IGT, 8/12 Fish @ Mets

[Guest Edgy DC]

Two RBI.

On a dribbler.

[Guest Edgy DC]

The Marlins have no errors today.

Dear Mr. Commissioner,

Please professionalize official scoring.

Love,

Edgy

[seawolf17]

Dear Edgy,

Stop trying to mess with our batting averages.

Love,
The Mets

[Guest Kid Carsey]

Tomorrow's emergency meeting of Wound Lickers Anonymous is canceled.
Anyone feeling the need for one, please email us ... some of us CARE.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Sure, I leave and the game becomes the blowout, laugher I had been desiring. Still, it's nice to return home to find the Mets had won.

[seawolf17]

Best team in the National League, bitches.

(Except for that whole Arizona-has-a-better-record thing.)

[Valadius]

Thank God we put up numbers like we're supposed to!

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

seawolf - "Best team in the National League, bitches.

(Except for that whole Arizona-has-a-better-record thing.)"

Yeah, but we own Arizona's ass.

[Guest Kid Carsey]

Val:>>>Thank God we put up numbers like we're supposed to!<<<

The Mets are supposed to score ten runs a game? I'm glad that them doing
so pulled your head off the sore for a day, but sheesh, you'll be back on it
before long with those fantasy standards.

[Elster88]

Centerfield wrote: I hate this team. I can't remember ever being more disgruntled with a first-place Mets team. Suck suck suck. I have no confidence that they will win today.

Not to just single out CF, but what's the deal? Does anyone member 1992? 1993? 2003? There have been plenty opportunities to be miserable. This year is not one of them. Leave the misery to Sal.

[Gwreck]

I think it's still a hangover effect from last year when making the playoffs wasn't in doubt starting around Memorial Day.

That being said, they are still playing worse than their record suggests, I think.

[Guest Edgy DC]

They are 65-52.

Pythagoras says their record should be 64-53.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's just not a year with dominant teams. Arizona is hot and on top but were floundering three months ago. Los Angeles was ahead of the Mets and on top of the west seven weeks ago and (I called it) is now barely above water. (I really think 'Zona and 'Rado are looking good down the road.)

Only the Angels and the Yankees have currently won more than two in a row; only the Yankees have won more than three.

Maybe either the dumber or the smarter GMs are out of baseball these days (or both), but there are no teams over .600 and none under .400.

[TransMonk]

Edgy DC wrote: Maybe either the dumber or the smarter GMs are out of baseball these days (or both), but there are no teams over .600 and none under .400.

TB still falls under .400, but they are close at .388. I swear this year is like going through 2000 all over again...not only with the Mets, but with the league too.

We can complain about the Mets all we want, but I can't find a single dominant team this year in either league. I think fans of all teams over .500 can still find many things to complain about.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Sorry, I forget to think of TB as a big-league team.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

This year is like 2005 more than anything. That year we found a level at .500 and stayed a game or two above/below it all year long. This year, our level is a bit higher but we're just as stuck.

I thought for a while maybe that it was a good thing the Mets hadn't "peaked" yet -- last year, I think, they peaked too early. Now I think there is no peak. They are what they is.

[TransMonk]

1999:2000::2006:2007 - at least that's how I see it.

I think the 2005ers played to their potential. 2007 is playing way below it IMO.

[DocTee]

Speaking of parity...

No divsional leader has more than a 4 game advantage on any other club. And half the teams are within 5.5 games of their division leader.

That may make for a quiet waiver deadline, since so many ar so seemingly close.

[Guest cleonjones11]

Kid Carsey wrote: Castro left the game with a bad back, ny.

Dont Think Castro will be out long but Jerry Grote looked pretty good on Kiner day

[Elster88]

TransMonk wrote: 1999:2000::2006:2007 - at least that's how I see it. I think the 2005ers played to their potential. 2007 is playing way below it IMO.

The 2000'ers played about a mile over their heads. Check out the starting outfield from the WS.