I Give Up Day 2019

[kcmets]

[bIGPURPLE]Uncle[/bIGPURPLE]

[G-Fafif]

Or at least Cousin.

[seawolf17]

I'm not saying we have to go 21-0 now, but something close to it.

[Frayed Knot]

Gary mentioned 'winning 3 of 4' last night as probably the minimum pace they'd need to maintain - and that sounds about right. 16-5 to close it out from here would leave them at 88-74, maybe enough to sneak in.

Normally the 5-3 during this current WAS & PHI run (damn that blown 6-run lead!!) would be seen as a positive stretch but, between the earlier six game (ATL/CHI) losing streak and of course the whole mid-season

debacle, simply winning series just isn't good enough these days.

[bmfc1]

Today. Now.

[Lefty Specialist]

The Fat Lady may not be singing yet, but she IS clearing her throat.



It'd take a 4-game sweep of the DBacks at this point, which is highly unlikely.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

This is all going to make the 16-4 closing run even more stunning.

[MFS62]

Paraphrasing Animal House:

What the fuck happened to the CPF folks I used to know?

Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh?

We gotta' take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost lives.

No, I think the Mets have to go all out. I think this is a situation that requires a really futile and stupid gesture, like a 9 game winning streak.

Now, LET'S GET IT FUCKING DONE!

LFGM!



Later

[dgwphotography]

Give up day =mathematical elimination day

[kcmets]

Sure, I was going to say that sometime back. It's in my DNA.



But this team sure feels cooked and done. Overdone and chewy.

[seawolf17]

=dgwphotography post_id=21316 time=1567992208 user_id=78]
Give up day =mathematical elimination day

[batmagadanleadoff]

We've got a special Batman card just for youse. It'll go down as a historical card in our Batman Mets 2019 series. Why, youse ask? Because it's part of the base set; it's not an insert or a subset -- and yet it features no Mets player. Look high and low and all over the place -- use your Bat-o-Scope if youse wanna -- but you won't find anyone on that card who ever played for the New York Mets. How's that possible, youse wanna know, this being a Mets baseball card set as much as it's a Batman card set? It's all about Bill James's Power/Speed Number. Stay with me. The Power/Speed Number -- Bill James's harmonic mean for measuring how well a player does, collectively, at hitting home runs and stealing bases. Collectively being the operative word, because a player has to do well in both categories to score high on the Power/Speed number. Ol' friend Frank Howard could've led the AL in HR's from here to eternity, but with half the speed of Wilson Ramos and never more than one stolen base in any season, ol' Hondo wasn't gonna score much in Power/Speed. Ya gotta excel in both categories to score impressively in Power/Speed. Now we here at Typewriter Chewing Gum are immersed in Mets history and Batman. And we got to thinking, who's got the best, the most significant connections to both the Mets and the Batman universe, with special focus on the Batman TV show that ran from 1966-1968? With emphasis on the word "both". That means no Zsa Zsa Gabor, who, despite playing the super-villainess Minerva on what turned out to be the series' final episode, couldn't care less about baseball and had no meaningful, or any real connection to the New York Mets, as far as we know. See where we're going? We're looking for someone who'd score high on the Power/Speed number for our Batman Mets cards. And we think we've found the Batman/Mets Power/Speed champ. And we've got a card featuring the Batman/Mets Power/Speed champ. Tune in tomorrow. Same Bat-Thread.

Today's brand new card release features the Power/Speed champ of the Batman/Mets universe. But wouldn't you know it, as this card was in development, we here at Typewriter thought of yet another candidate who might vie for the Power/Speed championship of the Batman/Mets universe. This means that there'll be a future card coming, along the lines of today's release -- which won't settle the question of who's the Power/Speed champ of the Batman/Mets universe but at least youse'll have some more eye candy to eyeball while the Mets fade and Pete Alonso hasn't hit a homer in what's goddamn ages for him -- about three games. And while it's true, just like we said, that you won't find anyone who ever played for the Mets on this card, we didn't say anything about Mets royalty.





























https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48706213043_a62a2b8301_c.jpg>

[seawolf17]

This is the weirdest thread.

[ashie62]

Who are we kidding? toast

[batmagadanleadoff]

Big day here at Typewriter Chewing Gum, makers of the finest Batman-Mets cards in the whole wide world. And after yesterday's glorious Mets win -- beating their wild card DBack rivals while Jake deGrom advanced his Cy Young award case and Pete the Polar Bear Alonso smashed not one but two round-trippers to put him on pace to not just tie, but to set the all-time single season rookie HR record - well nobody's giving up today.



So to celebrate, we've got a tweak for Tweaky Tuesday, and a makeover for Makeover Monday -- plus another tweak -- a bonus to match Alonso's bonus homer.



So first up is Tomas Nido. This is a tweak of a tweak. We've darkened the background slightly and then yellowed up Robin's yellow cape some more so as not to lose Robin's cape to the background, sharpened Nido's catcher's mitt and put some stitches on that baseball Nido just hurled. You can even see the red color on those stitches now.



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48706713617_3f86d77406_c.jpg> https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48669401491_cd701ebccd_c.jpg>



Next up is shirtless Michael Conforto. Do you think Nats fans gave up when they blew a seemingly untouchable ninth inning lead to the NY Mets?



