A-Rod, Met Wannabe

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: We're living in an era where a guy fails and we want to abuse him and find all sorts of moral reasons to attack him....

Not me. I would just like to say that Ordonez sucked. And even then, I say so only because Ordonez sucked. I probably wouldn't say that Ordonez sucked if only Ordonez didn't suck.

[Guest Triple Dee]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Triple Dee"] ="AG/DC"]Huh? What's over? Doug Flynn was a 57. Johnny LeMaster a 60. Considering they didn't play at the same time as Rey-Rey, how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular he ever saw (ignoring the OPS+ 32 he put up in 1997)? By the way, where are you getting those stats from, and are they adjusted stats that may be compared against stats from other seasons?

Baseball Reference. Yes, the OPS+ statistic is adjusted.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: I don't know who he saw.... The worst hitter I ever saw was Keith Neumann in ninth grade. Linda Roth whacked me with a stickball bat in fifth grade....

I'm still good. Never did get see Neumann. Or Roth.

[Guest AG/DC]

You're right if you're honest. You're right if you're fair. You're right if you exercise the sort of perspective you expect anybody to have in a social situation.

If you're booing Beltran and then calling him worthy of the booing because he's pussy who can't take the booing (an arugment a lot of people made), you're not being honest.

If Jose Reyes gets booed when he's hitting .220 because he occasionally dogs it to first, but not when he's hitting .350, though he still occasionally dogs it to first, you're not being honest.

[batmagadanleadoff]

AG/DC wrote: You're right if you're honest. You're right if you're fair. You're right if you exercise the sort of perspective you expect anybody ot have in a social situation.... If Jose Reyes gets booed when he's hitting .220 because he occasionally dogs it to first, but not when he's hitting .350, though he still occasionally dogs it to first, you're not being honest.

Okay. But Ordonez sucked. Right?

[Guest AG/DC]

I think his fielding was usually spectacular and his hitting was consistently bad. In his best year, his net value would have him scratching the average range of National League shortstops. More often, I would place him in the bottom third. He was replaceabale throughout most of his tenure, but the Mets found other priorities and instead hoped to improve his batsmanship.

But nobody else did what he did, and I delighted in it, even if that meant learning to love the pain of the greater part of his game.

[metsmarathon]

rafael belliard, career OPS+ 46

[soupcan]

I didn't think Beltran was a pussy because he didn't like that I booed him.

I also liked Rey Ordonez. Sorry, I did.




batmagadan seems very familiar to me....

[nymr83]

soupcan wrote: batmagadan seems very familiar to me....

to me as well, and i'm pretty sick of the "secret identities" BS.

edgy changed his name recently as have many others, but all were upfront about it. if magadan is who i think he is this is the 2nd if not 3rd time that he has returned to the board under a new name without letting us know who he is. i find that dishonest and pretty damn annoying and i think there should really be a policy against that.

and magadan, if you are not who i think you are, and are in fact a new member of the board, i apologize.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: and magadan, if you are not who i think you are, and are in fact a new member of the board, i apologize.

Apology accepted, I suppose. Even though you offend me first, publicly, and then include a" just in case I'm wrong I'm sorry" at the tail end of your insult. What am I like, the only Met fan who ever hated Ordonez? Or that everyone who hates Ordonez has to be the same poster? I'd like to know who you think I am, even though it sounds like the person you think I am wasn't so hot.

[soupcan]

I don't have a problem with it, I just think it's interesting.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think he's a new guy.

If he was the One Who Shall Not Be Named, and we knew it, he'd be immediately zapped. The One To Whom You're Referring has reached the three strikes and you're out threshold.

But I'm pretty sure that Batmag isn't him.

[soupcan]

My bad for bringing it up then.

Didn't mean too piss anybody off, sorry.

[Guest AG/DC]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Nymr83"] and magadan, if you are not who i think you are, and are in fact a new member of the board, i apologize. Apology accepted, I suppose. What am I like, the only Met fan who ever hated Ordonez? Or that everyone who hates Ordonez has to be the same poster? I'd like to know who you think I am, even though it sounds like the person you think I am wasn't so hot.

Wait a minute. Are you hot?

