot.  The only reason why the steroid thing is becoming a non-issue is because Barry Bonds is not playing baseball.  You put him on the field and it all stirs up again.  Please, Omar, not in NY...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sorry, I just don&#8217;t see how signing Bonds will win the WS for us.  I guess he&#8217;s going to bring all his WS experience with him to the Mets&#8230;.ohh, umm, yeah, I don&#8217;t think he has too much&#8230;</p>
<p>Look, point is, we already have a starter, albeit a fragile one, in Alou.  We have backups in Pagan and Chavez.  Where do you plug Bonds?  You think the home run king is going to accept a bench job when he’s still ready to play every day (or at least be the starter who needs the spelling instead of being the guy coming in off the bench). Also, why don&#8217;t you pull up the pinch hit numbers on Bonds &#8211; as I recall, I don’t think they’re very good &#8211; so he would not be as useful in the 7th coming in&#8230;And you can&#8217;t ignore the fact that with his arrival there would be 300 reporters who will be running around the clubhouse every day as well as the back covers of him in a Met uniform detailing his steroid-scandal perjury court hearings…</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t buy the whole Bonds in NY thing.  Do you really want this kind of attention?  It seems to me (with Matt opening my eyes to this more than anyone in the past 6 months or so) that teams in NY are under a microscope as it is.  I mean, jeez, we have 5 blogs providing updates on scores in spring training games.  Clubhouse atmosphere counts for a lot, and team chemistry counts for even more.  Bonds has long been known as a bad chemistry guy.  Do you really want to turn this team into the Knicks?  I don&#8217;t think that Bonds = WS.  Yes, he&#8217;s a great player, and yes, he might be able to mean 2 or 3 or may be even 4 more wins for the Mets with his bat, but the bottom line is, we will lose more because of his presence and be a mockery of baseball to boot.  The only reason why the steroid thing is becoming a non-issue is because Barry Bonds is not playing baseball.  You put him on the field and it all stirs up again.  Please, Omar, not in NY&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Santanaman</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109269</link>
		<dc:creator>Santanaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109269</guid>
		<description>I second that and I&#039;m not just jumping on here.  I have always thought it would be great if we had him and the opportunity has presented it&#039;s self.

Go ahead all of you people who have never done anything wrong, kill me.

Kill me for loving my team so much that I would not overlook any opportunity to make us better.

Santana is here. Let&#039;s not waste this year because we are affaid of what might happen if we bring in Bonds.

I&#039;ll tell you what will happen but you already know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I second that and I&#8217;m not just jumping on here.  I have always thought it would be great if we had him and the opportunity has presented it&#8217;s self.</p>
<p>Go ahead all of you people who have never done anything wrong, kill me.</p>
<p>Kill me for loving my team so much that I would not overlook any opportunity to make us better.</p>
<p>Santana is here. Let&#8217;s not waste this year because we are affaid of what might happen if we bring in Bonds.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll tell you what will happen but you already know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Another Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109265</link>
		<dc:creator>Another Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109265</guid>
		<description>Bonds would not equal wins for the Mets.

He&#039;d equal a monstrous distraction from the game - something the players obviously don&#039;t need after last season.

He&#039;d also equal a vertiable bucketload of doubles to left field, and Carlos Beltran breaking down from having to patrol 2/3 of the outfield.

He&#039;d be terrible for this team - or any other NL team. Bonds in 2008 is the epitomy of DH - and the epitomy of why DH is bad for baseball. Players should be able to play, not just hit.

And the 82 with / 82 without DH idea is rediculous. For a start, that adds up to 164. Secondly, it screws up building rosters (do you need pinch hitters who can field, or power hitters who couldn&#039;t catch a cold?). And didn&#039;t you notice that in &#039;06, possibly the weakest team in the NL playoffs destroyed Detroit in the World Series?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bonds would not equal wins for the Mets.</p>
<p>He&#8217;d equal a monstrous distraction from the game &#8211; something the players obviously don&#8217;t need after last season.</p>
<p>He&#8217;d also equal a vertiable bucketload of doubles to left field, and Carlos Beltran breaking down from having to patrol 2/3 of the outfield.</p>
<p>He&#8217;d be terrible for this team &#8211; or any other NL team. Bonds in 2008 is the epitomy of DH &#8211; and the epitomy of why DH is bad for baseball. Players should be able to play, not just hit.</p>
<p>And the 82 with / 82 without DH idea is rediculous. For a start, that adds up to 164. Secondly, it screws up building rosters (do you need pinch hitters who can field, or power hitters who couldn&#8217;t catch a cold?). And didn&#8217;t you notice that in &#8217;06, possibly the weakest team in the NL playoffs destroyed Detroit in the World Series?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nevets72</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109236</link>
		<dc:creator>nevets72</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109236</guid>
		<description>It is not ludicrous, difficult, but not obscene.

Assume it takes 0.2 seconds (studies confirm this) to swing a bat.  

A 90 MPH FB will take +/- 0.413 second to travel from the release point (assumed to be 54&#039; 6&quot; ) to the plate allowing a batter 0.213 seconds to recognize location, speed, and pitch type.