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48706713647_3d55bb8edd_c.jpg> https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48512296787_c2abb5784b_c.jpg>



And finally, old friend Wilmer Flores gets the makeover treatment. His new card features the star of the third series -- Batgirl.



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48710506383_5bd652ae81_c.jpg> https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48401342461_c43b7a01dd_c.jpg>

[Fman99]

Kathy Kirsch was a good looking stack of pancakes.



POW!

[Lefty Specialist]

Victor Buono as King Tut.....priceless.



Batgirl might find it hard to, you know, digest her food in that outfit.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Batgirl might find it hard to, you know, digest her food in that outfit.

Don't worry. It's made out of stretch lame. It'll stretch.





https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48710506383_5bd652ae81_c.jpg>

[Centerfield]

Three games out. Are we...back in it?



If nothing else, this season has to make one re-think the idea of a "must win". Starting with the Sunday game of the Braves series, I called each game a "must win", then watched them lose four more games. I said the Sunday night game in Philadelphia was a must win, and that last Sunday's game was a must win. But now here we are with two more "must wins" to close out the Diamondbacks series.



By definition, if you lose a "must win", the remaining games are supposed to be irrelevant no?

[Benjamin Grimm]

The only real "must win" games are the ones where you face elimination if you lose. The games the Mets are playing now are more like "it-would-be-really-advantageous-to-win" games.

[Edgy MD]

I like that Batgirl's proposed sketch is pretty much what came to pass, except for the handbag.

[kcmets]

=kcmets post_id=21260 time=1567909152 user_id=53]
[bIGPURPLE]Uncle[/bIGPURPLE]

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The only real "must win" games are the ones where you face elimination if you lose. The games the Mets are playing now are more like "it-would-be-really-advantageous-to-win" games.

Yup!

Not that that stops many football "analysts" from discussing which of the 0-1 teams are facing "must win" games this Sunday, but many of them are a special breed of dummkopf

and they have much air time to fill.





I mentioned earlier in the thread about Gary throwing out the number "three of four" down the stretch as a likely minimum target. At the time there were 21 games left which I then

translated to 16-5 (.761 win pct). That was on Sunday morning prior to them losing the final game against the Fillies at which point you're up to needing four of every five (16-4).

The good news is that we're 2-0 since then (thanx to some brilliant IGT'ing) bringing us to a 14-4 target. Not sure how much that improves the odds over 16-4, but it's something.



Doable? Probably not, but stranger things have happened. Would be nice if we didn't have the Dodgers next and the Braves last in that lineup, between them taking up fully one third

of the remaining 18 games, but we do. @Rox (3) @Reds (3) and Marlins (4) make up the rest. It also doesn't help that the two big teams are, to a small extent anyway, battling each

other for the home field rights in a theoretical NLCS Game 7 some six weeks from now. Dodgers currently hold a four game edge in that 'race'

[Centerfield]

Good analysis. Basically, at some point we're going to have to rip off 7-8 in a row. Do they have that in them? We'll see. Rox-Reds-Marlins is a nice stretch for a winning streak. Hopefully we don't go 0-5 before we get there.

[G-Fafif]

The must wins will present themselves in retrospect. For now, there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow. One one-game season at a time.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=G-Fafif post_id=21525 time=1568222026 user_id=55]
The must wins will present themselves in retrospect. For now, there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow. One one-game season at a time.

[seawolf17]

=G-Fafif post_id=21525 time=1568222026 user_id=55]
The must wins will present themselves in retrospect. For now, there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow. One one-game season at a time.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: I like that Batgirl's proposed sketch is pretty much what came to pass, except for the handbag.

That's right. The TV Batgirl's look was based heavily on the 1966 comic book reboot of Batgirl, which, going around in circles, was released to coordinate with the Batman TV show.



[FIMG=444]https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5125/5377499020_d0a98c45a8_b.jpg&key=00811fc0ae1d6f8630c1b1d16bdeea88dc2c077af175124686c05d4de94c6d1c[/FIMG]



I didn't include it in my Flores baseball card, but in the lower right hand corner of that Batgirl costume sketch is a handwritten "OK" notation, indicating that the sketch was approved by the TV show's executives.



I tweaked the Flores card. I changed the text alongiside the Batgirl sketch and I lightened up some of Flores's facial features.



https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48718360661_00cb2ca983_c.jpg>

[kcmets]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=21528 time=1568222474 user_id=68]This take two of three is moronic. What's a team that wins the first two games of a three game series supposed to do: lose the third game on purpose to fulfill the two out of three trope? Or not try as hard with two wins already in the back pocket?

[batmagadanleadoff]

This take two of three is moronic. What's a team that wins the first two games of a three game series supposed to do: lose the third game on purpose to fulfill the two out of three trope? Or not try as hard with two wins already in the back pocket? We're getting a little silly here. I can't imagine a team, a player or a fan no thinking of not sweeping. Bill's Brooms is not just a thing here, it's spread nationwide include clubhouses.

So then why do they say "let's take two out of three"? It's dumb. Now winning two out of three is good because if you win at that rate all season long you've won 108 games and you're a goddamn juggernaut. Like the '86 Mets. But taking two out of three is backwards looking. A professional Major League baseball team that wins the first two games of the series and then loses the third should be fucking livid pissed in the hours immediately following that third game defeat rather than rationalizing and saying "oh, well, we won two out of three".