[batmagadanleadoff]

="AG/DC"] ="batmagadanleadoff"] Nymr83 wrote: Wait a minute. Are you hot? Am I hot? How the hell do I know? I don't even know if I'm me anymore. Rockin' Doc Apr 16 2008 05:32 PM Ben Grimm - "It wasn't just his weak bat that made Rey unlikeable. He was also a bit of a punk." I feel much the same way, but I initially tried to critique Rey only on the quality of his play. I got the impression that rdonez was a selfish player and a bit of an ass. Of course, I may be mistaken in my impression, but I stand by my assessment of his value as a player. I'm not crazy about Jeff Kent's personna either, from what I have seen and read, but I'm willing to acknowledge his talent and productiveness throughout his career. Rockin' Doc Apr 16 2008 05:41 PM I don't believe magadan is amphibious. I get the impression that he truly is a new guy.* *If however, he is who some seem to suspect, then I still don't see where is has written anything confrontational or combative in the time he has been here. cooby Apr 16 2008 06:44 PM ="batmagadanleadoff"] ="AG/DC"] batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Nymr83"] Wait a minute. Are you hot? Am I hot? How the hell do I know? I don't even know if I'm me anymore. Funny. I loved Rey Ordonez. I still want him back. Number 6 Apr 16 2008 09:53 PM Hal Lanier, career OPS+ of 49. To put it in context, though, I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. It's just less acceptable to employ good glove/no hit middle infielders. The mold has been broken to some extent; GM's are better at evaluating net contributions from players and not falling back on narrow definitions of their positional roles. This isn't just a major-league thing; I don't think it's too controversial to assume that there are a lot more options at shortstop these days because they're not shunted off to third when they eclipse 6'2" or develop some power. I always thought that the Mets, given that this movement was in full force at the time, should have known better than to run Rey out there and expect the net impact of his skills to be positive, and that their willingness to do so may have rested on some old-timey assumptions about what a shortstop does. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 07:09 AM Number 6 wrote: I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. Yeah. Lanier especially. He's almost 70. soupcan Apr 17 2008 07:15 AM I've always been partial to infielders who flash leather. Flynn, Ordonez, Bowa, Belanger - loved to watch them all. I mentioned once on this board that Reyes was the player I'd been waiting all of my Met fan life for. Not only does he have a great glove but he's a hitter. Who knew you could have both? On the Mets? When Doug Flynn won his Gold Glove there was no one prouder than me. Not even Doug's mom. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 07:22 AM Ozzie Smith was pretty amazing too. As for me, I think I get more of a buzz from outfield defense. I love it when Carlos Beltran runs down a fly ball that's been hit over his head, and I get a kick out of seeing old clips of Willie Mays and Sandy Amoros and Ron Swoboda and Tommie Agee. soupcan Apr 17 2008 07:32 AM Yeah Ozzie too. I spent some time in San Diego and remember when he was a Padre before the Cards traded Templeton for him. While he was always a crowd pleaser he was a bit unheralded in SD and actually worked a second job while he was a Pod to make ends meet. Wish I could remember what the job was but I'm drawing a blank. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 07:34 AM Yeah, Ozzie was probably at the tail end of the era when players had to have offseason jobs. I remember that "offseason jobs" was typical trivia fodder for the little cartoons on the backs of baseball cards. One of the most famous examples from my lifetime is, of course, Richie Hebner and his grave digging. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 09:54 AM Triple Dee wrote: Considering [Lanier and Ordonez] didn't play at the same time...., how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular [bML] ever saw I'm aware of Lanier's hitting ineptidute. And I did see him play, if only literally. I have no lingering memories of any Lanier at-bats, and in any event, would have been too young to appreciate his prowess as an out making machine when I did see Lanier play during that brief period of time when his stint as a SF Giant and my interest in baseball overlapped. (Edit: I just remembered that he was a Yankee, too. But still, no visual memories. Lanier's Yankees, like Lanier's Lanier, sucked. Thanks, in part, to Lanier himself, who contributed in his own small and out-making Lanierish ways to ensure that his Lanier Yankee teams would suck. There were no Mays's and McCoveys and Marichals and Cepedas and Perrys and all the 27 other Hall of Famers a team would need to cover up for Lanier being Lanier just to break even on account of having Hal Lanier in there. And so even Yankee fans ignored