IGT 4/29 Reds v Mets Zack Tanner

[Edgy MD]

Shmedwin.

[bmfc1]

Maybe it wasn't a good idea to pitch Diaz 3 days in a row.

[Edgy MD]

Mets need Nieuwenhuis here.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Well that sucked

[Centerfield]

We may not be a very good team.

[Edgy MD]

All three ninth-inning dudes came up swinging for the fences at balls out of the strike zone, and taking changeups inside the strikezone. I think I'ma need to talk with Chili.



The Mets should have won this game twice over.

[kcmets]

Winker waving to the crowd on exiting with the win. Uh, ya know it's a four

game series ya wanker.

[Fman99]

Yeah. Sucky ending. No me gusta.

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/images/schaefer30.jpg>



http://potg.leaptoad.com/mets/index2.phpCast your vote!

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: You know what would stop these silly hair-splitting challenges: you get it wrong and you lose your challenge for the next game That might be over-engineering. Only allow challenges to be made on the field and immediately, give the umps Bluetooth headsets, and the world is much more in alignment. Sure. But that play was a virtual and obvious tie at best, so the idea that the game gets stopped, for how ever long it gets stopped, so that the umps can decide a coin flip isn't within a Pete Alonso HR of what the rule was intended to "correct". If only this kind of silliness could have been foreseen prior to employing the rule!

If the defense loses a challenge, the next batter is automatically awarded first base. If the offense loses a challenge, the next batter is automatically out.



Higher stakes. If you lose the challenge, you don't end up back where you're started, but rather, you're doubly screwed.