Met Count

[Valadius]

And Ryan Church.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

now why is Santana 1st of these? I though we were going in order they were announced, assuming they all get into the same game.

[Guest AG/DC]

I still think it should sort first in the order their appearances become official. If Pagan bats, he's first. If we go on defense before he bats, it's Santana, Schneider, Pagan, Church.

[Gwreck]

AG/DC wrote: I still think it should sort first in the order their appearances become official. If Pagan bats, he's first. If we go on defense before he bats, it's Santana, Schneider, Pagan, Church.

That was my thought as well.

[Benjamin Grimm]

We had agreed on it being the lineup order, which, to me, makes the most sense.

Remember, a player is officially in the game when the PA guy says his name. I know this is only really applicable for pinch-hitters and, I guess, pinch-runners, but it makes more sense than waiting for someone to touch a ball in the field. They're in the game whether the ball is hit to them or not.

[Valadius]

Well how have we done it in years past? We can't change our methods on this now.

[Guest AG/DC]

Sure. Why not? While they may not get credit for a game played if they throw a rod in the dugout, it's not like they can re-enter the game if they've been introduced but don't appear.

But here's my thought. Scott Erickson hurt himself during warmups in game two, 2004. I don't know if the lineups had been read yet, but, if they had, and Erickson never rehabiltated (some might say he never did), and never returned to the team, would he be part of the great list o' Mets?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I agree with YSG here. He convinced me of its rightness.

[Theoldmole]

If they throw A-Rod in the dugout?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

]But here's my thought. Scott Erickson hurt himself during warmups in game two, 2004. I don't know if the lineups had been read yet, but, if they had, and Erickson never rehabiltated (some might say he never did), and never returned to the team, would he be part of the great list o' Mets?

Not in my great list. I don;t think he was announced, by the way.

Let's just assume that becoming official is a two-step process: Getting announced and participating in the game, but all participants enter into the sacred scrolls in the order they were announced.

[Benjamin Grimm]

AG/DC wrote: But here's my thought. Scott Erickson hurt himself during warmups in game two, 2004. I don't know if the lineups had been read yet, but, if they had, and Erickson never rehabiltated (some might say he never did), and never returned to the team, would he be part of the great list o' Mets?

If he got into the box score, then yes.

[stevejrogers]

#826 Matt Wise, welcome a-bord-ick!

[stevejrogers]

That leaves Raul Cassanova waiting to be #827

[stevejrogers]

Blame it on Pedro, not the Cassanova!

Nelson Figueroa, wearing #27 is #827!

Wonder if anyone's Met number and uni number ever matched up like this? Lunchbucket?

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

It must suck to be Raul Cassanova right now.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

SteveJRogers wrote: Blame it on Pedro, not the Cassanova! Nelson Figueroa, wearing #27 is #827! Wonder if anyone's Met number and uni number ever matched up like this? Lunchbucket?

Sometime I will add a Met Count number to the site and tell you

[Guest AG/DC]

SteveJRogers wrote: Wonder if anyone's Met number and uni number ever matched up like this? Lunchbucket?

Richie Ashburn.

[stevejrogers]

Met # 828 is the battery mate for # 827!

Welcome aboard Raul Cassanova!

[Valadius]

It's one "s".

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Well, how were we to know that? He never got to play before.

I've had to learn to spell Mientkiewicz and Schoeneweis in recent years, I guess is just took Casanova for granted. I shall do better in the future.

[Guest AG/DC]

Number 829!

Gustavo Molina

[stevejrogers]

830

Fernando Tatis

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

="SteveJRogers"]830 Fernando Tatis

Why oh why is he wearing No. 17? Take it out of circulation to eventually hang on the wall.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Nah. Keith was terrific, but I don't want to see his number retired.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Nah. Keith was terrific, but I don't want to see his number retired.

But do you want to see it on people like Fernando Tatis? Fernando Martinez, maybe. But not a guy who packed only an overnight bag when he left New Orleans.

[Guest AG/DC]

If it causes Keith to publickly whine in the booth, you betcha. That's entertainment.

[Benjamin Grimm]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: But do you want to see it on people like Fernando Tatis? Fernando Martinez, maybe. But not a guy who packed only an overnight bag when he left New Orleans.

Doesn't bother me at all.

As for Fernando Martinez, I'd rather he got a number that will more firmly belong to him.

I think I'd give him a 25, if it were up to me.

[Guest AG/DC]

For what it's worth, he's wearing 19 in Binghamton now.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ="metsguyinmichigan"]But do you want to see it on people like Fernando Tatis? Fernando Martinez, maybe. But not a guy who packed only an overnight bag when he left New Orleans. Doesn't bother me at all. As for Fernando Martinez, I'd rather he got a number that will more firmly belong to him. I think I'd give him a 25, if it were up to me.

Good point! Or have him salvage No. 43 -- which I read somewhere, can't remember where -- has yet to have a quality owner!

[Guest AG/DC]

http://leaptoad.com/mets/jpeg/ArmandoBenitez1973.jpgDamn it, all threads lead to Armando.

I feel pretty safe in declaring Armando the greatest 49 in baseball history.