the Yankees back then. So why would a Met fan bother to take notice? I don't remember this Hal Lanier.) I did however collect his baseball cards. Not that I purposely sought them out, but that I wanted them, needed them really, as we used to say, in the completist sense. Also, I managed Lanier in my 1971 Strat-O-matic set for years and years. And years. Alan Gallagher was the better Giant third baseman in 1971. (1971 Strat-O-Matic SF Giant - Met-centric related notes: Dave Kingman's rookie year. He was a devastating destroyer of LHP in that season, albeit in a limited number of at bats. Kingman even hit for average against lefties (over .400!) If you could get him a full season's worth of AB's against lefties only, his final numbers would constitute an awesome almost Ruthian season combined with the best of Ted Williams (Well, more Ted than Babe really, but I temporarily shifted into hype mode just now, not that settling for Ted instead of the Babe is supposed to be some sort of booby prize)..... Fran Healy backed up Dick Dietz.... Willie Mays' last full season as a Giant and his last overall effective season.... Very respectable year for the future Met Ken Henderson.... George Foster's first full MLB season began in SF but ended in Cincy, where he accumulated the majority of his '71 AB's. As one would expect, Foster was not represented as a Giant in that SOM set, assuming anyone actually ever does any "expectering", anticipating whether some player will ultimately be included in this team's SOM set or that team's SOM set which probably wouldn't matter as much as I'm making all of this sound anyway because most SOM players eventually assemble their own teams from scratch anyhow. But for the record, George Foster was mostly a real Red in 1971 as well as an SOM Red. Therefore, this George Foster SOM Met centric note is tenuous and somewhat contrived because, like I said, Foster's '71 card was as a Red, and not as a Giant. After his Red Stint, George would go on to play for the New York Mets. Many fans thought Foster sucked as a Met. Most Met fans were willing to at least concede that even if Foster didn't suck, he was a disappointing Met who played well below expectations. Still, the acquisition of Foster, one of baseball's best hitters at that time, was a clear indication that the new Mets management was serious about building a contender. Foster's SOM cards during his years as a Met were, as one would expect, also as a Met. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 03:50 PM soupcan wrote: batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... Hey Soupcan guy: I was poking around the CPF today, especially what with me being new here and all and having a free day (stuck in the home but free) and so I ventured into the forums in which I've never participated or even browsed, and, well in short, I think I discovered who it was that you might think I am even though I'm only myself and really am a brand new poster here. Anyway, if I'm right about who that poster is that according to Grimm, no one should mention his name and so I won't either out of respect, well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Because that guy had a heck of a lot of funny posts, even though he did melt down here and there and not all of his posts were funny, but some sure were. I realize me saying this might bring even more suspicion that I really am that guy who I think was supposed to be me yesterday, even though like I said, I'm only me. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 04:11 PM His name can be mentioned. metsmarathon Apr 17 2008 04:22 PM its more fun not to, though. AG/DC Apr 17 2008 05:24 PM Let's not make legends of anybody. soupcan Apr 18 2008 07:23 AM batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="soupcan"]batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... ...well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different. metirish Apr 18 2008 08:46 AM Back to A-Rod , can I mention his name?..... Best Deal Sox never made batmagadanleadoff Apr 18 2008 09:31 AM soupcan wrote: Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different. I know. You did post that you were fine with it in any event, assuming I was him even though I'm not. It was really the accumulation of several posts on this thread plus that I was newer here two days ago than I am today, and that today, I at least have a theory as to who that other poster is. There's no problem and there never really was. metirish Apr 18 2008 09:33 AM Anyway that other fella liked the bunt play so you can't be him. batmagadanleadoff Apr 18 2008 09:36 AM metirish wrote: Anyway that other fella liked the bunt play so you can't be him. Did he? Well now I'm pissed off again that I would be compared to that sac bunt lovin' guy. Plus he's got those nuclear meltdowns that I never displayed.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Ben Grimm - "It wasn't just his weak bat that made Rey unlikeable. He was also a bit of a punk."