A 110 MPH pitch will take +/- 0.338 seconds allowing a batter .138 seconds to react.  This is significantly less time, but if certain elements are eleminated from the decision process, like pitch typeand speed  recognition, it is very reasonable to assume a profesional hitter will adjust favorably.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is not ludicrous, difficult, but not obscene.</p>
<p>Assume it takes 0.2 seconds (studies confirm this) to swing a bat.  </p>
<p>A 90 MPH FB will take +/- 0.413 second to travel from the release point (assumed to be 54&#8242; 6&#8243; ) to the plate allowing a batter 0.213 seconds to recognize location, speed, and pitch type.</p>
<p>A 110 MPH pitch will take +/- 0.338 seconds allowing a batter .138 seconds to react.  This is significantly less time, but if certain elements are eleminated from the decision process, like pitch typeand speed  recognition, it is very reasonable to assume a profesional hitter will adjust favorably.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kherubnym</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109232</link>
		<dc:creator>Kherubnym</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:04:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109232</guid>
		<description>Do you really think a third place team would put more fans in the stands than a first place team?  I didn&#039;t think so....Bonds = money for the Mets, and wins for us.  Plain and simple.  That&#039;s the bottom line of the equation.  Sure, no doubt there&#039;ll be some extra hoopla surrounding the Mets, but if you notice the media has written several stories over the past month to the effect that how much steroids have become a non-story...no doubt a coincidence after Clemens became the face of steroids in the game.....then again, any publicity is good publicity, right?  It&#039;s free....

And no doubt about it that they&#039;ll be a rather sizable contingency amongst Mets fans who &quot;disapprove&quot;, and are disheveled, bewildered, amok at a Bonds signing, but you know as well as I do they&#039;re all gonna be at the games rooting for him to just get that 2 out hit in the bottom of the seventh in a one run game with runners at second and third with all  their heart....and when he does you&#039;ll feel the joy of winning more than anything else...after the game no doubt they&#039;ll all go back to tongue in cheek bad mouthing him, but...once that situation comes again....It&#039;s gonna be all Go Barry Go!!...

If the Mets sign Bonds, we win the World Series.  I want to win the World Series.  I want the Mets to get Barry Bonds...it&#039;s that simple.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you really think a third place team would put more fans in the stands than a first place team?  I didn&#8217;t think so&#8230;.Bonds = money for the Mets, and wins for us.  Plain and simple.  That&#8217;s the bottom line of the equation.  Sure, no doubt there&#8217;ll be some extra hoopla surrounding the Mets, but if you notice the media has written several stories over the past month to the effect that how much steroids have become a non-story&#8230;no doubt a coincidence after Clemens became the face of steroids in the game&#8230;..then again, any publicity is good publicity, right?  It&#8217;s free&#8230;.</p>
<p>And no doubt about it that they&#8217;ll be a rather sizable contingency amongst Mets fans who &#8220;disapprove&#8221;, and are disheveled, bewildered, amok at a Bonds signing, but you know as well as I do they&#8217;re all gonna be at the games rooting for him to just get that 2 out hit in the bottom of the seventh in a one run game with runners at second and third with all  their heart&#8230;.and when he does you&#8217;ll feel the joy of winning more than anything else&#8230;after the game no doubt they&#8217;ll all go back to tongue in cheek bad mouthing him, but&#8230;once that situation comes again&#8230;.It&#8217;s gonna be all Go Barry Go!!&#8230;</p>
<p>If the Mets sign Bonds, we win the World Series.  I want to win the World Series.  I want the Mets to get Barry Bonds&#8230;it&#8217;s that simple.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hit The Weights Zeile</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109210</link>
		<dc:creator>Hit The Weights Zeile</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:46:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109210</guid>
		<description>i think the only man that can hit a 110 mph pitch is tsuyoshi shinjo, no matter how fast, if its straight he will hit it hard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i think the only man that can hit a 110 mph pitch is tsuyoshi shinjo, no matter how fast, if its straight he will hit it hard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zer09</title>
		<link>http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109208</link>
		<dc:creator>zer09</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.metsblog.com/2008/03/06/note-santana-at-91-and-92/#comment-109208</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think you people realize what signing Bonds will do to the Mets clubhouse...it would be a total circus...worse than the Knicks... I think you&#039;ll put more fans in the stands if you let FMart play (not that I want them to).  It&#039;s a tough situation - as of now I&#039;d say that Pagan would probably start in left, but if Alou suffers a major setback (btw, my odds on that: 70-30) Omar will need to go out and work his magic to get a decent outfielder.  And no, it should NOT be Bonds or Thames...we need someone who can hit better than .240 without striking out 40% of the time...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think you people realize what signing Bonds will do to the Mets clubhouse&#8230;it would be a total circus&#8230;worse than the Knicks&#8230; I think you&#8217;ll put more fans in the stands if you let FMart play (not that I want them to).  It&#8217;s a tough situation &#8211; as of now I&#8217;d say that Pagan would probably start in left, but if Alou suffers a major setback (btw, my odds on that: 70-30) Omar will need to go out and work his magic to get a decent outfielder.  And no, it should NOT be Bonds or Thames&#8230;we need someone who can hit better than .240 without striking out 40% of the time&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (Requested URI is rejected)

Served from: www.metsblog.com @ 2012-02-13 19:13:45 -->