I feel much the same way, but I initially tried to critique Rey only on the quality of his play. I got the impression that rdonez was a selfish player and a bit of an ass. Of course, I may be mistaken in my impression, but I stand by my assessment of his value as a player.

I'm not crazy about Jeff Kent's personna either, from what I have seen and read, but I'm willing to acknowledge his talent and productiveness throughout his career.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I don't believe magadan is amphibious. I get the impression that he truly is a new guy.*



*If however, he is who some seem to suspect, then I still don't see where is has written anything confrontational or combative in the time he has been here.

[Guest cooby]

="batmagadanleadoff"] ="AG/DC"] batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="Nymr83"] Wait a minute. Are you hot? Am I hot? How the hell do I know? I don't even know if I'm me anymore. Funny. I loved Rey Ordonez. I still want him back. Number 6 Apr 16 2008 09:53 PM Hal Lanier, career OPS+ of 49. To put it in context, though, I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. It's just less acceptable to employ good glove/no hit middle infielders. The mold has been broken to some extent; GM's are better at evaluating net contributions from players and not falling back on narrow definitions of their positional roles. This isn't just a major-league thing; I don't think it's too controversial to assume that there are a lot more options at shortstop these days because they're not shunted off to third when they eclipse 6'2" or develop some power. I always thought that the Mets, given that this movement was in full force at the time, should have known better than to run Rey out there and expect the net impact of his skills to be positive, and that their willingness to do so may have rested on some old-timey assumptions about what a shortstop does. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 07:09 AM Number 6 wrote: I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. Yeah. Lanier especially. He's almost 70. soupcan Apr 17 2008 07:15 AM I've always been partial to infielders who flash leather. Flynn, Ordonez, Bowa, Belanger - loved to watch them all. I mentioned once on this board that Reyes was the player I'd been waiting all of my Met fan life for. Not only does he have a great glove but he's a hitter. Who knew you could have both? On the Mets? When Doug Flynn won his Gold Glove there was no one prouder than me. Not even Doug's mom. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 07:22 AM Ozzie Smith was pretty amazing too. As for me, I think I get more of a buzz from outfield defense. I love it when Carlos Beltran runs down a fly ball that's been hit over his head, and I get a kick out of seeing old clips of Willie Mays and Sandy Amoros and Ron Swoboda and Tommie Agee. soupcan Apr 17 2008 07:32 AM Yeah Ozzie too. I spent some time in San Diego and remember when he was a Padre before the Cards traded Templeton for him. While he was always a crowd pleaser he was a bit unheralded in SD and actually worked a second job while he was a Pod to make ends meet. Wish I could remember what the job was but I'm drawing a blank. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 07:34 AM Yeah, Ozzie was probably at the tail end of the era when players had to have offseason jobs. I remember that "offseason jobs" was typical trivia fodder for the little cartoons on the backs of baseball cards. One of the most famous examples from my lifetime is, of course, Richie Hebner and his grave digging. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 09:54 AM Triple Dee wrote: Considering [Lanier and Ordonez] didn't play at the same time...., how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular [bML] ever saw I'm aware of Lanier's hitting ineptidute. And I did see him play, if only literally. I have no lingering memories of any Lanier at-bats, and in any event, would have been too young to appreciate his prowess as an out making machine when I did see Lanier play during that brief period of time when his stint as a SF Giant and my interest in baseball overlapped. (Edit: I just remembered that he was a Yankee, too. But still, no visual memories. Lanier's Yankees, like Lanier's Lanier, sucked. Thanks, in part, to Lanier himself, who contributed in his own small and out-making Lanierish ways to ensure that his Lanier Yankee teams would suck. There were no Mays's and McCoveys and Marichals and Cepedas and Perrys and all the 27 other Hall of Famers a team would need to cover up for Lanier being Lanier just to break even on account of having Hal Lanier in there. And so even Yankee fans ignored the Yankees back then. So why would a Met fan bother to take notice? I don't remember this Hal Lanier.) I did however collect his baseball cards. Not that I purposely sought them out, but that I wanted them, needed them really, as we used to say, in the completist sense. Also, I managed Lanier in my 1971 Strat-O-matic set for years and years. And years. Alan Gallagher was the better Giant third baseman in 1971. (1971 Strat-O-Matic SF Giant - Met-centric related notes: Dave Kingman's rookie year. He was a devastating destroyer of LHP in that season, albeit in a limited number of at bats. Kingman even hit for average against lefties (over .400!) If you could get him a full season's worth of AB's against lefties only, his final numbers would constitute an awesome almost Ruthian season combined with the best of Ted Williams (Well, more Ted than Babe really, but I temporarily shifted into hype mode just now, not that settling for Ted instead of the Babe is supposed to be some sort of booby prize)..... Fran Healy backed up Dick Dietz.... Willie Mays' last full season as a Giant and his last overall effective season.... Very respectable year for the future Met Ken Henderson.... George Foster's first full MLB season began in SF but ended in Cincy, where he accumulated the majority of his '71 AB's. As one would expect, Foster was not represented as a Giant in that SOM set, assuming anyone actually ever does any "expectering", anticipating whether some player will ultimately be included in this team's SOM set or that team's SOM set which probably wouldn't matter as much as I'm making all of this sound anyway because most SOM players eventually assemble their own teams from scratch anyhow. But for the record, George Foster was mostly a real Red in 1971 as well as an SOM Red. Therefore, this George Foster SOM Met centric note is tenuous and somewhat contrived because, like I said, Foster's '71 card was as a Red, and not as a Giant. After his Red Stint, George would go on to play for the New York Mets. Many fans thought Foster sucked as a Met. Most Met fans were willing to at least concede that even if Foster didn't suck, he was a disappointing Met who played well below expectations. Still, the acquisition of Foster, one of baseball's best hitters at that time, was a clear indication that the new Mets management was serious about building a contender. Foster's SOM cards during his years as a Met were, as one would expect, also as a Met. batmagadanleadoff Apr 17 2008 03:50 PM soupcan wrote: batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... Hey Soupcan guy: I was poking around the CPF today, especially what with me being new here and all and having a free day (stuck in the home but free) and so I ventured into the forums in which I've never participated or even browsed, and, well in short, I think I discovered who it was that you might think I am even though I'm only myself and really am a brand new poster here. Anyway, if I'm right about who that poster is that according to Grimm, no one should mention his name and so I won't either out of respect, well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Because that guy had a heck of a lot of funny posts, even though he did melt down here and there and not all of his posts were funny, but some sure were. I realize me saying this might bring even more suspicion that I really am that guy who I think was supposed to be me yesterday, even though like I said, I'm only me. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2008 04:11 PM His name can be mentioned. metsmarathon Apr 17 2008 04:22 PM its more fun not to, though. AG/DC Apr 17 2008 05:24 PM Let's not make legends of anybody. soupcan Apr 18 2008 07:23 AM batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="soupcan"]batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... ...well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different. metirish Apr 18 2008 08:46 AM Back to A-Rod , can I mention his name?..... Best Deal Sox never made batmagadanleadoff Apr 18 2008 09:31 AM soupcan wrote: Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different. I know. You did post that you were fine with it in any event, assuming I was him even though I'm not. It was really the accumulation of several posts on this thread plus that I was newer here two days ago than I am today, and that today, I at least have a theory as to who that other poster is. There's no problem and there never really was. metirish Apr 18 2008 09:33 AM Anyway that other fella liked the bunt play so you can't be him. batmagadanleadoff Apr 18 2008 09:36 AM metirish wrote: Anyway that other fella liked the bunt play so you can't be him. Did he? Well now I'm pissed off again that I would be compared to that sac bunt lovin' guy. Plus he's got those nuclear meltdowns that I never displayed.

[Guest Number 6]

Hal Lanier, career OPS+ of 49.

To put it in context, though, I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now. It's just less acceptable to employ good glove/no hit middle infielders. The mold has been broken to some extent; GM's are better at evaluating net contributions from players and not falling back on narrow definitions of their positional roles. This isn't just a major-league thing; I don't think it's too controversial to assume that there are a lot more options at shortstop these days because they're not shunted off to third when they eclipse 6'2" or develop some power.

I always thought that the Mets, given that this movement was in full force at the time, should have known better than to run Rey out there and expect the net impact of his skills to be positive, and that their willingness to do so may have rested on some old-timey assumptions about what a shortstop does.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Number 6 wrote: I think giving playing time to Lanier and Rafael Belliard-types is less defensible now.

Yeah. Lanier especially. He's almost 70.

[soupcan]

I've always been partial to infielders who flash leather.

Flynn, Ordonez, Bowa, Belanger - loved to watch them all.

I mentioned once on this board that Reyes was the player I'd been waiting all of my Met fan life for.

Not only does he have a great glove but he's a hitter. Who knew you could have both? On the Mets?

When Doug Flynn won his Gold Glove there was no one prouder than me. Not even Doug's mom.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ozzie Smith was pretty amazing too.

As for me, I think I get more of a buzz from outfield defense. I love it when Carlos Beltran runs down a fly ball that's been hit over his head, and I get a kick out of seeing old clips of Willie Mays and Sandy Amoros and Ron Swoboda and Tommie Agee.

[soupcan]

Yeah Ozzie too.

I spent some time in San Diego and remember when he was a Padre before the Cards traded Templeton for him.

While he was always a crowd pleaser he was a bit unheralded in SD and actually worked a second job while he was a Pod to make ends meet.

Wish I could remember what the job was but I'm drawing a blank.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Yeah, Ozzie was probably at the tail end of the era when players had to have offseason jobs. I remember that "offseason jobs" was typical trivia fodder for the little cartoons on the backs of baseball cards.

One of the most famous examples from my lifetime is, of course, Richie Hebner and his grave digging.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Triple Dee wrote: Considering [Lanier and Ordonez] didn't play at the same time...., how exactly does that disprove he wasn't the worst regular [bML] ever saw

I'm aware of Lanier's hitting ineptidute. And I did see him play, if only literally. I have no lingering memories of any Lanier at-bats, and in any event, would have been too young to appreciate his prowess as an out making machine when I did see Lanier play during that brief period of time when his stint as a SF Giant and my interest in baseball overlapped.

(Edit: I just remembered that he was a Yankee, too. But still, no visual memories. Lanier's Yankees, like Lanier's Lanier, sucked. Thanks, in part, to Lanier himself, who contributed in his own small and out-making Lanierish ways to ensure that his Lanier Yankee teams would suck.

There were no Mays's and McCoveys and Marichals and Cepedas and Perrys and all the 27 other Hall of Famers a team would need to cover up for Lanier being Lanier just to break even on account of having Hal Lanier in there. And so even Yankee fans ignored the Yankees back then. So why would a Met fan bother to take notice? I don't remember this Hal Lanier.)

I did however collect his baseball cards. Not that I purposely sought them out, but that I wanted them, needed them really, as we used to say, in the completist sense. Also, I managed Lanier in my 1971 Strat-O-matic set for years and years. And years. Alan Gallagher was the better Giant third baseman in 1971.

(1971 Strat-O-Matic SF Giant - Met-centric related notes: Dave Kingman's rookie year. He was a devastating destroyer of LHP in that season, albeit in a limited number of at bats. Kingman even hit for average against lefties (over .400!) If you could get him a full season's worth of AB's against lefties only, his final numbers would constitute an awesome almost Ruthian season combined with the best of Ted Williams (Well, more Ted than Babe really, but I temporarily shifted into hype mode just now, not that settling for Ted instead of the Babe is supposed to be some sort of booby prize)..... Fran Healy backed up Dick Dietz.... Willie Mays' last full season as a Giant and his last overall effective season.... Very respectable year for the future Met Ken Henderson.... George Foster's first full MLB season began in SF but ended in Cincy, where he accumulated the majority of his '71 AB's. As one would expect, Foster was not represented as a Giant in that SOM set, assuming anyone actually ever does any "expectering", anticipating whether some player will ultimately be included in this team's SOM set or that team's SOM set which probably wouldn't matter as much as I'm making all of this sound anyway because most SOM players eventually assemble their own teams from scratch anyhow. But for the record, George Foster was mostly a real Red in 1971 as well as an SOM Red. Therefore, this George Foster SOM Met centric note is tenuous and somewhat contrived because, like I said, Foster's '71 card was as a Red, and not as a Giant. After his Red Stint, George would go on to play for the New York Mets. Many fans thought Foster sucked as a Met. Most Met fans were willing to at least concede that even if Foster didn't suck, he was a disappointing Met who played well below expectations. Still, the acquisition of Foster, one of baseball's best hitters at that time, was a clear indication that the new Mets management was serious about building a contender. Foster's SOM cards during his years as a Met were, as one would expect, also as a Met.

[batmagadanleadoff]

soupcan wrote: batmagadan seems very familiar to me....

Hey Soupcan guy: I was poking around the CPF today, especially what with me being new here and all and having a free day (stuck in the home but free) and so I ventured into the forums in which I've never participated or even browsed, and, well in short, I think I discovered who it was that you might think I am even though I'm only myself and really am a brand new poster here.

Anyway, if I'm right about who that poster is that according to Grimm, no one should mention his name and so I won't either out of respect, well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday. Because that guy had a heck of a lot of funny posts, even though he did melt down here and there and not all of his posts were funny, but some sure were.

I realize me saying this might bring even more suspicion that I really am that guy who I think was supposed to be me yesterday, even though like I said, I'm only me.

[Benjamin Grimm]

His name can be mentioned.

[metsmarathon]

its more fun not to, though.

[Guest AG/DC]

Let's not make legends of anybody.

[soupcan]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: ="soupcan"]batmagadan seems very familiar to me.... ...well if it is that guy, I'm OK with it and not as pissed off as I was yesterday.

Never meant to piss you off, I never had an issue with him. Just mentioned it because your posts seemed very similar to his - but different.